 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 01:23 pm |
|
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 10:17 am |
|
i know exactly what you mean about a master cylinder failure , i once had one fail on an F reg cavalier i used to own , it went without warning , just when i was slowing down on a 60mph road .
the dual circuit part of it wasn't much use as it just made 1 front wheel lock up , scary.
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
You're right, of course, Wesley - but it's not that clearly visible in situ, and the wire is through both bolts - it's just not actually holding the left hand one!
David, I agree that standards are needed and, where a car has particular requirements like the Ford KA you mention, computerisation is (or should be) an ideal way to make sure all testers are aware of any special requirements.
My real problem comes, from what I've read on here, where VOSA picks up a tester for making a "judgement" fail on an item that a VOSA guy thinks should be a "judgement" pass. The MOT isn't meant to be a user-friendly "be nice to the motorist" exercise any more than it's meant to be an exercise in screwing them unfairly. It's meant to be a very basic test of safety. So, as long as it's not a clear case of ripping the presenter off, erring on the side of safety should never be a cause for discipline!
Finally, you mention brake pipes losing 1/3 of their diameter from corrosion. Personally I'd change any pipe way before it got that far - when you take the hole in the middle out, 1/3 of the diameter doesn't leave a lot of wall thickness. If it's going to burst, it's most likely going to do it when you're really standing on the pedal - right at the point where you really need them most. I've had complete brake failure once through master cylinder seals failing (without warning) at about 5 mph on a high street and it's not something I'd care to repeat at any speed.
So if a tester sees corrosion that he's not happy with, which I've missed, then tbh I don't care if he fails when it "should" be a pass & advise. I'll just be happy that he's picked it up before I get that foot-to-floor feeling again 
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2008 12:13 am |
|
Spunkymonkey wrote: David, the problem I meant was the ambiguity caused by some of the criteria. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was trained as an aircraft technician, where objective standards are (relatively) easy. Every inspection or repair on every aircraft is carried out in accordance with specific instructions for that aircraft. Words like "excessive" simply don't come into it.
On the range of cars that an MOT tester might have to inspect, that's simply not possible. You just can't specify minimum "safe" tolerances for every single item on every single model of every single make, from every single year. So a tester's judgement and experience on a "case by case" basis is vital.
As an example, the following pic of wirelocking on a steering rack I've just overhauled. The locking is not "effective" because if the left hand bolt turns anticlockwise then the wire over it's head will slip off and loosen. Since these are pinch bolts for the adjustable pinion, a half turn or so on the bolts is enough to allow the pinion carrier to rotate and disengage from the rack.
Would you fail it? I suspect not - your experience tells you that, if it hasn't worked loose in the past 35 years or more, it's unlikely to now. But, from a "textbook" POV, it's a "retaining or locking device... insecure" which should fail....
Hi, It is obvious from the photo that the left hand bolt, Is Not Wired Up Right!
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
I respect what you are saying regarding your experience with assessment of brake pipes, I too have had brake pipes burst under load when in the rollers, I have also had Fiat brake pipes over the fuel tank area so corroded that they have fallen to pieces in my hand when removed, but still passed a brake efficiency test. I have also had brake pipes burst across the rear cross member area over the axle on the Vectra models, were visual inspection is also most difficult, but like VOSA have always said, if you can’t see it you can’t test it, pass and advise. As your good self will also have probably had the experience of re-examining brake pipes that somebody else has failed recently for excessive corrosion, but you inspect them and you know that its light surface corrosion that has not penetrated the metal, so should have passed. The problem as I see it is not so much that testers experiences are different, but I feel more so that maybe a condition of the mind when making decisions. Somebody on the forum was testing he said over fifty vehicles a week, he then said that he had not had any problems with VOSA and therefore must be doing a good job, then in the next breath he has had an incognito and picked him up on numerous short falls, which evidently lead to the loss of his license to test, now my point is that testers can say what they wish, but the condition of a testers mind when speeding round vehicles is not necessarily in your consciousness of control. This is were testers I have heard time and time again say things like, its not a standard practice to do that here, it was a one off, it’s a mistake, VOSA must be laughing all the way back to the area offices with some of the rubbish that some testers speak.
