SCOTTISH QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY

MARKERS REPORT FORM

PART I

SUBJECT: 040-13: Engineering Knowledge – Motor (management Engineer)

DATE: 28th March 2017

General Comments on Examination Paper

The handwriting of some candidates is still poor making marking difficult. Sketches are generally good but in
some cases not sufficiently detailed to answer the question as asked. As usual, some candidates appear not to read
the question properly. Q8 has a stem “With reference to poor ignition quality fuels” and a large number of
candidates answered in terms of overall fuel quality not ignition quality. In some questions such as No.6 the
candidate is expected to provide instruction as to what an engineer should do in the event of a particular incident.
Simply stating “Check this or Check that” is insufficient; the candidate must explain what checks are made and
why; if pressure is being checked the candidate must explain why and indicate the actions to be taken should the
pressure be too high or too low.

General Comments of Specific Examination Questions

Q1. Generally answers were satisfactory but most candidates drifted off the point and discussed air systems in
general. In part (b) many answers just considered not draining moisture from air lines.

Q2 A mixed set of submissions with some candidates explaining about camshaft drives very well and others
seemed confused as to what the actual inspection covered; answers from some candidates dwelt on the
preparation like stopping the engine and shutting off the LO pump but failed to discuss an actual inspection or
faults. Some candidates did not appear to know how to check and adjust chain tension.

Q3. The question stem specifically mentions a “Load sensing governor” but many candidates described hydraulic
governors without any load sensing capability; in some cases the sketches were very good, but did not answer
what was actually asked. Not many candidates actually answered part (c) very well indicating a lack of
understanding about speed droop.

Q4 This question was answered reasonably well but some candidates over detailed the description on preparation
(such as stopping the engine and turning off the LO pump) and failed to explain exactly what was done with the
deflection readings to assess how the crankshaft was aligned; (a graph would have helped in all cases).
.

Q5. In most cases the sketch for part (a) did not include sufficient detail with respect to the control and operation;
candidates simply put boxes labelled “control unit” without any explanation as to what it contained. This part of
the question was worth 8 marks and candidates should have spent at least 12 minutes on the sketch; the marks are
given for each part so a candidate can see the approximate amount of work the examiner expects.

Q6. See general comments above.

Q7. Most candidates failed to actually provide instructions, they wrote an essay. This examiner has raised this
point many times before and candidates still do not seem to know what is expected when they are asked to write
instructions or a procedure. Not to answer the question in the format asked by the examiner is not to answer the
question. A management engineer must be able to communicate correctly.
.

Q8. See general comments above

.

Q9 Most candidates produced reasonable attempts at this question but in many cases answers became too detailed
in generalities and the candidates failed to answer in detail the causes of the change in LO properties and the test
procedures for finding the problem .