MRR-RV205 · Advanced RV Systems Analysis & Quality Assurance
Technical diagnosis, system safety, applied calculations and quality assurance across major RV systems.
Open Semester I course →MICHIGAN RV REPAIR · EDUCATION DIVISION
MRR University. RV knowledge built for the road.
Study our full proposed 15-week RV systems semester—complete student lessons, supervised lab plans, assignments, self-checks, and a draft academic catalog—all directly on this page.
RV Owner EducationTechnician Learning PathsTechnical Reference Library — Planned
20-credit-equivalent academic proposal · four consecutive 15-week courses
Four-semester RV technical studies pathway
Begin with RV205 and progress through evidence-based diagnosis, integrated systems engineering, and advanced reliability research. Each semester proposes five academic credits. Twenty is a proposed evaluation total, not credits awarded by GRCC, RVTI or MRR.
MRR-RV215 · Advanced RV Diagnostics, Measurement & Reliability
Interpret imperfect evidence. Localize faults. Make defensible service decisions. 15 weeks of lessons, cases, supervised labs and research assignments.
Open Semester 2 course →MRR-RV225 · RV Power, Controls & Integrated Systems Engineering
Model complete systems. Verify component choices. Engineer safe, testable solutions. 15 weeks of lessons, cases, supervised labs and research assignments.
Open Semester 3 course →MRR-RV235 · RV Reliability Research, Quality Engineering & Industry Capstone
Investigate complex failures. Validate solutions. Defend technical and business decisions. 15 weeks of lessons, cases, supervised labs and research assignments.
Open Semester 4 course →Important: GRCC must approve courses and award its own credit. RVTI exams and technician certifications are separate, issued only through RVTI's authorized process. MRR is not yet an approved or accredited provider.
ADVANCED TECHNICAL COURSE · 15-WEEK ACADEMIC DRAFTPROPOSED · NOT ACCREDITED
RV Systems Analysis, Diagnostics & Pre-Delivery Quality Assurance
MRR-RV205 · Proposed second-year technical course with advanced capstone expectations. Study multi-step engineering calculations, evidence-based fault isolation, technical writing, controlled lab measurement, and system-level case analysis across all 15 weeks.
Course status: Proposed 5 semester credits, structured as 3 lecture + 2 laboratory contact hours weekly and 10 hours independent study. Not GRCC-approved, state-approved, RVTI-authorized or accredited. This page cannot award college credit, a degree, or RVTI credentials. The credit/contact-hour schedule and faculty qualifications require institutional review.
15Weekly lessons
45Lecture hours
30Supervised lab hours
150Independent hours
5Proposed credits
Download advanced 15-week student reader (PDF) ↗Start Week 01 ↓Course overview & academic alignment ↗
Program learning outcomes
- CLO1: Develop and defend failure hypotheses using subsystem maps, fault trees, evidence quality, and measurement uncertainty.
- CLO2: Calculate and interpret DC voltage drop, power, energy yield, load allocation, tank mass, thermal performance, and static trailer loads with units and assumptions.
- CLO3: Design, execute and analyze supervised low-voltage laboratory experiments with reproducible evidence and critical safety boundaries.
- CLO4: Evaluate source quality, model applicability, component ratings, and professional limits; distinguish model predictions from field certification.
- CLO5: Produce defensible pre-delivery inspections, quality records, risk dispositions, and customer communications.
- CLO6: Submit an integrated technical capstone, data appendix, comparative analysis and oral defense.
Instructional time plan
| Learning activity | Weekly | 15-week total |
|---|---|---|
| Classroom lecture | 3 hours | 45 hours |
| Supervised laboratory | 2 hours | 30 hours |
| Independent study | 10 hours | 150 hours |
| Total learning time | 15 hours | 225 hours |
Instructional hours are proposed and subject to institutional credit-hour evaluation and actual supervised delivery.
Academic entry expectations
Recommended preparation: college algebra, introductory physical science, technical writing, unit conversions, and basic electrical safety. Students should be able to evaluate a data table, rearrange formulas, annotate a circuit diagram, cite manufacturer literature, and write a documented argument.
