Advisories issued

I wouldn't fail it mate, a strong advise in shouty letters exhaust badly corroded and weak , will need repair or replacement in very near future job done, happy days

i think dave is asking, would we fail the exhaust if it was presented for test with the rear silencer missing but could be wrong.

That's how I see it, and of course the answer is maybe. Without the rear silencer, is the rest of the system adequately supported, and is the noise level acceptable? If so, pass and advise.

Pass and advise for me (the pictures)

If it was missing the back box, there are a couple of options that might apply as has already been mentioned. One thing that nitros picked up on. Where do we draw the line at trying to enter the exhaust probe?

Is it right we should be on our backs trying to put a probe into an exhaust that is missing its back box - I'm thinking there is the abandon option if we want to use it.

As for the question why should we issue advisories if they are not a legal requirement, two answers spring immediately to mind; to give the customer information which may or may not be appreciated, and of course the biggie - cover your arse!
Any others anyone might want to share?

"Get out of jail free card", that's what it is...and it works for you when applied correctly,

Always issue any advisories you may find

But some advisories are more important than others , so really in my opinion, "Yes I know your not interested" VOSA could setup a traffic light system for advisories and then any items advised could be categorised as to their importants for road safety , based on factual evidence rather than group opinion

Then less work load on reception and more importantly the receptionist who may not be technical can be directed at important issues for pricing and let the presenter decide for the remaining items/areas.

But the advisoris traffic light system should not be set in stone, i.e. we don't want VOSA rigidly applying standards in the system that we have to follow their ideas, so a tyre wall with surface skin stress fractures in it that we know is not likley to require changing within say 10 days should be an amber warning, where a cut in the tyre wall that in the opinion of the NT is deep, but not quite deep enough to reach the cords or ply should attract a RED warning.

Now there are also corrosion related issues, i.e. prescribed areas, and one that "springs" to mind is the Rover 45 front lower suspension prescribed area, each year in the re-enforced sections of the front floor panels within the integral areas of the lower suspension mounting points areas a particular Rover I examine each year has what looks like penetrated corrosion, but is never corroded to the extent that it has become excessive, so a RED warning for that.

We could use Amber warnings for areas like lighting systems that are deteriorating, i.e. bulbs illumination that even if the bulb failed completely that it would not result in a test failure, also there are areas of excessive corrosion that would not fail the mot test outside prescribed areas, and are not deemed significant in the NTs opinion and understanding, so these would become a amber warning.

With the right training and understanding all personal could get the same training and record the same defects the same way and produce a national standard to all advisories, eventually

Daveg

yes daveg, let's keep it simple.

Important and part of the test are different dave..