1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154 
Fautig es**
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I refer to the CM report in th issue of September 8, regardin a case at the Fenton, Stafforc shire, magistrates' court, i which it was inferred that ther had been failure of one of ail company's fifth-wheels as th result of some (unspecifiec fault in manufacture. The mac istrates asked that the manufai turer should be advised of th circumstances of the accident.
I am sure that your report wa a fair and accurate one of th court proceedings but may please put the record straight After I received a letter in Marc 1978 from Mr T. J. Hastey th fleet engineer of Pandoro Lt the fifth-wheel in question wa inspected by my co-director IV J. Robinson.
As confirmed in my subsE quent letter to Mr Hastey th fifth-wheel locking jaw was s severely damaged that it wa impossible for the trailer kingpi to enter.
In Mr Robinson's view thi damage, including th breaking-off of the angle iror occurred immediately before th accident and was the result c faulty coupling-up procedur preventing proper coupling c the trailer to the tractor. Th fifth-wheel had been in opera tion since May, 1974.
In response to an approacl from the Department of Trant port in May I also advised ther of our findings, but unfortur ately we were not invited t attend the court hearing.
D. POOLE, Jost (GB) Ltd, Heywood, Lancs.