Scope: Sophomore-level technical analysis with selected junior-level research and capstone methods. GRCC primarily offers two-year associate programs; MRR-RV205 is not an assigned GRCC course number. Course instructors, lab facilities, credit transfer, and certification eligibility remain unapproved.
Required deliverables: source-annotated lab notebook, weekly calculations, twelve technical memos/problem sets, one midterm, a PDI portfolio, and an integrated capstone. Every quantitative answer must include assumptions, units, rounding, sources, and limitations.
Practical safety boundary: These online lessons are for guided study, not authorization to conduct hazardous repairs. Introductory labs must use approved isolated / current-limited 12V-or-lower training equipment and qualified supervision. There is no student work on energized 120V circuits, pressurized propane adjustments, operating generators, elevated roofs, or unsupported trailers in this introductory course.
READ · PRACTICE · DOCUMENT
Full semester lessons
Each unit combines analytical lectures, a solved problem, a controlled laboratory exercise, a technical research task, and a graded submission. The capstone requires an oral defense.
0 / 15Reviewed on this browser
Independent technical reading standard
Each week, students must read applicable manufacturer service literature rather than invent universal component ratings. Use original documentation where available; inspect the publication date, product scope and safety notices. Course topic coverage has been mapped broadly to RVTI’s seven Level 1 systems, but this is an original MRR academic proposal—not RVTI’s licensed curriculum or an RVTI practice-certification exam.
RVTI training pathways ↗ · GRCC course-format and credit-hour policy ↗
WEEK 01Technical epistemology, risk assessment, and defensible service records
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE • FAILURE ANALYSIS • TECHNICAL WRITING • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Build a traceable evidence chain from complaint to disposition.
- Use a qualitative FMEA to prioritize risk without overstating numerical certainty.
- Defend inspection scope, referral decisions and communication with source evidence.
Analytical lecture
A repair diagnosis is a claim about causation. It is not established by how convincingly a technician describes a symptom. Distinguish the owner's reported history, direct observation, measured data, inference, and a confirmed defect. A strong service record names the measuring instrument, operating state, unit of measurement, relevant conditions, component identification and uncertainty. For example, 'battery low' is weak; '12.1 V measured at battery terminals after 30 minutes disconnected from shore power, ambient 20°C, state of charge not independently verified' is auditable. It is still not a battery-health test.
Use a structured risk model before technical testing. In failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), severity, occurrence and detectability can each be assigned ordinal categories, but multiplying them into a risk-priority number does not make the result a physical probability. Document the rationale for ratings and prioritize high-severity hazards even when they are uncommon. Distinguish an unsafe condition from an inconvenience and specify whether work is suspended, deferred to a specialist, or continued within a limited authorization.
A causal argument must survive alternative explanations. An inoperative receptacle after rain is consistent with moisture intrusion, loss of supply, protective-device operation, an open conductor, or equipment failure. Replacing a converter without testing the relevant DC charging path is a category error. A professional communicates hypotheses as hypotheses; a written estimate should separate confirmed work from provisional diagnosis and indicate dependencies before quoting repairs.
Worked quantitative model · FMEA exercise
A simulated service case rates water near a shore-power inlet as severity 5/5, occurrence 2/5, detectability 4/5. The descriptive priority index is 5×2×4 = 40. A cosmetic latch issue rated 2×5×4 = 40 has the SAME index but a very different hazard. Explain why severity-first escalation overrides a tie in the aggregate score.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A customer reports intermittent 120 V power after heavy rain. A previous repair ticket says “bad converter” and offers no voltage data. Prepare a one-page evidence map distinguishing observations, hypotheses, contraindicated tests, and qualified referral. No attempt to energize the affected system is permitted.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Using photographs, de-energized mockups, and fictional tickets, teams perform hazard triage, identify missing test conditions, and peer-review service notes. Deliver a signed observation log and a justified stop-work decision. No live-power exposure.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Distinguish correlation from causation in a repair history. Provide one falsifiable test for each hypothesis that is safe within course scope.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Locate an actual OEM service notice or manual for a chosen RV component. Extract its revision date, applicability, limitations, and diagnostic prerequisites.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Prepare a 1,000–1,200-word technical memorandum: three competing hypotheses, a fault-tree sketch, FMEA with rating rationale, evidence hierarchy, customer-facing disclosure, and at least two appropriately cited technical references.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 02RV construction, load paths, moisture, and systems interfaces
MATERIALS • STRUCTURE • SYSTEMS ENGINEERING • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Construct a subsystem-interface map and trace probable failure propagation.
