Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

[den]

Here is what we have to do on all jobs whilst attending an domestic appliance repair.

1, test voltstick on known live source
2,wave it around the machine to test for stray voltages.
3,retest voltstick on known live source
4,check fusebox for type,IP breaches, etc
5,do loop impedence test
6,remove plug from socket check fuse and plugtop
7,perform insulation test
8,fit locking cover to plugtop
9,gain access to live terminals on machine (even integrated) for live/dead/live test
10,test voltage tester on known live source
11,check with tester on live terminals to confirm dead
12,retest voltage tester on known live source,
13, REPAIR APPLIANCE.
14,perform 2nd insulation test
15,perform 2nd loop impedence test.
16,test appliance using portable rcd

We are observed by our ‘inspectors’ on a regular basis, and failure do do ‘any’ of these checks and tests gets us disciplined, and a number of our previous jobs are tested.
Engineers have been sacked on occasion.

Now … I’m all for safety, but sometimes it all seems a wee bit over the top.
I’m not in any way, critisising the company for trying to keep us and the customer safe, but sometimes find it all a bit too much.
Its fine for someone in a high position behind a desk to attempt to make it impossible to create a dangerous situation, but I, and others find it increasingly difficult to fit everything into the daily shift because of the time taken for all these tests. Its not a lot of time, but it all adds up when expected to do around 10 jobs a day and averaging about 80 miles per day.

Your honest thoughts please.

[bazza500]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

I’d have the door handle replaced, have been paid and be half way to my next job by the time you got to number 5. 😆

[Martin]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

den wrote:1, test voltstick on known live source
2,wave it around the machine to test for stray voltages.
3,retest voltstick on known live source

Tests 1 – 3 clearly intended to ensure your H&S before proceding with the repair then? Though a voltstick can always show spurious voltages sources, even static discharge voltages can register. But all the while looks very dramatic and impressive in front of a customer. But in truth pretty meaningless overall.

den wrote:4,check fusebox for type,IP breaches, etc
5,do loop impedence test
6,remove plug from socket check fuse and plugtop
7,perform insulation test

Tests 4 – 7 are pretty straight forward enough and standard practice anyway.

den wrote:8,fit locking cover to plugtop

Not a clue what that’s about….????? 😕

den wrote:9,gain access to live terminals on machine (even integrated) for live/dead/live test
10,test voltage tester on known live source
11,check with tester on live terminals to confirm dead
12,retest voltage tester on known live source,

9 -10 Simple enough 30 seconds tests

den wrote:13, REPAIR APPLIANCE.

Can be very time consuming…..

den wrote:14,perform 2nd insulation test
15,perform 2nd loop impedence test.

14 – 15 Simple enough assuming you have known access to the consumer unit should the test fail and you need to restore the supply. Very tricky when you are in an old tenanted flat where no-one knows where it is or an old busy pub during lunchtime and your loop tester takes all the friggin’ power out!

den wrote:16,test appliance using portable rcd

Totally unnecessary based on previous series of ‘tests’

den wrote:We are observed by our ‘inspectors’ on a regular basis,…

Find out if they earn more than you? If there’s a likely vacancy for the position should that be the case? Sounds like the way forward for you Den.:wink:

den wrote:Now … I’m all for safety, but sometimes it all seems a wee bit over the top.

You’re looking at it today, just you wait until tomorrow when they add the need for you to wear hi viz jackets, hard hats, googles, cigarette smoker detectors and a canary in a cage.! 😈

[washtronics]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

i take it you work for british gas if your expected to do all these tests

[den]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

================================================================
den wrote:9,gain access to live terminals on machine (even integrated) for live/dead/live test
10,test voltage tester on known live source
11,check with tester on live terminals to confirm dead
12,retest voltage tester on known live source,

9 -10 Simple enough 30 seconds tests
—————————————————————-Im replacing a door micro switch on a integrated dishwasher.
Ive got to haul it out of its housing ( and you know what that sometimes entails) to do live/dead/live test.

Hardly 30 second tests Martin.