VOSA I feel are trying to standardise the scheme operation, now sticking with brake pipes, you notice that in your example the steel brake pipes through the brackets are corroded, and in your opinion they are excessive, but they are not leaking, and you cannot prove through the brackets that they have reduced by a third, you also cannot prove that they have weakened significantly until they are removed, ie MOT no dismantling, the brake pipes hold out through the roller brake test and are not leaking after that part of the test, but you want to fail them in your mind, because your opinion is they are excessively corroded, which they maybe, but proof is not on your side to win the argument, you see the standard is the rolling road performance test under load, if that passes, it met the minimum criteria Nationally, not personally, if you see my point. Nobody is saying that you are wrong in your belief that they are excessive through the brackets, but there are other areas that should pick that fault up and repair it. The problem is that garages seem to think that a service is oil and filter change; I think they need to look at the manufacturer recommendations, and then use their experience in line with theirs and start changing corroded brake pipes as apart of servicing and repairs, instead of looking at lost leaders.
Now with respect to VOSA’s vehicle examiners, you also maybe right, many times have I heard people say that ex-bus drivers have been taken on at VOSA as vehicle examiners, however if they have this must be by some form of agreement, otherwise they must be ex engineers from the bus depot, otherwise I am sure VOSA legally couldn’t just employ anybody from any background to do a VE’s job legally? Have you seen a VE’s job description?
Now the manual is not written by VOSA, it is not even amended by their experiences either, when the manufacturer makes changes in technology and research proves new conclusions, this is one area of how the manual is updated, if we as testers can be bothered to inform VOSA that a problem exists, if we go to the right department we can also make amendments, this I know I have done it myself.
Thanks
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 06:15 pm |
|
Thanks for that Joe, type approval does exist with Automotive vehicles were rigorous testing of components and systems do exist before final approval takes place. I take your point with regards licensing each individual to work on each model, however in the motor trade technology is more complex now than it ever was previously, probably because of your aircraft industry, but operating principles really from one vehicle to the next are very similar, and any training courses now provided in the trade are really specialised anyway. Licensing the motor trade is only round the corner, the Good Garage Scheme is trying to prevent the Government from forcing the trade into a license system, I suppose we will have to sit back and wait for the results. I take your point with the wheel changing, but let me share this experience with you, and please do comment on what you think. One of my colleagues at work repeatedly will put wrong wheel bolts into wheel hubs when the vehicle has been presented and failed mot test, we know that wheels have differing wheel centres and sizes of tapers that the wheel bolts sit home against, but this man knowing he is doing wrong after discussions tells me that he does not care, he air guns them into the wheel assembly, the customer probably would never be able to get them out afterwards, my colleague says he does not care, I asked him why, he says, because in his passed experience with VOSA as a tester they kicked him out of the scheme for shortfalls which he says were not his fault, but that of a body shop within the same dealership building as the one he worked in. Now if that wheel vibrates loose on the road because the bolt tapers are wrong, yes it is a negligence claim, and it would be proven because I must cover my back by putting it on the VT32, but I do feel for the persons in the vehicle if an accident occurred, especially children. Now I worked with this man for two years and he was deliberately finding reason to cause problems with anything to do with mot testing standards. Brakes were always a good one, I personally had never seen vehicles being brought back on recovery vehicles for brake failures after repairs within 24 hrs, until I worked in this job, when I completed mot tests on some of them and roller brake tested them, brake efficiency readings of 37 – 44% after repairs were not uncommon, arguments broke out, the boss not an being an engineer believed him that there was nothing wrong with them, he said the rolling road means nothing to them, if the gauge moves up the wheel must be working?
These men I am talking about are not teenagers into their early twenties, we talking about men here in their 40 – 50’s who have worked All their lives on the shop floor. As a last example my previous boss recently retired worked in the motor trade all his life, now 60 years old, the Ford Ka with its front independent suspension system when jacked with the front suspension hanging free is checked for suspension free play by placing a lever under the front wheels, VOSA on behalf of Ford indicate that a suspension free play measurement of 010mm should not be exceeded, now as engineers we assess the suspension free play, and we know that this tolerance is not really that bad, but when its 20 or 30mm, or more its pretty poor, my original boss, now retired advised that it did not matter how much vertical free play was present when the wheel was off the ground, so long as when the wheel was resting on the road surface, there was none, i.e. no play? Now please advise if this is putting peoples lives at risk, and please advise on what you consider are the road safety implications here, if any, and then ask yourself should testers use their own judgment without guidelines?
