IF you really trust his competence, then you will not check his work. But by doing so ... and having expressed the confidence in him as you have, your actions invalidate your words. You really do not trust him.
Agreed. Unless he can show a correlation between female and incompetence to do the work. That should interesting in this PC world. LOL
That's a management problem for not promoting him to a quality control position. LOL.
When you have acquired the real knowledge to do the work but opt to have someone else do it for whatever reason, I see a very human spirit of competition emerging. Some of this is good .... too much of it toxic.
Was the post I was commenting on, read back before jumping to conclusions please.
Not at all, I refuse to listen without proof of someone being good enough at what they do - i.e. me having seen their work before. That is a *sensible* way of qualifying someone as good enough to work on your car. I personally am not about to go blabbing about what qualifications and importance I have like you (and I have a self superior attitude?), though I could, my whole point was that working on my car I wouldnt trust a general spanner monkey **BASED ON EXPERIENCE**. If one doesnt learn from ones experiences, one cant complain can one? If you are happy to let your car be worked on by Joe Bloggs in the dealership then thats fine, you either have a) more money than sense or b) no belief in your own abilities or c) are too busy to do the work yourself, and enough cash to cover it when it goes wrong. C) is understandable.
I personally cant think of so many perfectly tailored stories to prove my points, i just go from experience ;)
No, I'm AM a safety engineer, Used to work at Sellafield, amongst other places. What you're saying is bollocks. I've met plenty of people like you, who insist that they are the only ones that can do the work right. Mostly they're the worst kind. covering their own insecurity by trying to be ultra-critical of others.
No, he knew the engineer working on his car would be a woman, since he'd spoken to her on the phone, booking the time. He had insecurity about the quality of everyone's work except his. JUST LIKE YOU.
sounds like you do a lot of the former, and not much of the latter. "only one place in the UK that does it" etc. if you were as knowledgable as you claim, you'd know of at least 3 places that did it.
J: It does seem you nurture your negative past experiences and project a broad brush prejudice toward future service work performed by persons you have no background on. Does that work for you?
I'm hiding no insecurities (Please explain which ones, as I fail to see what I could be hiding, maybe you have a couch and a degree in psychology too?). And what i say isnt bollocks - its fact, just might not be on your watch/area, although I must say im suprised that we have higher QC standards in a transfer line manufacturing business than in the nuclear power gen world.
And I have no idea why you are taking all this so personally? All i did was point out I didnt like other people working on my car as ive seen too many people ripped off and work done poorly and you blow it up out of all proportion and make it personal? Maybe its not me with the insecurities? I'm not the one mouthing off about qualifications and how pertinent my job is to the argument at hand.
So you say. But from your original text there's no evidence of this, so its pretty easy to adjust the meaning afterwards when you realise how it sounds.
a) Please dont mis-quote - I said "and the only place i found in the whole country" not "theres only one place in the UK that does it" - if you read so poorly im not suprised you take everything the wrong way and respond in an offensive manner.
b) I admitted it is not something I worked hard at finding to be perfectly honest - as ive have pointed out from the beginning it seems pretty pointless for my needs so i found one. I couldnt find any more and couldnt find anyone who knew of any more without going looking into industrial companies, and decided it wasnt worth the hastle for the information that it would provide.
This post has gotten way off topic already - its about time we stopped wasting bandwidth with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, all of which is pretty worthless to the general readers.
I see your point, but I would dissagree still - I trust him, i just like to check everything over myself, even if its just a cursory glance, as its me that foots the bill in the end.
lol, not sure I'd like to venture into that one, i know a few very good female engineers. But no, id not trust them either, dont know them well enough :-).
For my money, the best example of this is General Electric locomotives (which you probably don't see often in Europe). Older "U" and "B" series locos with the 7-FDL engine up to about 3600 horsepower and a single gigantic turbocharger and no electronic controls will lay down an AMAZING smokescreen if the throttle is advanced rapidly (though not quite as much as Alco locomotives with the 251 series engine). Later GE locomotives, still using an almost unchanged (mechanically speaking)
7-FDL to as much as 4400 horsepower and with a re-plumbed turbocharger and (most importantly) electronic injection control rarely produce visible exhaust. And the latest generation meets the new Tier-III emission standard, albeit with the new GEVO engine which has a number of mechanical advances over the 7-FDL.
