| Author | Post |
|---|
castrolrob
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 311 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
i understand what you say about the highlighter line showing changes but the system does not bring the fact that they changed in the first place to the attention of the testers using them.most guys are not gonna read thru the manual for pleasure.i dont know about you guys but the only update pages we ever received were for the admin guide manual.half a dozen pages of which differ from the vts version that we are told is the one to use-update pages only arrived a couple of months back.on our assessment visit the vosa guy seemed rather shocked that our inspection manual was up to date due to the above reasons,guy concerned went stright to pages he was expecting to be wrong/out of date and seemed a little miffed to find different.
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
Changes weren't too difficult to find when we had the foolscap VOSA manuals - the ones with the tear-proof, oily-finger resistant pages.
But with the A5 60g/m2 Siemens Business Systems versions of the manual, it is veryy difficult to thumb through without pages being skipped due to them sticking together, falling out, or guilotened to a different size to the adjacent pages.
The VTD Device version is even more difficult to quickly browse through.
Using my marking of the edge of the pages, all staff at your VTS can see which pages they need to look at that were provided at the updates.
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 08:47 pm |
|
Hi Weetabix,
its a good idea you have to mark the pages, but changes are identified by black vertical lines alongside the text that has altered, and as stated all pages are date issued, so is it really needles in a haystack. The system has always worked for me as yours "does" for you.
This is just to let everyone know, that there is a system to show change.
RFR
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
castrolrob wrote: you test by that poxy manual,is it too much to ask that any of you read it now and again?a quick way of checking it to see if anything changed is to read the date at the bottom of the relevant page.if it says say sept 2001 then its a safe bet that aint too much changed ...
Every time a manual update has been issued, I use a permanent marker & swipe a mark across the exposed outer edge of the pages when they are still together in the update pack.
For each successive update, I mark this line further down the page.
When these pages have been inserted into the manuals, it is easy for all to see which pages have been provided with which set of updates.
Rather than read through the whole manual to hunt for needles in the haystack, the ammended pages can be found far more quickly using this method.
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21st, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Suppose then that depends on whether you want to go off on a tangent or keep within the gudelines, rather be within than have a two year ban with possibility of loss of job also?
David
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 311 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20th, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
you test by that poxy manual,is it too much to ask that any of you read it now and again?a quick way of checking it to see if anything changed is to read the date at the bottom of the relevant page.if it says say sept 2001 then its a safe bet that aint too much changed ...
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 11:31 pm |
|
Here's a confusing one then?
Watch a DVD and it says something like, this DVD shows practices which are correct at time of publication, but the testers manual overides this info, or something to that effect?
I notice things said on the DVD's which never make it to the manuals?
How does that work then?
David
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 07:20 am |
|
Hi RfR,
I try and keep up best I can but don't get a lot of time to sit and read the manual. In the old days the AE got the SN's which he would take home to read and it could be a couple of weeks before it was brought back to the garage to read, in some cases maybe a month later. Then we started having to sign that we'd read them so this improved things slightly but could still be a couple weeks later untill I got it to read and sign. I got so fed up with this in the end I wrote the exact date I read them instead of putting the same date as the AE just incase anything went wrong and VOSA would see exactly when I got to know about any changes. Now with computorisation it is a lot easier to keep up as we get a message that there is one so no excusses.
It's still a lot of stuff to remember but some days when it's quiet I sit for a few minutes and have a flick through the pc which I find a lot easier.
Last edited on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 06:47 am by keithd
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 10:59 pm |
|
We are asked to keep ourselves up to date, so following this post, does this mean that non of you read the manual, to notice any changes that took place some 13years ago????????????????
Light the touch paper and stand back.
Hey Guys, not hav'in a go but surely we are the ones to blame for not using and referencing the manual enough to notice changes.
I'm sure I will get some views on this one.
RFR
|
911mot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 10:51 pm |
|
Spongebob wrote:
I think it's taking the pee somewhat that amendments are announced in a magazine which lands once a blue moon and may quite easily be missed altogether.
Agreed, especially as the mag gets sent to the AE, not the NT's
My AE used to bin it with all the other trade mags. Just one of the many reasons I told him to poke it.
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 311 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 09:53 pm |
|
from(admittedly old)memories the manual did indeed mention that a mounting that was solely for a shock absorber wasnt to be failed for corrosion.this was removed about 1995.i queried this years ago with the local rep and was informed that as a shock is clearly a suspension component it was now subject to the same rules as the other said components.hey maybe he was wrong but surely not.....
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
The problem I think is that VOSA, different departments don't communicate with each other, and like one Senior official once said to me from Enforcement Division, they have not got the time to monitor the MOT scheme properly, because they have so much other work to do.
I in my own opinion have always felt that the MOT scheme would be better of with a task force that worked with the testers, rather than look to find fault with them. the Task force however would neet to be trained to communicate with testers, rather than talk to you like you are a criminal?
David
|
Spongebob
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Leeds |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:09 am |
|
Do you know something. This has highlighted one of the most irritating problems with our job. VOSA move the goalposts from time to time and do they go out of their way to tell us? Do they bloody hell. I certainly don't recall reading the issue of matters of testing linked to above (just after or around the time I qualified) and presumably for the last 6 years have been testing incorrectly. Thanks VOSA for precisely nothing. Sure they issue a special notice for a price rise and even highlight new areas in the manual when issuing replacement pages but is it asking too much for a brief summary of what's going in and what's coming out or are we expected to read through every last page when updating the manual to see what if anything they've taken out?