I am sorry Joe, but unfortunately I believe more so now than possibly any time in the past that our industry needs proper training, and people with an attitude of mind that can work to professional standards, and like it or not, the rest must go. As I see it properly serviced and repaired vehicles using parts of satisfactory quality, and mot tests completed to the minimum requirements make safer roads. An mot testers job is much easier when vehicles are properly maintained.
Thanks
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 01:29 pm |
|
Weetabix
Thanks, that's a different picture I think having just checked it?
David
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 08:47 am |
|
David,
brake pipes are very difficult to judge as different makes of vehicle seem to have better or poorer pipes. Now for me this is where a testers experiance is important. For instance a good few years ago we had our regular yearly visit from vosa and the guy watched as we tested a car. I noted down on my note pad that a brake pipe on a subaru was excessivley corroded. Pipe was like new most of it's length but had a couple of rusty patches where it clipped on to the floor near fuel tank. Both rust patches about an inch long. Vosa man said no no no thats a pass & advise. Anyway after he had gone we took it upon ourselves to replace the pipe for we were not happy with his decission knowing what we knew from previouse experiance with these pipes.
What happened the minute that pipe was taken out of the plastic clip?
Now I know vosa think a mechanic/tester tends to use his/her mechanics head instead of testing by the manual and in their ideal world the better tester is one who can switch the mechanics head off and test by manual. This in my opinion is where they are wrong. Experiance told us that pipe was rotten to the extent it was nearly at bursting point, why wait untill it's too late? Sure I don't need to tel you about FIAT brake pipes coated in that grey stuff that bubbles and flakes off. To vosa man they may look fine but I know different and sure a few more guys on here will tell you the same. No doubt they've seen a few burst on the rollers after they've checked them and took them to be fine. Do we need to wait untill they do burst to say yes they are excessivley corroded?
Vosa VE's in my opinion are guys who perhaps used to work in the trade but not seen a spanner since the days of whitworth or they,ve never been in the trade at all. They have little or no mechanical experiance yet have the power to tell us we're wrong all because they've read the manual cover to cover and had a few weeks training.
The manual needs to be written by testers using they're years of experiance. You wouldn't have these so called grey areas in the manual, you wouldn't have your problem with the missing fuel cap for I'm sure us testers could have made a better job of the computors rfr's
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
David, I fully agree that defined standards are needed where appropriate. The aircraft world (which, incidentally, I left some time ago) does work above minimum standards but, more importantly, the standards can be effectively specified for every aircraft in use. There aren't all that many of them, and you generally need type approval for each type you work on. Can you imagine transferring that to the automotive world? Having to be licenced individually to work on or test each individual model? Also, telling the motoring public that, if they need to change a wheel, they have to call out an authorised wheel-changer?
Given that such standards simply can't be applied to road vehicles, a lot of the responsibility has to come down to the knowledge, experience and judgement of the MOT tester. As such, I believe it's wrong for VOSA, or anyone else, to criticise a tester for any "reasonable" judgement - even if they don't agree with it. I've had cars fail MOTs on "matters of degree" that I didn't agree with, and my general engineering judgement is as sound as the next persons.
But, at the end of the day, they're signing the ticket so as long as they're not kicking the A** out of it, it's their judgement that matters. Unless that judgement is consistently way off-base (and I do mean WAY off), then the person signing the chit should get the benefit of the doubt.
As for the steeing rack, I agree that few testers are likely to see an adjustable rack like that nowadays, but that's part of my point. Any tester might be presented with one and (as far as I know) there ain't no RfR for "never seen one of those, mate" so , in a way, engineering judgement matters more for them than for an aircraft tech who will never work on anything he hasn't had training on.
Incidentally, the way those bolts should be locked is like this....
