FedEx Freight | Ghost Braking

Just curious of why you took the time to make this post??
First, you claim that "it's probably/you think/likely been tried" because it's not a "brand new issue", then secondly you admit that "you don't know for sure."
(BTW, I noticed you played both sides of the fence in your 2nd paragraph)

Now, I'll disagree with your theory because as we all know, when a ghost braking event takes place you have to pull over/stop, shut the truck off, and remove the key from the ignition in order to reset the ECM so we can continue on with our tour safely. In the almost two years that we've been experiencing this issue in CLT, this is the FIRST time that a driver actually made it to the yard with the issue still active!! (In this case, the truck continued to ghost brake while driving around the yard!!) In every case beforehand, the driver had already reset the ECM in order to make it back safely which resulted in no active code being present when checked once they had made it back.

To assume that "it's probably/you think/likely been tried" because it's not a "brand new issue" is asinine...unless you can produce concrete evidence to show otherwise.

I tend to relate this issue with Michelin's 1st gen "energy tires" from several years back...everyone denied there was an issue with those tires until lives started being lost, then they released a 2nd gen "energy tire" while continuing to claim that there wasn't an issue with the 1st gen!!

Whatever Red... That's me bro, asinine to the core. But do you really think that no one has thought of checking the system, before shutdown? Perhaps? Sure. Likely? Not very...

Rather than re-state the case, you need to understand that comprehensive analysis requires one to consider all of the possibilities.

In case you don't realize it, I'm giving you a pass on the idiocy of your rant.
 
Last edited:
With some cases it happens once and done, with others it continues to happen until you reset the ECM...I've experienced both.

Actually, I said "shut the truck down and remove the key for 5 secs"...it's then when you cycle the ignition multiple times, which JD said, which is also correct and I assumed everyone knew this, my bad.

With the case of "ghost braking", which is the topic, once it stops there's no trace of it ever happening which is why I'll stand by my original statement that the shop "should've" connected a laptop to the truck while it was active in hopes of finding a solution instead of the status quo.

You also assume to know what your talking about but don't, and now your changing your story.
 
There's also another way of looking it, different mechanics regardless of their "award winning status" have different skills and tricks with this stuff. An example at work we have a LOT of Cat equipment and all our trucks have Cat engines. We have the cat diagnostic program called Cat ET, we hired a mechanic a couple years ago that came from a cat dealer, he showed us things that ET would do that we had no idea it would do, it made a huge difference in diagnosis of problems. Think about that scenario, he could find problems that our mechanics couldn't previously find. So I would think every opportunity to look into it should be taken regardless of what everyone else may have done. Me being a curious sort would have loved to have the chance to look at it while it was active since it's appears to be a rare opportunity. Maybe you should call fleet maintenance and run the scenario past them.

Nothing to disagree with there. As for your last sentence, I have no problem making the call, even though I've not experienced this phenomena. When time allows, I'll make the effort... Knowledge beats speculation every time.
 
Whatever Red... That's me bro, asinine to the core. But do you think that no one has thought of checking the system, before shutdown? Perhaps? Sure. Likely? Not very...

Rather than re-state the case, you need to understand that comprehensive analysis requires one to consider all of the possibilities.

In case you don't realize it, I'm giving you a pass on the idiocy of your rant.
Seeing as how the company denied that these events were even occurring because there were no codes to validate their existence until they were captured by the forward facing cameras, I'm suggesting comprehensive alalysis is still in its infancy...and the mfg's still aren't sure what's causing it.

Honestly, how many times do you really think someone has encountered ghost braking while on the yard where a company shop is present...and of those times, how many times where the ECM's actually checked while ghost braking was still active??

Again, to assume that "it's probably, you think, likely been tried" is asinine considering it's only been a few months since the company accepted the fact that there's an issue...before then, why would they look for something that they didn't believe existed??

No pass needed...the condescending tone of your post suggest that we're right, thx. :1036316054:
 
Nothing to disagree with there. As for your last sentence, I have no problem making the call, even though I've not experienced this phenomena. When time allows, I'll make the effort... Knowledge beats speculation every time.
Let me backup and get some clarification for those of us that don't have this system. Feel free to correct me because I'm not arguing just trying to understand.