I think it's taking the pee somewhat that amendments are announced in a magazine which lands once a blue moon and may quite easily be missed altogether.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 15th, 2008 12:50 am |
|
David wrote: Hi RFR
Yes found the DVD and observed the presenters comments, he advised that Regulation (2.4;11) advised that “Shock Absorber Mountings” were “not prescribed areas” and should not fail (VT30), but then says DVD 1998 – 2004 issued in 2005 that “Shock Absorbers Mountings” are now prescribed areas for corrosion and would be issued with a VT30.
I have looked back into my old testers manuals which I have kept as long ago as January 1996 issue, and cannot find anything regarding the note that was supposedly within the information column, doesn’t even show it on the DVD?
I have no idea whether a Special Notice to this effect was ever issued, but one thing I can say with reasonable confidence is, we all seem to have differing information, the updated tester’s manuals don’t keep us up to date, and I would be skeptical if computerization has any relevant information either?
I think that VOSA need a complete rethink about their strategies, maybe to make all decisions in Bristol, pass down to trainers in area offices, train VE’s and us with the same information, and pass this same information to the national enquiry unit, then if an issue arises were we talk about it on the forum, we too also have correct information to discuss between us?
Thanks
David
Well?
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 15th, 2008 12:21 am |
|
David wrote:
rang the National Enquiry unit for advice, I gave them this description of fault;
You have a plate you have your evening meal on (tea plate) which has an hole within it so your food falls onto your lap, however you now put another plate on top of the plate with a hole in it, now imagine that these two plates are spot welded together as one plate, I asked does it fail for excessive corrosion or does it pass with a VT32 issued, the lady on the phone went for advice and came back advising me to (P&A) it. The video now tells me that it is a clear fail VT30?
 the lady on the phone went away to p*ss herself laughing wonder she didn't tell you tea plates were not testable items.
Manuals changed David, something we just have to accept. How may times have you went to the RfR's and discovered somethings been dropped from it or the wordings been changed? We can't keep up they change the goalposts at the drop of a hat, we can't be expected to know the manual inside out they have to realise we have a life outside work.
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 11:16 pm |
|
Have just edited Matters of Testing link in my post below
http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2017%20-%20Oct%202002%20.pdf
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 10:10 pm |
|
Hi RFR
Yes found the DVD and observed the presenters comments, he advised that Regulation (2.4;11) advised that “Shock Absorber Mountings” were “not prescribed areas” and should not fail (VT30), but then says DVD 1998 – 2004 issued in 2005 that “Shock Absorbers Mountings” are now prescribed areas for corrosion and would be issued with a VT30.
I have looked back into my old testers manuals which I have kept as long ago as January 1996 issue, and cannot find anything regarding the note that was supposedly within the information column, doesn’t even show it on the DVD?
I have no idea whether a Special Notice to this effect was ever issued, but one thing I can say with reasonable confidence is, we all seem to have differing information, the updated tester’s manuals don’t keep us up to date, and I would be skeptical if computerization has any relevant information either?
I think that VOSA need a complete rethink about their strategies, maybe to make all decisions in Bristol, pass down to trainers in area offices, train VE’s and us with the same information, and pass this same information to the national enquiry unit, then if an issue arises were we talk about it on the forum, we too also have correct information to discuss between us?
Thanks
David
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 08:02 pm |
|
Hi Dave,
DVD is "back catalogue" and there is a section "body and structure" see if you can find it and let me know!
RFR
|
David
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 01:21 pm |
|
Hi RFR
I have requested a ruling on this matter from VOSA, I have also re-checked the Testers Manual and there is no RFR under shock absorbers, although the manual does advise to check in conjunction with sub section 2.5, but that section is concerned with Mc Pherson type strut arrangements which do incorporate suspension components.
I have looked through my DVD collection, unfortunately I do not hold in possession a corrosion DVD, however I have looked into the archives and found a video from back in 2003, having watched it the presenter did say that the criteria for (passing & advising) excessive corrosion around shock absorber mountings, (picture illustrated none coil spring type mounting) was to be issued with a VT30, not VT32.
Now arrives another problem, when I was informed of passsing and advising excessive corrosion around shock absorbers (excluding combined within springs) looking back over the years of information, the documentation does not back up what the training school said about (P&A).
Now somebody recently said on this forum that they had disciplinary action because they had rang the National Enquiry line who gave them advice that VOSA enforcement disagreed with, so were do we go from here, because only last week I had a Escort Van in for test, the rear chassis leaf spring mountings are double skinned and on the inside adjacent the primary leaf the first skin on both spring hangers was excessively corroded, but did not produce a visual hole because the other skin spot welded to it was of sound metal structure, having rang the National Enquiry unit for advice, I gave them this description of fault;
You have a plate you have your evening meal on (tea plate) which has an hole within it so your food falls onto your lap, however you now put another plate on top of the plate with a hole in it, now imagine that these two plates are spot welded together as one plate, I asked does it fail for excessive corrosion or does it pass with a VT32 issued, the lady on the phone went for advice and came back advising me to (P&A) it. The video now tells me that it is a clear fail VT30?
One of the Lords in the House of Lords once said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, you must know it all?
Then some time later the same Lord tripped himself up getting the law wrong, he then made a new law which says that "Ignorance of the law" is an excuse because nobody can be expected to remember every law?
What can we say to VOSA?
Thanks
David
Last edited on Sat Jun 14th, 2008 05:43 pm by David
|
Weetabix
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 07:18 am |
|
Take a look at PAGE 8 in the issue of Matters of Testing link below:
http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/publications/mot%20-%20issue%2017%20-%20oct%202002.pdf
Link has been changed to:
http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2017%20-%20Oct%202002%20.pdf
The same topic has been discussed here:
http://www.bba-reman.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?ForumID=2&MessageID=21815
...and here:
http://motforum.proboards44.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=General&thread=25&page=1
(Edited Matters of Testing link)
Last edited on Sat Jun 14th, 2008 11:14 pm by Weetabix
|
Current time is 05:43 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