- Compare structural and nonstructural observations using load-path reasoning.
- Estimate deformation or moisture exposure with explicitly stated assumptions.
Analytical lecture
An RV is a mobile, coupled system—not a house installed on a trailer. Road-induced vibration and torsion, thermal cycling, water exposure, and differing material expansion rates challenge joints, penetrations, sealants, and fasteners. A local defect can travel across interfaces: a roof penetration admits moisture; substrate stiffness decreases; attachment loads redistribute; subsequent vibration increases joint movement. Diagnosis should trace the failure chain rather than isolate the most visible stain.
Load-path reasoning starts with where force enters, which components transmit it, and where reactions are supported. In an idealized axial member, deformation scales as δ = FL/(AE), where F is force, L length, A cross-sectional area, and E elastic modulus. The expression is useful conceptually but not a license to certify RV structural components; real joints are anisotropic, fastener-dependent, and subject to combined loading. Explain why adhesives and composite laminates cannot be assessed solely from surface appearance.
Inspection sequences should maximize information while minimizing disturbance. Map body, chassis, electrical, LP, and water interfaces; distinguish a manufacturing identifier from a model designation; document attachments with dated, labeled photographs. A moisture meter reading can support a comparative survey but cannot independently establish trapped water quantity, source, or structural adequacy. Record baseline conditions, likely confounders, and what invasive work would require authorization.
Worked quantitative model · Idealized stiffness comparison
Two axial members are the same length and material, but one has 50% more cross-sectional area. Under equal axial load, δ₂/δ₁ = A₁/A₂ = 1/1.5 ≈ 0.667. Discuss why an RV frame-to-body attachment cannot be validated from this simplified relationship alone.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A travel trailer shows staining at a ceiling seam and a cabinet door that intermittently binds after towing. Construct a potential causal pathway linking water, structural deformation, and thermal movement. State which findings require structural referral.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
On an inert RV cutaway or diagram, map force paths, identify different material interfaces, and prepare a nondestructive inspection protocol. Compare two moisture-indicator readings without making unsupported claims about water content.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Explain the limitations of δ = FL/(AE) for laminated walls and bolted attachments. List at least four assumptions violated in field conditions.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Select two manufacturer body-care or sealant documents and compare inspection interval language without generalizing one OEM’s guidance to all RVs.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Develop an annotated system-interface map with ≥20 components and eight interdependencies, a 900-word mechanical justification, and a prioritized noninvasive inspection sequence.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 03DC circuit modeling, conductors, and protection coordination
APPLIED CIRCUITS • ALGEBRA • MEASUREMENT • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Solve series/parallel DC networks and interpret voltage drop under load.
- Compare conductor losses with nameplate performance using units and tolerances.
- Explain fault-current protection without substituting a classroom calculation for code review.
Analytical lecture
A 12 V nominal RV distribution network is a collection of sources, impedances, loads, switches, connectors and protective devices. Kirchhoff’s current law conserves current at nodes; Kirchhoff’s voltage law sums potential changes around a loop. Under steady DC conditions, V = IR and P = VI provide first-order estimates. A successful analysis distinguishes source voltage, voltage across the load, and losses in the round-trip path. Nominal system voltage is not a guarantee that the bus remains exactly at 12.0 V under all conditions.
Conductor resistance depends on material resistivity, length, cross-sectional area and temperature. Both outbound and return conductors contribute to circuit voltage drop. If a connector is corroded, a high-resistance joint may dominate loss even with an adequately sized cable. Measure voltage drop across each section under an appropriately controlled load, rather than inferring continuity from an unloaded meter reading. A circuit can show full voltage at zero load and still be incapable of supplying operating current.
