Re: Max Readiness Monitors
Posted to Emissions Forum on 9/24/2013
Hello, Ciro.
I'm in the same boat as you:
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/pubwebquery/star/tech.aspx?tech=144107
There are consequences to inspecting marginal vehicles,
because STAR has elected to place 100% of the blame for
follow-up failures on the last inspector to pass it, not the
owner who neglects or tampers, nor the follow-up inspector,
who may be over-zealous or incompetent.
I have a serious problem with my FuPR, and apparently it has
a serious problem with me, until just recently, when it
improved significantly, as if by 'magic'. I have been
working in the same neighborhood, with the same customers,
doing the same job for over 12 years, and I was shocked and
insulted by STAR's public insistence that I am dishonest
and/or incompetent.
Back to Max Monitors. You are not required by regulation to
pre-screen vehicles for monitors, either at or above the
prescribed limit. It is strongly hinted that you may decide
to reject these specimens to protect your FuPR, but at the
expense of your SVFR, unless you implement the shady
practice of rejecting Max-Incompletes but accepting and
failing the TooMany-Incompletes.
The part that irks me to no end is that the FuPR is alleged
to be an INSPECTION PERFORMANCE measure, and I have seen
literally thousands of examples of vehicles that can
temporarily pass a thorough, legitimate inspection ... for a
while! Although trouble can attach itself to any shop or
inspector, Test-Only centers get the worst treatment by this
ridiculous affront to logic and reason, because they can
only inspect or reject, not maintain or repair. The only
recourse is to add "repair-and-maintenance cop" to the
inspector's list of duties.
I do not approve of incompetent, incomplete, or improper
repairs, but have witnessed countless examples, since the
customer has complete control over the maintenance,
diagnosis, and repair of his or her vehicle, while at the
same time bearing NONE of the blame in the eyes of STAR for
any wrong-doing in this area. I have even been forced to
participate in many of the incomplete ones, due to lack of
time or lack of customer funds. In many cases, I have
diagnosed and completed a comprehensive list of problems on
the vehicle, only to find the list 'cherry-picked' by the
service writer/customer, for the above reasons. I don't
cheat these vehicles through ... they pass or fail on their
own merits, but I'm left holding the bag of s**t for the
ones that struggle through, when they fail the next
inspection FOR ANY REASON UNDER THE SUN:
1) The repairs were incompetent, because the customer
diagnosed and repaired his or her own vehicle based on
advice from a 'parts professional', a family member,
neighbor, or friend, or an internet forum. Somehow, the
vehicle chugs through, at the legally prescribed limits.
2) The maintenance and/or repair history is incomplete or
non-existent, for a variety of reasons, none of them having
anything to do with the inspector.
3) The 'follow-up' inspector recognizes the vehicle as a
FuPR killer, and finds a reason (any reason, no matter how
strict or improper) to fail it. His or her SVFR is
'rewarded', regardless of the legitimacy of the reason, and
the previous inspector's FuPR is penalized.
4) The 'follow-up' inspector is incompetent, and fails the
vehicle for a completely improper reason (such as pinching
an A/C line during an LPFET test).
The STAR program claims to have a noble intent: pin-point
and neuter incompetence and dishonesty. It is indeed a noble
intention, but its implementation and execution suck out
loud, because many competent, law-abiding techs are caught
in the cross-fire, while incompetent, law-breaking techs
(with at least some self-awareness) escape through the
cracks. It's a 'shot-gun' attempt at a solution, not unlike
a 'shot-gun' attempt at an emissions repair, which is
properly frowned-upon by those of us who know and care.
So, how can an inspector stuck in a demographic rut try to
avoid problems qualifying for STAR?
1) Wait for someone (far more influential than I am) to
raise these concerns in a way that causes change for the
better.
2) Avoid passing too many vehicles that you suspect are
likely to fail in the next renewal cycle. A crystal ball
shouldn't be necessary; if you've been around for a while,
you should be able to recognize (and reject or fail) most of
them. If you are your own boss, you will have to survive on
the remaining customer base, since news of your prejudice
will get around, and changing these types is beyond the
powers of most mortals. If you are NOT your own boss, you
will probably have to find work elsewhere.
3) Turn your business into a charity, whereby maintenance
and complete repairs for the un-intelligent or
under-privileged vehicle owners are completed before the
scheduled renewal inspection. Keep thorough records of your
customers, because you will need a steady stream of initial
fails for customers coming from elsewhere to prop up your
SVFR. A low SVFR means that you are cheating, at least in
the eyes of STAR. Don't fail too many returning customers,
because that will destroy your FuPR. A low FuPR means that
you are cheating, at least in the eyes of STAR.
... of course, if you choose to work elsewhere, be advised
that the stigma of the tortured cars you have touched will
be publicly carried with you in your FuPR, like a bad facial
tattoo, for all potential employers to see ... I don't think
that the older scores drop off the record, ever.
Take care,
Michael Barry
Technician
Quick Stop Smog & More
Sacramento, California, USA