Ok the truck does this "ghost braking" thing (I'm aware what happens based on reading it here and talking to your drivers first hand no need to rehash that) in the past before the camera system it would do it, you would shut off the truck or apparently in some cases just keep driving and it would miraculously just stop correct? And before the camera system the company didn't believe it was happening correct? So apparently something is happening and no fault code is being stored or the shop would have been able to diagnose it, right so far? So if a truck is actively "ghost braking" would any curious person want to have a look at it while it's active since we've already determined there is no stored code? I know I would, all fair questions by the way. I'm truly interested because these are situations you refer back to later when your trying to fix a problem, you know past experience teaches a lot. Ok let me have it.
 
Let me backup and get some clarification for those of us that don't have this system. Feel free to correct me because I'm not arguing just trying to understand.

Ok the truck does this "ghost braking" thing (I'm aware what happens based on reading it here and talking to your drivers first hand no need to rehash that) in the past before the camera system it would do it, you would shut off the truck or apparently in some cases just keep driving and it would miraculously just stop correct? And before the camera system the company didn't believe it was happening correct? So apparently something is happening and no fault code is being stored or the shop would have been able to diagnose it, right so far? So if a truck is actively "ghost braking" would any curious person want to have a look at it while it's active since we've already determined there is no stored code? I know I would, all fair questions by the way. I'm truly interested because these are situations you refer back to later when your trying to fix a problem, you know past experience teaches a lot. Ok let me have it.
All questions are fair and correct...the problem lies with ghost braking usually isn't active while on the yard. In every case that I'm aware of, ghost braking happens while "on the road" and either clears up on its own or the driver resets the ECM themselves and once arriving at a yard where a shop is present, there are no codes stored in the ECM pertaining to this issue.
In my original example, luckily for our driver the ghost braking started just a few miles from our yard and he managed to limp the truck back safely while keeping the issue active instead of resetting the ECM. He immediately drove to the shop before powering down the unit in an attempt to find out what was causing the issue. Would a code have been present? Could questions have been answered? Perhaps, perhaps not, but now we won't know until the next time a truck is on the yard with ghost braking active, which is rare...a missed opportunity IMO.
For those who "think" this has already been checked, again, perhaps, perhaps not. There's been no mention of such activity with our shop, nor as any been relayed by other shops if it has. My argument is why would they have checked for something that they didn't believe existed until just a few months ago?? The probability that a truck was on a yard with a shop while ghost braking was active in the last few months is very minuscule IMO...especially since it's the first time it's happened in almost two years at our center.
 
I guess my next question is is this an aftermarket system or factory and what is controlling it? Could be the ECM has nothing to do with it therefore wouldn't store a code? It would be interesting to observe the crash mitigation system while in a fault status which seems to be a rare opportunity. It definitely needs addressing asap.
 
Let me backup and get some clarification for those of us that don't have this system. Feel free to correct me because I'm not arguing just trying to understand.

Ok the truck does this "ghost braking" thing (I'm aware what happens based on reading it here and talking to your drivers first hand no need to rehash that) in the past before the camera system it would do it, you would shut off the truck or apparently in some cases just keep driving and it would miraculously just stop correct? And before the camera system the company didn't believe it was happening correct? So apparently something is happening and no fault code is being stored or the shop would have been able to diagnose it, right so far? So if a truck is actively "ghost braking" would any curious person want to have a look at it while it's active since we've already determined there is no stored code? I know I would, all fair questions by the way. I'm truly interested because these are situations you refer back to later when your trying to fix a problem, you know past experience teaches a lot. Ok let me have it.
I don't know about "letting you have it" :idunno:. I know what you know, more or less.

I do know the vendor had denied the phenomena, for some time. I listened while they blamed it on assorted "events". Events they said the driver may have been unaware of. In essence, the vendor explained it away as driver error, of one sort or another, in every reported (at the time) case.

I know the on-board cameras paint a different picture. Now the issue is known to be real, but relatively rare. I have no numbers to put that into perspective, as far as how rare, isolated, etc.