A fuse or circuit breaker protects wiring and mitigates faults within the protection scheme; its rating is not merely selected to match the appliance’s normal operating current. Correct selection depends on conductor ampacity, installation conditions, manufacturer instructions, available fault current, protective-device characteristics and applicable rules. Do not infer compliance from a quick Ohm’s law calculation. Field selection and modifications are outside the scope of this classroom trainer.
Worked quantitative model · Voltage-drop analysis
An isolated 12.6 V trainer supplies 12 A through a total round-trip conductor length of 8.0 m at assumed resistance 0.0063 Ω/m. R = 0.0504 Ω; ΔV = IR = 0.6048 V; load-terminal voltage ≈ 12.00 V; resistive loss = I²R ≈ 7.26 W. The drop is 4.80% of 12.6 V. Repeat for twice the current and discuss heat scaling.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A slide-control trainer shows 12.7 V unloaded at its input but falls below 11.7 V when a 10 A simulated load engages. Model the likely series resistance; design an instrumented low-voltage test that localizes rather than guesses at the fault.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
On an instructor-inspected, fused, current-limited trainer ≤12 V, measure node voltage, source current and conductor drop with two load conditions. Compare predicted and observed values; include uncertainty and a circuit schematic.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Compute what happens to conductor dissipation if current increases from 12 A to 18 A with constant resistance. Explain why the ratio is (18/12)² = 2.25 rather than 1.5.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Use a component manufacturer’s electrical diagram to distinguish normal current draw, overcurrent protection, and permissible voltage range.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Submit a quantitative lab report (1,200 words max), circuit schematic, raw data table, uncertainty budget, voltage-drop plot, and diagnosis justified against at least two fault hypotheses.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 04Measurement uncertainty and hypothesis-driven low-voltage diagnostics
INSTRUMENTATION • STATISTICAL REASONING • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Design a discriminatory test matrix for competing DC failure hypotheses.
- Separate instrument accuracy, repeatability, and circuit-state effects.
- Estimate equivalent series resistance while identifying confounding variables.
Analytical lecture
Troubleshooting is an experimental-design problem. Select the next test for the information it can provide, not because it is easy or familiar. When several hypotheses predict the same reading, that reading is weak evidence. Compare predicted voltage signatures for a degraded supply, intermittent ground return, faulty switch, and variable load. For each experiment define controlled variables, measuring location, operating state, and stop-work conditions before touching the trainer.
A digital multimeter’s reading is not identical to the true quantity. Accuracy specifications often combine a percentage of reading and a number of display counts. Contact resistance, lead placement, temperature and transient load behavior may produce effects larger than nominal meter error. Estimate measurement uncertainty from the stated instrument specification and repeated readings. Use significant figures honestly: a display showing 12.345 V does not guarantee 1 mV accuracy.
Compare open-circuit voltage and loaded voltage to infer an apparent series resistance using R_app = (V_oc – V_load)/I, while noting that source state, dynamic behavior, wiring and connector losses are combined. R_app is not automatically the battery’s internal resistance. A systematic fault tree identifies what additional measurement would separate internal source degradation from an external connector problem.
Worked quantitative model · Equivalent resistance and limits
A training supply reads 12.70 V with no load and 11.95 V at 10.0 A. Apparent series resistance is (12.70–11.95)/10.0 = 0.075 Ω. If current varies by ±0.3 A and the readings drift ±0.05 V, identify why a single estimate should not be treated as an exact component value.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A simulator exhibits intermittent loss of voltage during a “motor-start” load. There are three candidates: shared return, supply droop or corroded simulated terminal. Design a three-measurement sequence that distinguishes them.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Students collect replicated current/voltage observations on an isolated DC fault-insertion panel. Plot measurements and calculate mean, range and apparent series resistance; document any inconclusive results.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Given a meter specification ±(0.5% of reading + 2 counts) at 0.01 V resolution, estimate maximum stated error at 12.00 V: ±(0.060 + 0.020) V = ±0.080 V. Explain how that affects a claimed 0.05 V difference.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Read a meter manual for input category limits and accuracy. Describe why a current-limited training source still does not authorize energized AC measurements.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Produce a test-plan matrix with four hypotheses, predictions, safety gates, measured outcomes, uncertainty discussion and a conclusion that explicitly states what remains unknown.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 05Shore-power architecture, protective devices, and AC risk
POWER SYSTEMS • HUMAN FACTORS • SAFETY • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Interpret single-line AC distribution diagrams without performing energized work.
