From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> A full history is a complete set of records. He has a record of all
>>> services done on the car, in other words a complete or full service
>>> history. There is nothing partial about it - a partial history is an
>>> incomplete set of records. He is not missing any records in his
>>> history of work done, he has a full service history.

>> Go back a step. What's actually _important_ here?
>>
>> The paperwork? No. That merely serves as proof for the actual relevant
>> factor - whether a full set of services have been carried out. They
>> have not. The record shows that the car has not been fully serviced.

> AIUI the car has been fully serviced, by the owner not a dealer.

No - you're getting confuzzled with the change of topic in a sub-thread.
The original query was that Kev's "friend" has had considerably less work
done on the car than the schedule requests - but is considering that
paperwork for all that work is all that's required to constitute FSH.

In other words - "full paperwork", rather than "full maintenance".
From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> Would you work on an aircraft without any of the required special
>> tools, training or diagnostic equipment?

> I strongly suspect that when Kev was working on aircraft, the only
> diagnostic equipment were his eyes and ears along with the training and
> experience he had acquired. What special tools were required on aircraft
> during that period?

He's not _that_ old...
From: Brimstone on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c17610e$0$6195$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_ZydnaQT8ovdw4rRnZ2dnUVZ7rGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
>> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
>> news:hv7lcf$nq0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:27:27 +0100
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>If you didn't make such stupid responses to simple statements of fact
>>>>then
>>>>you wouldn't get the reactions that you do.
>>>
>>> Its not a statement of fact.
>>
>> In what way is "A fitter is a highly skilled tradesman trained to make
>> new parts." not a simple statement of facts.
>>
>>>The word is used by most people to describe
>>> a person who "fits" parts.
>>
>> Only in the context of motor vehicles. Most people are also aware that
>> modern "mechanics" do not have the skills of their predecessors.
>>
>>>>Fitters don't/didn't work in tatty back street garages. As I said,
>>>>they're
>>>>highly trained tradesman/craftsman.
>>>
>>> So where do they work then? Do tell. Because they're certainly not down
>>> at
>>> any main dealers I've been to. Are they at the company HQs busily
>>> designing
>>> and building prototypes? No, that would be designers and engineers. Are
>>> they on the production line perhaps bolting bits of car together then?
>>>
>> Fitter work in all areas of engineering. They are the people who make
>> things.
>
> My twopenneth:
>
> A cleaner cleans things.
> A driver drives things.
> A manufacturer manufactuers things.
> A parts engineer engineers parts.
> A parts fitter fits parts.
> A fitter doesn't make parts.
You're wrong.

http://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/apprenticentre/detcms/apprenticeships-and-training/apprenticentre/program-descriptors/apprenticeships/metals-manufacturing-and-services/mechanical-fitter.en?oid=com.arsdigita.cms.contenttypes.ProgramDescriptor-id-323038




From: GT on
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87p5emFpkU16(a)mid.individual.net...
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> It's about your friend who only occasionally got the car serviced - far
>>> less frequently than the interval - yet tried to claim that because
>>> there wasn't anything that wasn't written down, what little there was
>>> was a "full" service history.
>>>
>>> It's not. It's a partial history.
>
>> Can we discuss the word full versus the word complete please. In this
>> context I think it carries the same meaning. The meaning could be
>> different when referring to volume of something, but in the context of a
>> set of records I see full being the same as complete...
>>
>> A full history is a complete set of records. He has a record of all
>> services done on the car, in other words a complete or full service
>> history. There is nothing partial about it - a partial history is an
>> incomplete set of records. He is not missing any records in his history
>> of work done, he has a full service history.
>
> Go back a step. What's actually _important_ here?
>
> The paperwork? No. That merely serves as proof for the actual relevant
> factor - whether a full set of services have been carried out. They have
> not. The record shows that the car has not been fully serviced.

The term Full Service History can be emphasised in two ways:
1. A "Full Service" History - documented proof that the vehicle has been
fully serviced.
2. A Full "Service History" - complete documented proof of all servicing in
the vehicles history.

As I see it, the problem is that neither version actually state anything
about timings nor whether the services are in accordance with manufacturers
service recommendations. The first one does imply this, but doesn't say it -
rather depends on interpretation of 'Full Service'. In my experience, every
second service is a full service, the intermediate ones being a light
service replacing fewer parts and costing less. FSH is not a regulated term,
so we are all just throwing opinions around and not getting anywhere!


From: Brimstone on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87p6a7FpkU19(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> Would you work on an aircraft without any of the required special
>>> tools, training or diagnostic equipment?
>
>> I strongly suspect that when Kev was working on aircraft, the only
>> diagnostic equipment were his eyes and ears along with the training and
>> experience he had acquired. What special tools were required on aircraft
>> during that period?
>
> He's not _that_ old...

So what diagnostic equipment was in use on aircraft in the 1960s or 1970s?
(My guess at Kev's FAA service.)