|
Post by aylesburyjock on May 26, 2011 20:06:16 GMT
Hi Dave can you point me in the right direction as regards items not tested I can not find refrence to it only for VEs thanks John Been through this one before at length on another forum It's not written down in the manual, but if you were to ask your area office, your V.E., your instructor on your refresher courses, or indeed any one from VOSA they will tell you that the items not tested option was supposed to be for the V.E. to use when he observed a test and the tester missed items. Nobody thought to inform the N.T. of this and lots of us have been using it wrongly. Don't know why they didn't just make it smart card sensitive in the first place
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on May 27, 2011 7:12:21 GMT
Hi Dave can you point me in the right direction as regards items not tested I can not find refrence to it only for VEs thanks John Been through this one before at length on another forum It's not written down in the manual, but if you were to ask your area office, your V.E., your instructor on your refresher courses, or indeed any one from VOSA they will tell you that the items not tested option was supposed to be for the V.E. to use when he observed a test and the tester missed items. Nobody thought to inform the N.T. of this and lots of us have been using it wrongly. Don't know why they didn't just make it smart card sensitive in the first place Don't know why they didn't just make it smart card sensitive in the first place That would be too easy lol ;D
|
|
|
Post by bentley on May 27, 2011 19:39:21 GMT
They did!
We all had it retro fitted back in 96 or thereabouts, it was never used.
|
|
prb5244
Nominated Tester
Posts: 124
|
Post by prb5244 on Jun 24, 2011 21:08:51 GMT
on my last refresher training trainer said not to use it it was put in program by mistake and only intended for v.e. use when doing appeal so they could skip parts of examination not intended for n.t. use
|
|
motdave
Nominated Tester
Posts: 242
|
Post by motdave on Jun 25, 2011 6:14:03 GMT
on my last refresher training trainer said not to use it it was put in program by mistake and only intended for v.e. use when doing appeal so they could skip parts of examination not intended for n.t. use There have been plenty of opportunities for Siemens to remove the button. But they haven't. I say we should use it. It's common sense. Having almost completed a test, then having to Abandon it just because the emissions can't be tested is ludicrous. The presenter won't like paying twice for a test. Select items not tested, then test emissions on retest. Simples.
|
|
prb5244
Nominated Tester
Posts: 124
|
Post by prb5244 on Jun 25, 2011 6:47:05 GMT
our local v e when asked about this situation if no reading can be recorded make a not with test number time and date saying no reading can be found if no other faults in exhaust are found pass and advice if a serious leak is found fail on that and retest when repaired simple as that
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jun 25, 2011 8:33:52 GMT
Is there anything else motdave, that you think we should just ignore and do our own thing,or just the items not tested? Just pick and choose which parts of the system to follow for the sake of conveniance. There are plenty of things the presenter probably won't like, and as the poor sod at the sharp end it's all your fault, I know. But. Procedures have been set out, I suspect, for a reason. My pet hate is a refusal to test if you can't open the fuel flap.That will also lose you customers. I still do it when necessary, because them's the rules. Don't like it, but then VOSA ain't interested in whether I'm happy or not, only whether I follow their procedures. As a point of interest, I can only lose trade if there are other testers out there who WILL cut corners to please them, so do me a favour, and make it a level playing field.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jun 25, 2011 11:12:31 GMT
on my last refresher training trainer said not to use it it was put in program by mistake and only intended for v.e. use when doing appeal so they could skip parts of examination not intended for n.t. use There have been plenty of opportunities for Siemens to remove the button. But they haven't. I say we should use it. It's common sense. Having almost completed a test, then having to Abandon it just because the emissions can't be tested is ludicrous. The presenter won't like paying twice for a test. Select items not tested, then test emissions on retest. Simples. Common sense has never played a part in the mot scheme and never will.. Aylesburyjock sums it up .Rules and regulations are put in place to protect you and presenters,put it this way whats more important,unhappy customer or vosa taking disciplinary action ,i have seen a lot of testers going down the common sense route and ending up a trouble just to keep someone happy its just not worth it ,if your using the ""items not tested ""you need to stop now and follow the correct testing methods
|
|
hayden
Nominated Tester
VTS AEDM, SM & QC
Posts: 828
|
Post by hayden on Jun 25, 2011 11:57:45 GMT
issued by VOSA to their VE's in FEB 2009
Currently, we are aware that the information available to testers regarding the use of 'not tested' is ambiguous. The ‘not tested’ option was originally designed for VOSA staff only, which is why the Guide states that once a test is registered, if it cannot be completed for one of the reasons given in Appendix 3, you should abandon or abort the test. The inspection manual however retains the old wording and tells the tester to fail the vehicle which is why they are using 'not tested'. The whole issue of ‘not tested’ is subject to a review to evaluate the implications of allowing common use. In the meantime common sense should prevail and although it technically goes against the Guide we should not consider any disciplinary action against the use of ‘not tested’.
hope this clarifies things a bit.
|
|
|
Post by EcoTrans (Leicester) on Jun 25, 2011 12:45:23 GMT
Hi. Interesting debate on 'item not tested'. I think whilst VOSA continue to make the facility available to the N.T. and do not make the situation clear by way of (e.g.) S.N. or VTS device message etc. then they can absolutely NOT hold it against you for utilizing it. I have always used it & will continue to do so until officially informed otherwise. How can you possibly assess wipers when the washers are not working? There's a prime example- 'an item not tested' (Fail). Has any one out there been penalized yet? I doubt it; would be good to know though.