- Quantify apparent circuit loading and distinguish watts, volts and amperes.
- Evaluate protective-device functions and unsafe fault assumptions.
Analytical lecture
RV AC power introduces distinct conductors and functions: ungrounded (hot) conductors carry supply potential, neutral provides a designed current return where applicable, and equipment grounding conductors facilitate fault clearing. They are not interchangeable. Protective components such as overcurrent breakers, GFCI protection, and transfer equipment address different failure modes. A breaker is not a substitute for personnel shock protection, and a GFCI does not prove the absence of every hazard.
Nominal appliance loading begins with P ≈ VI for resistive or near-unity-power-factor cases. For loads with reactive components, apparent power S = VI is measured in volt-amperes and real power P = VI cosφ. Starting inrush, duty cycles, branch-circuit configuration and nameplate requirements complicate simplistic addition of rated watts. Shore connection and bonding arrangements require application of the relevant currently adopted standards and qualified review; this course does not provide installation authorization.
Diagnostic reasoning must be bounded by exposure control. Students should interpret isolated schematics, review photographs and evaluate outcomes provided by an instructor—not probe live shore-power receptacles or bypass GFCI, bonding or transfer equipment. A recurring trip may indicate leakage, overload, damaged wiring, equipment defects or an inappropriate circuit arrangement. Responsible analysis records symptom timing, load conditions and device identification before escalation.
Worked quantitative model · Real and apparent power
An illustrative AC load operates at 120 V and draws 10 A at power factor 0.85. Apparent power is 1,200 VA; real power is 1,020 W. Treating it as a 1,200 W resistive load misrepresents consumption. Explain why this does not by itself determine circuit compliance.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A customer reports a GFCI trip whenever an RV is connected to shore power. Given an instructor-provided one-line diagram and hypothetical test data, categorize plausible leakage/connection hypotheses without proposing a bypass.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
With no live AC: annotate one-line diagrams, identify protective boundaries using component mockups, and develop a lockout/referral checklist. The instructor demonstrates safe isolation concepts without student energized work.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Compute S and P for 120 V, 14 A, power factor 0.92: S = 1,680 VA and P ≈ 1,546 W. Explain why generator selection must also consider starting loads.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Identify the applicable manufacturer and code-reference documents for a specific installed AC component; do not cite a general electrical blog as a substitute.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Write a technical hazard review comparing branch overcurrent protection, GFCI function and grounding. Include a power-budget calculation and a decision tree for professional escalation.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 06Electrochemical storage, conversion losses, and off-grid energy budgets
ENERGY SYSTEMS • POWER ELECTRONICS • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Model a DC energy budget with depth-of-discharge and efficiency constraints.
- Compare energy (Wh), charge (Ah), and power (W) correctly.
- Identify limits of simplified battery and solar calculations.
Analytical lecture
Ampere-hours measure charge delivered at a defined test regime, not energy independently of voltage. An energy approximation is E_nom ≈ V_nom × capacity_Ah. Battery chemistry, discharge rate, temperature, cell balancing, state of health and BMS operating limits affect usable capacity. A system design should separate nameplate energy, permitted usable energy, conversion losses, and reserve margin. Do not assume that voltage alone determines lithium battery state of charge.
A converter, charger, inverter and solar charge controller have different directional roles in the energy chain. The inverter’s AC output power requires greater DC input power because conversion efficiency is less than unity; standby consumption continues even when the primary load is off. Solar array nameplate watts are test-condition ratings, not daily guaranteed production. A daily yield model combines array size, equivalent sun-hours, orientation/temperature losses, controller losses and shading uncertainty. The model must be stress-tested over poor-weather days, not just averaged sunshine.
