Calibration of Approved Voltage Indicators and Proving Units.

There was an old discussion on this 7 years ago but it is locked now. In any case there was no definitive answer provided at the time. In years gone by, I would have thought that AVIs and PUs either work or they dont.

But searching online today, Martindale recommend that their AVI's and PU's do need calibrating. This has prompted me to rethink and I note that in GS38 point 30 talks about all test equipment being maintained by a competent person and one of the common errors being failing to verify correct function of illumination (eg indicator/lamp/neon).

If something were to go wrong, and it turns out the AVI and PU were not calibrated within the last 12 months, I can imagine this wording above being used to attribute blame to the person who was undertaking the proving dead.

When we prove the AVI with the PU, we are putting voltage onto the AVI and simply seeing that the lamps light up, but the PU just puts out the max voltage it is capable of, it doesnt step up or down each voltage level individually, so we dont control the level it is proving at. 

What's other peoples thoughts? I am considering now that we do need to calibrate these items.

Parents
  • What's other peoples thoughts? I am considering now that we do need to calibrate these items.

    My starting point would be to ask how many incidents have there been when someone using an AVI having checked it with a PU before and after proving dead, then subsequently found the item live and this was found to be due to a fault with the AVI? Has it ever happened?

    If it has happened, then then I'd ask, in what proportion of proving dead tests does this actually occur? How many tests are needed for one of these events to occur?

    But then to properly consider whether any action is taken, or what action should be taken, you actually need to know something of the risks from all the other causes of an AVI giving an incorrect reading. How does this cause compare to other causes, is this actually the biggest risk or are there other risks which deserve more attention.

Reply
  • What's other peoples thoughts? I am considering now that we do need to calibrate these items.

    My starting point would be to ask how many incidents have there been when someone using an AVI having checked it with a PU before and after proving dead, then subsequently found the item live and this was found to be due to a fault with the AVI? Has it ever happened?

    If it has happened, then then I'd ask, in what proportion of proving dead tests does this actually occur? How many tests are needed for one of these events to occur?

    But then to properly consider whether any action is taken, or what action should be taken, you actually need to know something of the risks from all the other causes of an AVI giving an incorrect reading. How does this cause compare to other causes, is this actually the biggest risk or are there other risks which deserve more attention.

Children
No Data