KEEPING / THEM \ RUNNING \ with Ron Cater
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What manner of man makes the best sort of vehicle inspector? Should he be a highly trained engineer who will see faults for what they are and then evaluate their seriousness, or is it perhaps a better idea to train a person who is not conversant with workshop practice, showing him exactly how to decide whether an item of equipment is in such a condition as to constitute a danger or not?
After spending some time with the MoT and watching a team of recently trained vehicle testers—most of whom have scant previous knowledge of commercial vehicle engineering—carrying out the testing programme as laid down for the scheme starting on October 1, I feel bound to agree with the Ministry method. It has decided to train men specially in the arts of the MoT test programme, paying particular attention to a systern of going through many different types and classes of vehicle. The end product, as I have seen for myself, is a character who does not blind himself to the consequences of a badly maintained unit, but who sees quite simple and straightforward paths of right or wrong.
If it is wrong it fails with no ifs or buts, likewise if it is right it passes. It should not, I feel, be the duty of a tester, or inspector, to decide what must be done—that surely is the job of an engineer or foreman fitter. The tester /inspector's duty should be to detect problems, and keep on detecting them as a continuous function because, all the time a vehicle is in service, components will be working and wearing so that they require either adjustment or replacement.
A perhaps more important side effect of training an inspector is that one does not lose the skilled services of a fitter or foreman from the shop floor. Has the Ministry started something?