Thermal and protective constraints matter. Power dissipated as heat is P_loss = P_in – P_out. High battery discharge currents can trigger a BMS, overcurrent protection or inverter shutdown even when an advertised watt-hour capacity appears sufficient. System troubleshooting should consider transient starting loads and conductor voltage drop, never rely on bypassing protective devices.
Worked quantitative model · Energy chain and runtime
A nominal 12.8 V, 100 Ah battery stores about 1,280 Wh. At an assumed 80% usable fraction and 90% inverter efficiency, AC-deliverable energy ≈ 921.6 Wh. An 80 W continuous load would run about 11.5 h in this idealized model, excluding inverter idle draw and other loads.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A camper reports that a 2,000 W inverter shuts down during hair-dryer startup despite a fully charged 300 Ah battery. Propose evidence distinguishing surge/current limit, voltage sag, BMS cutoff and wiring loss; do not recommend bypassing the BMS.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Build a spreadsheet energy model from instructor-provided nameplates and weather scenarios. Change assumed sun-hours and inverter efficiency; quantify sensitivity and document uncertainty.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
A 300 W array produces during 3.5 equivalent sun-hours/day with combined yield factor 0.70. Estimated daily energy is 300×3.5×0.70 = 735 Wh. Compare with a 1,200 Wh/day demand and quantify deficit.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Review actual battery/BMS and inverter documentation for continuous output, surge rating, temperature restrictions and protection behavior.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Submit a seven-day energy audit and design memo showing daily Wh consumption, discharge reserve, converter losses, peak-W vs energy distinctions, and at least two adverse-weather scenarios.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 07Hydraulic network behavior and RV fresh-water fault isolation
FLUID SYSTEMS • PRESSURE AND FLOW • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Differentiate static pressure, dynamic pressure, flow rate, and pump cycling.
- Estimate demand, pressure losses and operating time using a stated model.
- Develop a noninvasive troubleshooting protocol mindful of sanitation.
Analytical lecture
Water delivery in an RV is a small hydraulic network with storage, a pump or shore supply, check valves, distribution piping, fixtures and controls. Pressure is a potential for flow, not a measure of how many gallons actually move. A gauge can show substantial static pressure even when a clogged strainer or kinked line severely restricts flow. Distinguish a supply-side restriction from a downstream valve fault by proposing observations that change differently under each hypothesis.
Use Q = V/t for volumetric flow and the continuity relationship Q = Av for steady incompressible flow at a point, while acknowledging that pumps cycle and transient demand is not steady. Pressure losses depend on tubing diameter, length, bends and fittings. For laminar idealized flow, Poiseuille’s relation predicts strong radius sensitivity, but RV piping commonly operates outside those simplifying assumptions. Avoid inventing a pressure-loss number without the necessary piping geometry and fluid conditions.
Health and contamination concerns are part of technical competence. Evidence of a backflow event, unknown chemical exposure or cross-connection requires appropriate escalation. Students may work with clean water and isolated transparent trainers but not introduce chemicals or open contaminated wastewater components. Record the boundary between a plumbing diagnostic concept and a manufacturer-approved sanitization procedure.
Worked quantitative model · Flow-demand estimate
A faucet provides 3.5 gal/min for 2.0 min: V = Qt = 7.0 gal. A 30-gal freshwater tank would contain 23 gal afterward only if initially full, the flow is constant, there are no other uses and the pump draws solely from that tank.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
Two fixtures exhibit reduced flow only when operated together; the pump cycles rapidly at a single fixture. Compare hypotheses involving pump performance, aerator restrictions, trapped air and tank draw.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Use a clear-tube low-pressure water demonstrator with no chemicals or utility interconnection. Measure tank draw, simulated pressure indication and fixture flow at two controlled settings.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
If a trainer supplies 4.0 L/min for 75 s, determine liters delivered: 4.0×(75/60) = 5.0 L. Express assumptions for a continuously varying pump.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Use an OEM pump performance curve and compare rated free-flow to operation under a specified pressure.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Create a hydraulic system block diagram, calculate three timed-flow scenarios, interpret a diagnostic data sheet, and write a customer-facing noninvasive assessment memo.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 08Wastewater mass balance, biohazard controls, and winterization planning
SANITATION • MASS BALANCE • PROCEDURES • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Quantify liquid volume and vehicle mass effects while stating uncertainty.