A certain amount of "over-fueling" is necessary to start the turbo spinning up for higher power output, but older injection systems tended to just jump to the final target fuel flow and "wait" for the turbo to catch up to the fuel flow. Electronic controls allow the fuel flow to ramp up syncrhonously with the increasing boost pressure and level off at the final value. An added advantage is that reducing the over-fueling often causes the turbo to spool up even faster, reducing the total time required for the engine to reach full power after the operator makes the power demand. That's another thing that was spectacular (in a bad way) about the old GE locootives. I'm told that in some models, the time between advancing the throttle from idle to full power could be as much as 90 seconds! Granted, this is a huge (almost 4000 horsepower)
16-cylinder engine in which each cylinder displaces more than an engtire VW TDI engine, but still!
'dumping in the north sea' is a specific term, and states that the polutant is discharged directly into the north sea. Quite clearly, it does NOT. if any, it would discharge into the IRISH sea, and then 'currents' would bring it into the north sea. following that line of reasoning, you could say 'sellafield is dumping into the pacific ocean' or 'into the persian gulf' both rather more absure statements, but equally as valid as those here.
That article even clarifies that you both have problems with the written word. it is talking about unofficial, conjectural plans for a dump that MAY be constructed there. Themn, you also have to consider the source "we're small, we're anti-nuclear" - they're hardly going to be providing objective rhetoric, are they.
Secondly, as ANYONE with any knowledge knows, a large project has many cogs. a large technical project has many engineers working on it, one person who works on all areas, is, as the saying goes "jack of all trades, and master of none'. When there were the concorde crashes, did people point to the guy whos job was to inspect the apssenger safety restraints and go "ha, obviously you're incompetant". Did they go to the avionics comapny and say "well, you're peddling a load of shit, aren't you" no. Responsible for safety they may have been, but for a different area of large and complex entity. As it happens, my job was more to do with the inspection and detection gear inside the reactors themselves, and ensurin emergency safety proceedures could be carried out. Since it hasn't melted down, seems i did my job ok.
Again, i'll reiterate, I've seen more accidents frmo people who thought only their work was up to scratch that they had to check on everyone elses, to the exent of having to check every bolt is tight, that it seems they're one of the major causes of accidents in the industrial workplace.
If you're not competant in their ability to fasten down a bolt accurately, then
1) if you hired them, or requested their help, why did you do so, since you don't value their ability to do the job anyway.
2) if you didn't hire them, why did you not report your concerns about their gross inability to do even basic functions to someone who could remove them from doing what you consider to be doing a shabby job
Lets make no bones about it, if you don't trust someone to tighten up a bolt adequately, you obviously have serious competacy concerns. Regardless, we are left with two options
Either 1) you are just attempting to make yourself seem important "oh, i just need to check everything you've done, in case you've made a mistake, no offence old boy, just don't think you know how to tighten nuts properly" which is pretty much time wasting, and posturing, or
2) you keep yourself surrounded by incompetants, to give a marked constrast between the abilities, secure in your confidence that any mistakes such people make, you in your great ability can catch before it is turned into an accident or incident of some kind.
Fainlyl, before you think i'm prattling on endlassly, give thought to the reason i have not posted for several days. Could it be because i was checking some references to this? Why indeed, could it have been that i was checking up studies on just such behavour, and it is from the wealth of papers no this subject that the two conclusions above come from.
In closing, i thank you. I had been asked to give a talk in about a months time in Atlanta, and had been struggling for a topic. You have given me such a topic. "the ultracrepidarian engineer - will we be safe from them?
ISTR ONE Concorde crash, caused by another aircraft shedding debris onto the runway (and incidentally, exposing Concorde as vulnerable to tyre problems). I do NOT recall any others. It was economics that killed the bird, not safety - there are loads of aircraft flying with far worse records, and I think that probably includes all helicopters.
I'm not BTW going to get myself involved in the nuclear debate.
There were previous incidence that made the Authorities and operators well aware of the potential risk in this area. Indeed there were several modifications over the years to address this point which were obviously not ultimately effective.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.