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jun 25, 2011 18:21:39 GMT
How can you possibly assess wipers when the washers are not working? There's a prime example- 'an item not tested' (Fail). Obviously you cannot, but I assume you do talk to your customers. The vehicle fails on the washers not working, and inform the presenter it is possible there may be issues with the wipers. Just as you would not enter headlamp aim in items not tested if dipped beam is not working,you would inform the presenter there may be a problem on the re-test. It may just be me, but although there has been no special notice issued, the information I have seen from VOSA has never seemed ambiguous. They may not be taking disciplinary action, but they do not want us to use it. There has been information issued to that effect. When they finish their review, and say 'ok that actually seems like a good idea',which it is, I will be just as happy as everyone else. I just take pride in doing what I'm supposed to, the way it's supposed to be done.
|
|
motdave
Nominated Tester
Posts: 242
|
Post by motdave on Jun 25, 2011 19:00:45 GMT
Do you charge full price for your MoT test fee ?
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jun 25, 2011 23:00:57 GMT
Stealth, I will as previously said read through the PM's, at the moment I don't remember this part you said; particularly when I advised you that some of the subject matter regards emissions print out's had NOT been clarifiedBut if I am wrong I will correct it David I'll refresh your memory ..... ''I seriously doubt that you would ever be presented with an exhaust that was so bad that you could not obtain some readings - however, without further clarification, I would suggest that you would do as you would in the Special Notice regards ultra- low emissions vehicles - if you can obtain a print out, either based on the zero or low readings, or obtain an 'Aborted test' print out, and make a manual note to the effect that no readings were obtained''In reply to the first part, nobody within the or not within the mot scheme as the case may be can say what you said, "I seriously doubt that you would ever be presented with an exhaust that was so bad you could not obtain some readings".. This is down to customer attitued towards their vehicles. Today I was going shopping with the wife and the car in front of me had sparks appearing from underneath it, the exhaust was broken in two while being driven down the main road, but I seriously doubt that any driver of a vehicle would drive a vehicle with the exhaust fractured in two? I have experienced cases were the exhaust system is fractured in two halves and had cases were no readings were recorded, and where lambda values have been out of range and failed. I have also experienced fractured exhaust systems were it was not possible to fit the probe into another section of the system. With regards your advice in conjuntion with the special notice, please read it, it refers only to diesel engines euro V, and not SI engines. Our gas anaylser will not produce a abort test function when no readings are obtainable, so no evidence that an emissions test has been attempted is provided. From VOSA point of view it would then appear that no emissions test had been performed, i.e. no printout. If the NT just fails the vehicle without the printout, it could be put forward that the vehicle should not have failed the emissions and the garage is just looking to make easy money out of the presenter? Sorry forgot to mention, it is a requirement to keep the emissions printouts for 3 months , if you have them ;D
|
|
|
Post by aylesburyjock on Jun 26, 2011 7:18:28 GMT
Do you charge full price for your MoT test fee ? We do have a discount system with vouchers in local papers, but otherwise we charge full price. Re-tests are charged as MOT rules state.
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jun 29, 2011 0:35:20 GMT
Hi. Interesting debate on 'item not tested'. I think whilst VOSA continue to make the facility available to the N.T. and do not make the situation clear by way of (e.g.) S.N. or VTS device message etc. then they can absolutely NOT hold it against you for utilizing it. I have always used it & will continue to do so until officially informed otherwise. How can you possibly assess wipers when the washers are not working? There's a prime example- 'an item not tested' (Fail). Has any one out there been penalized yet? I doubt it; would be good to know though. The same way you test everything else "as its presented" the inspection is based on testing many parts and we either pass,fail or advise . To use the option not tested for wipers is not a reason for rejection,how can we inspect components when they are engine covers you cant take off.engine under trays which cover not just the lower part of an engine but 95% of steering components!! So how can possibly test those items,BMW is a prime example so what do we do?we test as presented,not use item not tested all the time I have never been on a course or encouraged to use this option as a tester,but one thing is for sure,you may not get penalized for using it to get round a problem that you may think is covering your backside but you will be penalized for not testing that component,example-you cant spin a wheel to check for roughness in the wheel bearing due to a slight bind,i have seen testers use the items not tested for this( WRONG)if its that bad you would abort the test,Where wipers are concerned there is nothing to prevent you from carry out a full inspection irrespective of the washers not working as after you have inspected the wiper i would presume you will be able to tell judging by its condition and make a subjective decision if its going to clear the RAIN to provide an adequate view
|
|
|
Post by bentley on Jul 1, 2011 20:00:53 GMT
LOL
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Jul 2, 2011 21:21:48 GMT
On the subject of no print outs availible for no smoke reading or low readings,depending on machine type and make,talking to my engineer that calibrates and maintains the companys smoke meter , you can obtain a print out but there is a certain way round it to get it to print out. However heard on the grapevine that vosa where opposed to it and felt recording details on vt40 was more appropriate.
|
|
phaetonott
Nominated Tester
I may not be right but at least I am trying!
Posts: 376
|
Post by phaetonott on Jul 2, 2011 22:13:41 GMT
With regards wipers not tested when washers don't worK.
I know it's not correct but I have a trigger bottle of diluted washing up liquid I keep for checking punctures, and it only takes a few seconds to puff a squirt of water on the screen and try the wipers. It comes in useful for cleaning filthy headlamps as well, but thats not allowed either.
Our policy is we don't charge if we abort or abandon, so then I lose my bonus for the test, so I prefer to improvise to get the job done. After all the customer wants the test done, and you never get any thanks for aborting.
|
|