- Create a process map that separates clean-water and waste-water exposure.
- Audit a winterization plan against OEM-specific component vulnerabilities.
Analytical lecture
Fresh, grey and black tanks have distinct functions and hazards. Tank sensors may report unreliable levels when fouled, so a displayed percentage should not be treated as precise inventory. Wastewater introduces biological exposure risks; open drains, tank vents and sewage connections are not appropriate for introductory student handling. An evidence-based training exercise can use isolated diagrams and clean-water demonstration units to teach mass balance without exposing students to contaminated media.
Mass balance can be written as accumulation = inflow – outflow over the analysis interval. When a trailer carries additional water, its total weight increases and remaining cargo capacity decreases. For water, a common approximation is 8.34 lb/US gal at ordinary conditions. Distribution among tanks matters because it shifts axle and tongue reactions. A tank-level change also has dynamic consequences during travel, including slosh and transient loads, even when the total mass remains constant.
Winterization is a system-level design problem: identify every water-holding component, bypass and low point; consult the specific manufacturer instructions; define inspection verification and records. A generic checklist can overlook an icemaker, tankless water-heater path, washer or external shower. Do not prescribe a single antifreeze or chemical routine across all models. Course work emphasizes document traceability and planning, not unapproved chemical operations.
Worked quantitative model · Water-to-payload calculation
A 35-gallon tank of water adds approximately 35×8.34 = 291.9 lb. If a trailer has only 500 lb of remaining payload capacity before filling, the theoretical remainder falls to about 208 lb, assuming no other cargo changes.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A customer reports freeze damage after a prior winterization; the invoice lists “winterized” with no appliance inventory or verification details. Analyze how incomplete system mapping prevents a defensible warranty conclusion.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Trace a mock RV water system from diagrams and flag hidden branch lines, pump bypasses, heaters and low points. Estimate mass effects for alternative fill states. No wastewater handling.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Translate a 22-gal grey tank rise into estimated water weight (22×8.34 ≈ 183.5 lb). Explain why tank-monitor readings alone may not support that precision.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Compare two manufacturer winterization instructions for different water-heater configurations; identify non-transferable steps.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Prepare a model-specific winterization risk register with ≥12 checkpoints, evidence type for each, uncertainty notes, and a post-procedure verification plan tied to actual OEM sources.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 09Liquefied-petroleum gas: thermodynamics, combustion, and risk boundaries
FUEL SYSTEMS • COMBUSTION • SAFETY ENGINEERING • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Explain LP-system energy flow and combustion hazards at a conceptual level.
- Estimate idealized fuel consumption with explicit conversion assumptions.
- Recognize when all practical work must be referred to qualified personnel.
Analytical lecture
An RV LP-gas installation includes a fuel container, vaporization process, pressure regulation, distribution, appliance controls and exhaust pathways. Pressure and phase behavior depend on temperature and mixture; a cylinder is not simply a constant-pressure gas reservoir. A device that burns fuel indoors introduces risks associated with incomplete combustion, inadequate ventilation, faulty venting and carbon monoxide. A general-purpose electronic detector is not a substitute for correct installation and professional evaluation.
Energy analysis can estimate theoretical fuel-use duration from the chemical energy content of fuel divided by burner input, but it does not establish appliance efficiency or safe operating time. For an illustrative 20 lb propane quantity, multiplying by roughly 21,500 Btu/lb yields approximately 430,000 Btu of chemical energy. At an input rating of 24,000 Btu/h, simple arithmetic yields about 17.9 hours of burner-on time; actual performance depends on duty cycle, available vaporization, load, regulation and other consumers.
Students must not manipulate LP regulators, leak-test pressurized fuel systems, defeat flame controls, light burners, adjust combustion or conduct live appliance servicing. In this course, hazard recognition is taught through simulated schematics, incident narratives and inert parts. The right response to suspected leakage, damaged venting or CO symptoms is immediate appropriate safety action and qualified referral under a documented emergency plan.