Attachment: newLocking.jpg (Downloaded 150 times)
|
Weetabix
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
David wrote: Your picture of the “wire locking on a steering rack you have just overhauled again with the greatest respect, does reflect your experience, however VOSA do change and update the Regulations periodically in light of changing technology. Most testers today on a daily basis probably would not see a steering pinion of that nature. You do make mention that the locking is not "effective" because if the left hand bolt turns anticlockwise then the wire over it's head will slip off and loosen. Am I right to think that looking at that bolt there is what appears to be a hole through the bolt, approximately at the one o clock position not used, or is it something else I can see on the bolt, (just going off what the picture appears like) if so should the wire not be passed through both bolts before being twisted together, would that not be a better idea, and should that be possible, then if one of those bolts were to become loose, unless the wire corrodes away completely, then at worst they would be loose, which means in the current regulations a (Pass & Advise), because insecurity of those bolts is not covered in the up to date reg’s as far as I can tell.
David, the locking wire IS going through the head of BOTH bolts.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
Sorry guys long reply, but good bed time reading maybe, its Joes fault because I think he does not like as I put it "Regulations and maybe Codes of Practice"
Thanks Joe, I did understand what you were getting at, and from your previous posts and pictures I do appreciate you are from the old school. I would like to say if you don’t mind also that the Aircraft Industry as you know will have completely different “Higher” standards than the car mot scheme I hope, who would like to go on holiday to Spain in a plane that only just met the minimum road safety standards of the car mot scheme with some of the testing decisions made out there, like you said in your previous posts, you have seen some very poor standards.
Now you did also say that you are trained and qualified in the Aircraft Industry, would they let you loose as an Engineer if you said, “I have no previous experience”, but am willing to sit your exam. Then VOSA say you have passed, one visual inspection to see that you can walk round a vehicle, not working with you asking questions, showing you anything, then approving you as a tester, and then leaving you to your own devices when real problems come to light later, giving you one day’s training every five years?
When you make real decisions and you positively don’t understand what to do, they say “pass & Advise”, leaving the customer to maybe drive away from an “Approved Government Testing Station” with possibly dangerous defects on their vehicles, the other thing they say is that you can ring their helpline, where they cannot base a decision on MOT related items, and give the same ruling from Bristol or Swansea, I know I have tried them, they don’t even use technical based staff?
I did say to VOSA some time back that the mot regulations in my view was in some cases inadequate, which they were very quick to defend and said there was nothing wrong with them, so I gave them an example using a missing fuel cap, i.e. not missing seal, they tried to say that RFR (7.2.2a) covered this item completely. Because I know you have not got a copy of the Regulations, I will write it here for you.
Method of Inspection; Check the fuel cap for positive fit and condition of sealing washer and flange.
RFR; A fuel cap does not fasten securely by a positive means, and such that pressure is not maintained on the sealing arrangement.
Now my understanding is that any fuel cap which is a push fit into the flange, and then held against it by the action of gravity only, would not be considered to fit securely and maintain pressure on the sealing arrangement. VOSA however deem this regulation to justify the RFR of a missing fuel cap?
Am I wrong or is that RFR specifically saying “a fuel cap does not fasten securely by a positive means”, surely this does not mean a fuel cap missing in the English language does it?
Now I do appreciate that your training will be somewhat different than the MOT scheme, as you said “Excessive” doesn’t reach the mark, and in Aircraft Engineering, nobody could ever allow any component or system to wear to a too greater amount, but the word excessive really only means that a tolerance has been exceeded, so by example if a manufacturer said the maximum free play in a sprinter ball joint was 01mm, then anything beyond this would be deemed excessive would it not, in a text book sense?
Another good example is in the condition of steel brake pipes, if excessive corrosion has occurred, does this mean that the pipe is leaking, surely not, a tolerance has been given, i.e. 0.25mm or a 1/3 of the diameter, now I have many years of experience in studying corrosion and have completed research on brake pipes were I have proven on one vehicle that steel brake pipes took nine years to corrode from new to the point of leaking, my experience has also shown that provided you can visually inspect the pipes, and after lightly scraping off the surface corrosion, if the pipe has necked as I word it, then any tester knows to fail that pipe.
Your picture of the “wire locking on a steering rack you have just overhauled again with the greatest respect, does reflect your experience, however VOSA do change and update the Regulations periodically in light of changing technology. Most testers today on a daily basis probably would not see a steering pinion of that nature. You do make mention that the locking is not "effective" because if the left hand bolt turns anticlockwise then the wire over it's head will slip off and loosen. Am I right to think that looking at that bolt there is what appears to be a hole through the bolt, approximately at the one o clock position not used, or is it something else I can see on the bolt, (just going off what the picture appears like) if so should the wire not be passed through both bolts before being twisted together, would that not be a better idea, and should that be possible, then if one of those bolts were to become loose, unless the wire corrodes away completely, then at worst they would be loose, which means in the current regulations a (Pass & Advise), because insecurity of those bolts is not covered in the up to date reg’s as far as I can tell.
