Rank: Forum user
|
Is it correct that portable hand tools do not fall under PAT testing but that the chargers do fall under this requirement?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Battery operated tools where the battery must be removed for charging would fall outside of the description of a portable appliance - "Any electrical appliance that is hand held or can be moved whilst connected to an electricity supply between 50 and 415 volts via a lead and plug is classed as portable." The chargers being 110v or 240v fitted with a lead and plug would be portable appliances. Corded hand tools are blatantly portable appliances.
|
8 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Battery operated tools where the battery must be removed for charging would fall outside of the description of a portable appliance - "Any electrical appliance that is hand held or can be moved whilst connected to an electricity supply between 50 and 415 volts via a lead and plug is classed as portable." The chargers being 110v or 240v fitted with a lead and plug would be portable appliances. Corded hand tools are blatantly portable appliances.
|
8 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
For example, a cordless drill or wireless mouse would not require PAT testing. However, keeping in mind that even if an item does not qualify for testing, any battery packs or chargers that power it must be PAT tested since they use mains energy.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Remember that the requirement is to ensure that equipment is safe. People rely far too much on a PAT as being evidence of safety. There is no specific requirement to undertake PA Testing and the way that you ensure that equipment is safe is entirely dependent on your circumstances.
For portable hand tools frequent inspection is (IMO) far more important than testing because inspection will pick up faults -especially mechanical faults - that are missed by testing. I have in my black collection a mains cable which has been stripped down to copper on both live and neutral, I cut it off a "hoover". It would have probably passed a test even though a cursory user inspection would have picked up that fault. ev OK so the "PA" test includes inspection - but it would have been far better if there had been "every time its used" user checks on condition. Because my organisation expects it we do annual PAT tests on a few thousand items but the only failures I have ever seen (perhaps one or two a year) were picked up by inspection rather than testing. they would have been picked up more quickly if users were in the habit of checking equipment before they used it. With the increasing incidence of battery fires I personally would include the charger, battery and tool in a wider system of - Frequent user examination (really important for tools that are used in challenging conditions) - not recorded - but verify that it is actually happening (during audits and site or workshop visits )
- Less frequent formal inspection by a knowledgable person (which might be, say, weekly or monthly) - which should be recorded.
- Periodic examination and test - of the whole system - charger, cable, and tool.
|
1 user thanked RichardPerry1066 for this useful post.
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.