John Brett

John is a professional engineer with 50 years experience.

John has designed and built many cars, trucks, and vehicle assembly facilities.

John has worked on design of roads, bridges, cranes, transmission towers, and buildings, and operation, maintenance and upgrade of hydro and gas turbine power stations.

John was a LVV Certifier for 13 years. John has long been a whistle-blower, expressing the view that the LVV system is dangerously deficient. John's authority was revoked in December 2012.

John rides a 1992 Yamaha FJ1200ABS, and is also a keen road and off road cyclist.

APOLOGY

“The LVVTA has brought it to my attention that statements I have made in relation to it and its employees may have been perceived as defamatory.

I sincerely regret that and apologise for any harm caused. I have taken down the statements identified by the LVVTA of concern to it.

I have strong views about the low volume vehicle certification process and intend in the future to direct my energies into the public inquiry now being held in relation to it.”

John Brett 7th October 2015

Disclaimer

1. Disclaimer

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the owners of this website or official policies of the owners of this website

2. Copyright Statement and Policy

A. The author of each article published on this web site owns his or her own words.
B. The articles on this web site may be freely redistributed in other media and non-commercial publications as long as the following conditions are met.
(i) The redistributed article may not be abridged, edited or altered in any way without the express consent of the author.
(ii) The redistributed article may not be sold for a profit or included in another media or publication that is sold for a profit without the express consent of the author.
(iii) The articles on this web site may be included in a commercial publication or other media only if prior consent for republication is received from the author. The author may request compensation for republication for commercial uses.

3. Submissions

An article may be submitted for possible publication on this web site in the following manner.
A. Logging in an Author
B. The website owners reserve the right to approve or decline Authors
C. Articles are published on this web site only on the condition that the author agrees to the terms of the Copyright Statement and Policy above.

Engineer’s report on faulty wheelchair vehicles haunts NZTA (UN-SAFER JOURNEYS?)

KIVI Kea Carnival conversion

KIVI Kea Carnival conversion

Automotive News

The NZ Transport Agency dismissed a written report from one of its senior engineers warning that millions of dollars worth of wheelchair-access vehicles imported from Italy for use by the Accident Compensation Commission were unsafe and should not be allowed on NZ roads until they were repaired.

Tauranga mechanical engineer Bill Cassidy – a long-time NZTA heavy vehicle certifier – listed seven major faults with the heavily modified vehicles, questioning their life expectancy and saying they could risk life and limb because of “poor workmanship.”

But the NZTA said Cassidy’s findings didn’t justify “further enquiry” because the vehicles had already “been certified in New Zealand under the Low Volume Vehicle Code”(LVV). The code is road-worthiness approval issued by NZTA-appointed LVV certifiers supported and trained by the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA), a blood relative of the NZTA set up in the late 1990s to certify ‘hobby’ vehicles like hot-rods.

WHAT ENGINEER CASSIDY FOUND …

In the six-plus years since Cassidy’s report – November 10, 2008 – the 90 Italian-modified vehicles have needed on-going repairs at a cost independent engineers have put at hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the $NZ8.34 million ACC paid for them. Carterton company Braiden International did many of the repairs under a government agency contract, company spokesperson Rochelle Williams confirmed.

The vehicles – 50 long- and 40 short-wheelbase Kia Carnival vans – were converted in 2007-08 by Italian company KIVI and bought by the ACC for its disabled clients. The ACC had cancelled an agreement with its NZ supplier of such vehicles. The long-wheelbase Italian models each cost $NZ94,825 and the short-wheelbase $NZ89,599. KIVI, based near Turin, is a long-time supplier of vehicles for European health agencies.

