This looks like it is going to be fun. Although it seems to be aimed at car and van tests at first it must surely come to HGV/PSV testing before long.
So if your headlight aim, RBT readings, smoke, etc etc, fail 1st time it is going to get automatically recorded via data link. No discretion any longer for testers to repeat any part of the test because of an extended waiting time to undertake the test. I am still waiting for a reply to a complaint two years ago about their software not recognising pre 1968 brake efficiency requirements.
cav551:
This looks like it is going to be fun. Although it seems to be aimed at car and van tests at first it must surely come to HGV/PSV testing before long.
So if your headlight aim, RBT readings, smoke, etc etc, fail 1st time it is going to get automatically recorded via data link. No discretion any longer for testers to repeat any part of the test because of an extended waiting time to undertake the test. I am still waiting for a reply to a complaint two years ago about their software not recognising pre 1968 brake efficiency requirements.
The usual procedure as I’ve always known it is if it fails either get it fixed or let the testing garage fix it then resubmit it for a ‘retest’ sometimes of just the offending component and usually without any further test fee.Also what happened to the other usual rule it only has to meet the test standards in force at its registration date.
Surely anything pre-1968 would be exempt from MoT testing anyway?
Besides that, my understanding is that they still have to press a button marked “submit this result” or similar in order to ensure they are happy with the operation of the equipment.
Roymondo:
Besides that, my understanding is that they still have to press a button marked “submit this result” or similar in order to ensure they are happy with the operation of the equipment.
Personally, and this really more applies to my experiences with car / van MOT testers, I would prefer that the machine had the option not to accept the input from the tester based on it’s assessment of whether he/she had carried out the tests properly.
Failing vehicles on emissions when the engine is only half warm would be number 1 on the list.
Roymondo:
Besides that, my understanding is that they still have to press a button marked “submit this result” or similar in order to ensure they are happy with the operation of the equipment.
Personally, and this really more applies to my experiences with car / van MOT testers, I would prefer that the machine had the option not to accept the input from the tester based on whether it’s assessment of whether he/she had carried out the tests properly. [emoji38]
Failing vehicles on emissions when the engine is only half warm would be number 1 on the list.
For the MoT on my wife’s car, the emissions printout says the operator checked the engine was up to operating temperature by observing the car’s temperature gauge. It doesn’t have one to observe…
Roymondo:
Besides that, my understanding is that they still have to press a button marked “submit this result” or similar in order to ensure they are happy with the operation of the equipment.
Personally, and this really more applies to my experiences with car / van MOT testers, I would prefer that the machine had the option not to accept the input from the tester based on whether it’s assessment of whether he/she had carried out the tests properly. [emoji38]
Failing vehicles on emissions when the engine is only half warm would be number 1 on the list.
For the MoT on my wife’s car, the emissions printout says the operator checked the engine was up to operating temperature by observing the car’s temperature gauge. It doesn’t have one to observe…
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
Schoolboy error, I would have selected ‘coolant pipes were hot’. It’s not aircooled is it?