I still think that passing ideas around is good, and I don’t believe that it hurts anybody to have a discussion, when we can use examples like these and possibly more up to date components and systems, then testers I feel can benefit from ideas passed around, I don’t believe that locking yourself away and trying to learn everything on your own is necessarily a good idea, in my experience what one person believes maybe the right decision on their own to make, after discussing it with others, a different view can be placed on the subject altogether, like a previous post on access via seats.
Thanks
David
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
removalizer wrote: good subject this !
The question is
Is the ambiguity VOSA give us a good or a bad thing
Plus points: It allows us as mechanics to use our own judgement as to whether the vehicle is safe or not.
Bad points: It could work against us if an appeal is lodged as VOSA may not back up your decision.
Good for who?
Personally, I would say that testers being able to use discretion is good for the motorist and good for road safety - surely what it's (supposed to be) all about?
On the other hand, it's not good for VOSA in terms of admin, meeting targets or measuring "effectiveness". Much easier for them to gather statistics when everything is black and white. The condition of a vehicle involves a lot of shades of grey which can be inconvenient when they have to justify policies.
And it's probably not good for you guys either as it gives the system a big stick to beat you with when they want one to justify their existence.
Cynical, me???
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
good subject this !
The question is
Is the ambiguity VOSA give us a good or a bad thing
Plus points: It allows us as mechanics to use our own judgement as to whether the vehicle is safe or not.
Bad points: It could work against us if an appeal is lodged as VOSA may not back up your decision.
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
David, the problem I meant was the ambiguity caused by some of the criteria. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was trained as an aircraft technician, where objective standards are (relatively) easy. Every inspection or repair on every aircraft is carried out in accordance with specific instructions for that aircraft. Words like "excessive" simply don't come into it.
On the range of cars that an MOT tester might have to inspect, that's simply not possible. You just can't specify minimum "safe" tolerances for every single item on every single model of every single make, from every single year. So a tester's judgement and experience on a "case by case" basis is vital.
As an example, the following pic of wirelocking on a steering rack I've just overhauled. The locking is not "effective" because if the left hand bolt turns anticlockwise then the wire over it's head will slip off and loosen. Since these are pinch bolts for the adjustable pinion, a half turn or so on the bolts is enough to allow the pinion carrier to rotate and disengage from the rack.
Would you fail it? I suspect not - your experience tells you that, if it hasn't worked loose in the past 35 years or more, it's unlikely to now. But, from a "textbook" POV, it's a "retaining or locking device... insecure" which should fail....
Attachment: oldWirelocking.jpg (Downloaded 141 times) Last edited on Fri Jun 27th, 2008 08:11 pm by Spunkymonkey
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 06:27 pm |
|
The problem there as I see it, you advising of the powers that be tieing it down, unfortunately they have done by implementation of computerisation, every decision a tester makes has to be found on computerisation, so if a tester wishes to fail an item,say like a tie rod being seriously excessively corroded, then one must be fitted to the vehicle in question, and it must be on computerisation, otherwise a tester cannot fail it, so you see, it is already tied down.
Should we begin
Cheers
David
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 12:36 am |
|
As one of those "motoring public" who has a lot of respect for any of you guys who has to assess some of the things I've done with cars, it'd certainly be interesting to have a section like this.
But I suspect that Big E may be right that, however much the powers-that-be try to tie things down to an objective pass / fail, there would still be a hell of a lot of "discussion" based on personal opinion and experience.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
| As an idea great..But in reality not so good.If we all stand up and post what we "think"then we will still be on the first page this time next year..
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 09:23 pm |
|
Should we MOT Testers start to work our way through the MOT Manual discussing our understanding of those reasons we give to our final decisions made based on the RfR's in the manual.
The motoring public who use the forum should find it very helpful, and our lives as Testers if they listen should eventually become easier?
Give me your thoughts on the subject and then we can begin, somewhere.
Cheers
David
|
Current time is 12:02 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