[Martin]

Re: Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

den wrote:Hardly 30 second tests Martin.

Easy dude, I’m on your side here pal, no call for splitting hairs on this please.

[stratfordgirl]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

Need a few “Where reasonably practicable” qualifiers added to the rules, perhaps?

[kwatt]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

Seems fine to me…

If you’ve only got six jobs a day (tops) in a tight area and no pressure on completion targets.

Guessing that’s not the case.

K.

[simonb]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

yes i agree it comes down to the amount of work, british gas an alike might think their being clever by giving their engineers a safety list and equipment as long as your arm to cover themselves against liability when in fact their quiet happy to throw 14 jobs on some days to engineers covering a large area, i wonder what would happen if somebody were seriously injured or worse doesent corperate manslaughter apply here? you cant throw every check in the book in one arm then throw a pile of work in the other? yes the above list is a little over the top but an inspection must be done that complies with iee code of practice, end of fullstop.

[leavemetogetonwithit]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

Don’t the customers ever ask what you’re up to when you’ve called to fit a new door handle on an integrated washer or oven and you un-install it and go through all that lot? Or maybe have to come back another day when they’ve had the kitchen-builders back to take up the tiles?
I do think it’s over the top and is more to do with protecting corporate a*ses than lives. After all, you could create as much danger by a re-installation (even were it un-hurried) as you potentially avert by the checks.
Mike.

[funkyboogy]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

the fuse box check is classic b/g sales tactic –

engineer on spotting an old wire fuse box etc – is supposed to sell customer a new rcd unit ..

but on the saftey side a bit ott but they are just covering their arses ..

how they expect engineers to carry out this on every app i dont know . i suppose it makes customers feel safe – chances are the appliance wont be fixed but its safe ..

i left them as the list of saftey checks , van checks , near mis database was growing arms and legs – i really counldnt stand the red tape and the muppet managers who tried to catch you out at every corner ..

ally

[Martin]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

den wrote:We are observed by our ‘inspectors’ on a regular basis,

You surely would know the answer to this Ally, but exactly how to these “muppet managers” observe anyway, what form does it take, do they carry out covort stalking in unmarked BG company Vauxhall corsa’s………?????

[lee8]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

Last week a brand sacked an Engineer on safety grounds.

It has nothing to do with safety really, more to do with insurance companies who will not indemnify company staff unless these procedures are followed, the brands have to show evidence there policing these, it helps if a few are sacked each year.

The more costs in manufacturing are cut, Beko and Bosch appliances having safety issues make the argument for and against much harder, do you allow engineers to finish by 3pm (like the good old days)and risk an injury or death followed by serious cash payout or you make them work till the end of the day that their paid for and implement safety procedures to ensure the company is secure both financially and morally.

Martin wrote:
You surely would know the answer to this Ally, but exactly how to these “muppet managers” observe anyway, what form does it take, do they carry out covort stalking in unmarked BG company Vauxhall corsa’s………?????

They involve outside agencies, ring clients to ask simple questions such as “did the engineer pull out the appliance, ask for the plug/fuse box location etc etc” and observe an engineers tracker times. More companies now are adding more technical interviews involving proper questions to grasp how much tech knowledge peeps had and a few are now looking into ways of suing engineers personally if found to be flouting procedures beyond sacking, although how viable that is I doubt it, but the stronger the message the chances are the lazy will get fed up and leave and the grafters will continue without being bothered.

[funkyboogy]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

yip your right lee , they do spot checks via calling customers and asking this that and the next thing – heard they were doing it wholesale a while back to try and off load excess staff ,

if they call a customer and customer cant remember whether engineer done certain checks then thats enough for engineer to be hauled over the coals.

ally

[squadman]

Re: Safety testing. Do you think this is over the top?

Recently when I raised the subject of a Indesit/Hotpoint engineer failing to spot a appliance with NO earth connected, a plug which was wired in a dangerous fashion and the fact that he has missed these items along with a few others a debate got started about Manufacturers Engineer’s versus Independents. Any competent engineer should be performing safety checks as a matter of course !

[Author]

Posts