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.

Two sets of enforcement are being used because of how the wording is interpreted.

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.

This issue request was combined with issue request 14-013-VEH as both issue were relevant to the same issue.

Two issue requests were submitted regarding confusion around when a rubber hose or steel braided hose should be placed OOS for damage. Through discussion it was determined that the current language in the criteria could be interpreted two different ways. The committee tasked staff to address this issue with SAE to determine when a hose should be placed OOS and provide updated language. During the spring SAE meeting, brake hose manufacturers provided information indicating that the hose should be placed OOS when the reinforcement ply layer is frayed and provided amended language. It was verified with the manufacturers that a frayed reinforcement ply has lost integrity and is in danger of failing. The committee unanimously voted to amend the language in the OOSC for air hoses/tubing and it was accepted by the board of directors to read as follows:

1. BRAKES
h. Air Brake Hose/Tubing
(1) Any damage extending through into the reinforcement ply. (as per 4 or 5 below)

NOTE: A reinforcement ply is a braid or a spiral layer of fabric or steel.

The reference table was also revised to read as follows:
1 Wear extends into outer protective material. Not OOS
2 Wear extends through outer protective material into outer cover. Not OOS
3 Wear makes reinforcement ply visible, but ply is intact. Not OOS
4 Any part of the fabric/steel braid reinforcement ply is frayed, severed or cut. OOS

The graphic was updated to remove the reference of Number 5, as was the table.

This issue will be on the 2021 ballot for inclusion in the 2022 OOSC.