I'm out, on the discussion of codes captured, not captured, how to preserve data, etc. Beyond speculation and curiosity, I've got little to add. I might ask questions, in a effort to learn something, and possibly contribute to the analysis portion of the discussion, but that's it.

Unless it has already been tried, I stand by my original position, that a directive on policy should be in place, and shared with both drivers and mechanics, as far as what to do "if" such an event occurs.

If I learn more facts, I'll share them.:smilie93c peelout:
 
tIewQDg.jpg


I found this bastard messing with my brake pedal.
But he flew away before the mechanic came out.....
 
I guess my next question is is this an aftermarket system or factory and what is controlling it? Could be the ECM has nothing to do with it therefore wouldn't store a code? It would be interesting to observe the crash mitigation system while in a fault status which seems to be a rare opportunity. It definitely needs addressing asap.
I'm not 100% sure but it is factory installed. On another not I thought it was limited to one brand of truck until Saturday where it happened to one of my counterparts in another brand truck. IMO it's a problem with the crash mitigation system and is something that needs to be fixed before it causes a major incident on the road. The pavement is not always dry and straight.
 
I guess my next question is is this an aftermarket system or factory and what is controlling it? Could be the ECM has nothing to do with it therefore wouldn't store a code? It would be interesting to observe the crash mitigation system while in a fault status which seems to be a rare opportunity. It definitely needs addressing asap.
The collision mitigation systems on the Volvo & KW's are Eaton's, Freightliners are Meritor, and not sure what the International's use but I'm guessing Eatons as well. These are all systems that are installed by the truck manufacturers on behalf of Eaton and Meritor.

From our experience in CLT, the Freightliner/Meritor system experiences this issue a lot more than the Eatons but we don't have the ELD/cameras yet which are known to effect the Eaton system.

Its been "speculated" that the eye on the front bumper is sensing a rear end collision (for whatever reason) when there's nothing in front of us and it signals the ECM to apply the brakes. The reasoning behind wanting to hook to a laptop while active is to test this theory since for whatever reason, no code is being flagged once the unit is powered down.

I'm not a mechanic but one would think the problem has to lie within the eye/sensor, the sending units, the ECM, or the wiring harnesses that connects the various parts of the collision mitigation system...I mean, there's only so many things to choose from...
 
I don't know about "letting you have it" :idunno:. I know what you know, more or less.

I do know the vendor had denied the phenomena, for some time. I listened while they blamed it on assorted "events". Events they said the driver may have been unaware of. In essence, the vendor explained it away as driver error, of one sort or another, in every reported (at the time) case.

I know the on-board cameras paint a different picture. Now the issue is known to be real, but relatively rare. I have no numbers to put that into perspective, as far as how rare, isolated, etc.

I'm out, on the discussion of codes captured, not captured, how to preserve data, etc. Beyond speculation and curiosity, I've got little to add. I might ask questions, in a effort to learn something, and possibly contribute to the analysis portion of the discussion, but that's it.

Unless it has already been tried, I stand by my original position, that a directive on policy should be in place, and shared with both drivers and mechanics, as far as what to do "if" such an event occurs.

If I learn more facts, I'll share them.:smilie93c peelout:
I was just poking with the let me have it comment, just an interesting conversation.
 
The collision mitigation systems on the Volvo & KW's are Eaton's, Freightliners are Meritor, and not sure what the International's use but I'm guessing Eatons as well. These are all systems that are installed by the truck manufacturers on behalf of Eaton and Meritor.

From our experience in CLT, the Freightliner/Meritor system experiences this issue a lot more than the Eatons but we don't have the ELD/cameras yet which are known to effect the Eaton system.

Its been "speculated" that the eye on the front bumper is sensing a rear end collision (for whatever reason) when there's nothing in front of us and it signals the ECM to apply the brakes. The reasoning behind wanting to hook to a laptop while active is to test this theory since for whatever reason, no code is being flagged once the unit is powered down.

I'm not a mechanic but one would think the problem has to lie within the eye/sensor, the sending units, the ECM, or the wiring harnesses that connects the various parts of the collision mitigation system...I mean, there's only so many things to choose from...
So apparently the Meritor system sucks as bad as they're transmissions did?
 
Top