Cassidy’s findings included:

a modified rear suspension assembly that would (and later did) fracture under stress
a relocated spare wheel that could break loose from its makeshift mounting and become a “missile” inside the cabin – “a lethal situation”
a replacement floor “not made to accepted engineering practice” and made of steel so “flexible” it could “distort upwards into the passenger compartment” in an accident
an airbag system whose inspection module had been “modified” to show it was working when it wasn’t
seatbelts anchored to the floor in a way that didn’t comply with the Low Volume Vehicle Code

ACC COMPLAINS OF CASSIDY’S ‘CONDUCT’ …

Cassidy sent his report to ACC executive John Payne. On November 19, 2008, Cassidy received a reply – not from Payne but NZTA response team manager Dave Robson. Robson wrote that the NZTA had received a complaint from the ACC “about your conduct as a NZTA-appointed heavy vehicle certifier.”

Robson went on … “Further I have read your deed of appointment and have been unable to locate a clause which authorises you to specifically enquire into Low Volume Vehicle certification issues or to demand information from vehicle modifiers or any other persons in relation to Low Volume vehicles.”

Addressing Cassidy’s criticisms of the Italian vehicles Robson wrote, in part … “the technical department within the NZ Transport Agency have not found that your specific complaints justify further enquiry as they are satisfied that vehicle does not currently present a risk to land transport safety.”

Cassidy soon fired back, saying Robson had “jumped to conclusions without ascertaining the facts.” He said he had a contract with the ACC to inspect the ‘engineering’ issues of the vehicles in production, “as a professional engineer, not as a certifier.”

Cassidy further told Robson that ACC executive Gail Kettle had asked him early in August, 2008, if he would like to see one of the Italian-modified Kias. Robson later replied, saying “it is not my intent to enter into a debate over the issue.”

ACC THOUGHT ITALIAN VEHICLE WAS ‘BEE’S KNEES’ …

Cassidy had had many dealings with Kettle, then the ACC purchasing executive for health and provider relationships. Cassidy had previously inspected vehicles modified for the ACC by Waikato firm Vehicle Adaption Services (VAS). Kettle cancelled the ACC agreement with VAS after a recall over a reported seatbelt malfunction and chose Italian firm KIVI as the preferred new supplier. Kettle is now the Earthquake Commission’s general manager customer and claims.

The vehicle Kettle arranged for Cassidy to see was trucked from Wellington to Tauranga, where it was met by an ACC occupational therapist. “Gail Kettle wanted me to check it out because she thought it was the bee’s knees,” Cassidy said. It was late in the evening when he met the therapist at an ACC’s client house. “The therapist asked me about towbars, seatbelts and the vehicle in general. Only a brief inspection by torchlight was possible. I asked if I could inspect it properly in the morning light but she said she had to drive it to Auckland that night.”

What Cassidy had seen in a few minutes concerned him, he said. “For a start the heavily modified rear end wasn’t strong enough to accommodate a towbar.” He said he met with Kettle weeks later on another matter. “I hinted that I wasn’t happy with what I had seen with the Italian vehicles. She was in a hurry to get to a meeting and that was the last conversation I had with her,” said Cassidy.

IDENTICAL VEHICLE HAD ‘REMEDIAL’ WORK DONE ON IT …

Over the next few weeks Cassidy arranged to inspect an identical vehicle in use by a family in Te Awamutu. He said the family told him the vehicle had just had ‘remedial’ work done on it in Wellington. On November 6, 2008, Cassidy checked out the Italian-modified van at the VAS workshop, in Matangi, near Cambridge.

With him, he said, were NZTA reviewer Bruce Adams (confirmed later by Robson’s letter to Cassidy) and LVVTA certifier Neal Miller. Days later Cassidy sent his report to the ACC’s Payne. He said that whatever ‘remedial’ work had been done on the vehicle in Wellington, the faults he identified were still present. His was the only signature on the letter.

In December, 2012, the NZTA’s sidekick the LVVTA issued a recall on its website – www.ivvta.org.nz – for the long-wheelbase vans to repair “fracturing to trailing arms” in the rear suspension. The recall mentioned “incorrect suspension geometry and poor workmanship involved in the modification process.” The LVVTA said Braiden International would do the repairs. The repairs weren’t completed until late 2013, early 2014, said Braiden’s Rochelle Williams.

