Operational Policy 15 - b(2) Chafed Air Hose
| Entry Date | February 24, 2021 |
|---|---|
| Issue Number | 21-007-VEH |
| Name | David Parker |
| Agency | California Highway Patrol |
| Address | 19340 N/B I5Cottonwood, Ca., 96022United StatesMap It (opens in a new tab) |
| Phone | (530) 377-8030 |
| [email protected] | |
| Committee | Vehicle Committee |
| Status | Closed |
| Summary of Issue | I am looking for clarification to Ops Policy 15. A certain sentence in the policy is being interpreted two ways. This question is where the issue comes up..... b.(2) When should air hoses and tubing not be documented as a violation for chafing? ANSWER: A violation should not be recorded until a reduction of the hose diameter is observed. It is not a violation if the hoses/lines rest on or lightly rub against vehicle components. A hose that is found to have a reduction in diameter but is no longer chafing does not constitute a violation unless damage extending to or through the outer reinforcement ply is observable. When damage extends to or through the outer reinforcement ply, a violation will be recorded (thermoplastic nylon tubing that is discolored or faded but not damaged, is not a violation). This sentence from above has the confusing statement..... "A hose that is found to have a reduction in diameter but is no longer chafing does not constitute a violation unless damage extending to or through the outer reinforcement ply is observable." Some people are interpreting "damage extending to" to mean only exposing the ply. In proper English the term "damage extending to" means the ply is damaged not just exposed. If the intent of the paragraph is to make it a violation if the reinforcement ply is simply exposed (no active chafing) then I feel the wording needs to be changed to say either "damage extends up to or through the reinforcement ply" or "damage exposes or wears through the reinforcement ply". The current wording says the ply must be damaged in order for it to be a violation and that is how I enforce it. I am good with however it needs to be enforced but if the intent is to make a visible intact ply a violation the wording needs to be changed. |
| Justification or Need | Two sets of enforcement are being used because of how the wording is interpreted. |
| Request for Action | Either confirm the wording is correct and the ply needs to be damaged to be a violation or change the wording to be clear that simple exposure is a violation. |