The “fracturing” the LVVTA said needed fixing was exactly what Cassidy had said would happen back in 2008. He identified “incorrect suspension geometry” and “poor workmanship” back then too. Cassidy is one of the NZTA’s most reputable professional engineers. Why wasn’t his 2008 warning to the NZTA and ACC acted on? Why wasn’t it passed to the LVVTA, which is indirectly responsible for certifying wheelchair-access vehicles.

NZTA CERTIFIER’S TIME FRAME WAS ‘VERY LIMITED’ …

LVVTA chief Tony Johnson said he never received a copy of Cassidy’s 2008 letter. “Had we been made aware of the issues identified by Mr Cassidy we certainly would have become involved earlier,” he said.

Johnson said the LVVTA didn’t certify the vehicles. “Nor do we certify any vehicles. Modified vehicles are inspected and approved by independent LVV certifiers who are appointed by the NZTA. LVVTA’s role is to provide technical support and training to the LVV certifiers.”

He said he understood the certifier’s time frame to inspect the vehicles was “very limited.” “I also believe he would have based some of his decisions that the vehicles were sound after reviewing the vehicles’ European type-approval certification, which was presented to the ACC team at the time of inspection,” Johnson said.

Johnson said he agreed that there were problems with the vehicles’ design and construction. “But in balance they would have been very difficult for (the certifier) to identify in isolation. It’s easier to identify problems with the luxury of several heads, and several hours, particularly when someone is bringing problems to your attention.”

But engineer Cassidy identified on his own, in a few minutes, in a Tauranga driveway, in the dark, with a torch, that the modified vehicles for which the ACC had paid $8.34 million didn’t stack up.

Weeks later, with the NZTA’s Adams and LVV certifier Miller in tow, Cassidy inspected an identical example, this time for three or four hours, in a garage workshop, on and off a hoist. Days later, the NZTA rejected Cassidy’s report that the vehicles were badly flawed. Since then the NZ taxpayer has had to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix what the NZTA said in 2008 wasn’t a problem.

MY COMMENT ON THIS
All modified vehicles entering the NZ Fleet need to be LVV Certified, according to the Vehicle Standards Compliance Rule 2002, Clause 6.5(1)(c)

Clause 3.2 Action following failure to comply with conditions of appointment or with this rule
3.2(1) If the Director has reason to believe that a vehicle inspector or inspecting organisation has failed to comply with any of the conditions of their appointment, or has failed to comply with this rule, the Director may require the inspector or organisation to undergo such an investigation and to provide such information as the Director reasonably considers appropriate.

3.2(2) Subject to 3.2(3), if, following an investigation under 3.2(1), the Director is satisfied that a vehicle inspector or inspecting organisation has failed to comply with any of the conditions of their appointment, or failed to comply with this rule, the Director may do one or more of the following:

(a) require that remedial action, such as training, be undertaken by the inspector or organisation;
(b) suspend the whole or any part of the appointment of the inspector or organisation for a specified period or until specified conditions are met;
(c) revoke the whole or any part of the appointment of the inspector or organisation.

THE LOW VOLUME VEHICLE SYSTEM HAS LOST THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT HIGHER LEVEL CERTIFICATIONS SUCH AS THESE, BECAUSE

A ….. LVV STANDARDS COVER ONLY VERY BASIC MODIFICATIONS.
B ….. THE SKILLED AND QUALIFIED CERTIFIERS HAVE LEFT THE SYSTEM, REPLACED BY ‘HOBBYIST’ CERTIFIERS.

The LVV system is reverting to just a low-level ‘hobby car’ certification system.

We intend to make an official Information Request to NZTA as to how these vehicles were permitted to enter the NZ Fleet, what Technical Evaluation was carried out, and what remedial action the Director will be taking.

LVV Certification Satisfaction Survey

Survey now closed, results to be provided to NZTA

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>