Worked quantitative model · Idealized input-energy budget
20 lb × 21,500 Btu/lb = 430,000 Btu. 430,000 Btu ÷ 24,000 Btu/h ≈ 17.9 h at continuously rated input. This is a simplified capacity estimate, not a performance or safety certification.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
An occupant reports headache and a CO alarm while a furnace is operating. Build an incident-response communication and referral memo; do not propose a technician experiment involving operation of the appliance.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Compare inert regulators, shutoff images and venting schematics; identify hazardous assumptions in a mock service ticket. Grade risk recognition, not system adjustment.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
If two appliances have rated inputs of 24,000 and 8,000 Btu/h, calculate combined input and the idealized runtime for 430,000 Btu: 32,000 Btu/h, ≈13.4 h. State three reasons this is not a field prediction.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Find current OEM operating limitations for an actual LP appliance; specify its model and the provenance of each instruction.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Compose a combustion hazard briefing that distinguishes CO, oxygen depletion, ventilation and pressure regulation; include an energy calculation and an emergency escalation decision tree.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 10RV thermal systems, refrigeration, and appliance diagnostics
THERMODYNAMICS • HEAT TRANSFER • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Relate thermal loads, electrical input and coefficient of performance.
- Differentiate refrigeration, ventilation and combustion-related failure modes.
- Interpret duty-cycle and temperature trends without unsupported component replacement.
Analytical lecture
Air-conditioning capacity and electrical input are not interchangeable. A rooftop unit may remove heat at a rate expressed in Btu/h while consuming electrical power in watts. The coefficient of performance (COP) is useful when cooling heat transfer and input power use consistent energy/time units. In a simplified vapor-compression cycle, the compressor raises refrigerant pressure, the condenser rejects heat, the expansion device reduces pressure, and the evaporator absorbs indoor heat. Real COP varies with outdoor temperature, airflow, load, condition and equipment design.
Thermal diagnosis requires appropriate boundary conditions. An interior air temperature is not enough to identify low refrigerant, dirty coils, undersized equipment, recirculation, poor electrical supply or excessive envelope heat gain. A proper analytic record includes ambient dry-bulb conditions, return and supply temperatures, fan state, load history and the OEM's approved measurement method. Do not diagnose a sealed refrigeration circuit from a single temperature difference.
RV absorption refrigerators and gas appliances follow fundamentally different energy-conversion and safety processes than compressor-driven refrigeration. A technician must identify the appliance type before applying a mental model. Because these devices may involve LP gas, AC power, sealed refrigerant systems and combustion venting, this course restricts direct student work to diagrams, inert demonstrations and manufacturer-supplied datasets.
Worked quantitative model · Thermal capacity conversion
13,500 Btu/h ÷ 3.412 ≈ 3,956 W of cooling. If illustrative COP = 2.5, required electric input ≈ 1,582 W. The result is a model estimate; actual starting current, fan load, test conditions and equipment data control field decisions.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
An RV AC runs but does not cool adequately on a hot afternoon. The owner suspects refrigerant loss. Given temperature, shading, fan and power data, rank at least four hypotheses and identify noninvasive tests.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Analyze time-series thermal measurements from instructor-provided data; graph indoor temperature response and explain why correlation with compressor cycling does not prove a refrigerant defect.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
An idealized unit removes 9,000 Btu/h while consuming 1,100 W. Cooling rate ≈2,638 W; COP ≈2.40. Explain how ambient temperature and airflow affect interpretation.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Locate OEM performance and installation documents for a specific RV rooftop AC; distinguish performance tables from marketing capacity ratings.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Prepare a comparative engineering report on compressor refrigeration, absorption refrigeration and forced-air heating, with energy-flow diagrams and a climate/load sensitivity analysis.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 11Generator power quality, load allocation, and interconnection safeguards
AC GENERATION • ENERGY CONVERSION • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Develop a generator load schedule including starting and continuous loads.
- Identify the consequences of unsafe source interconnection.
- Apply a fault-tree model to a power-availability complaint.
Analytical lecture
A generator provides electrical power by converting fuel energy into shaft work and then into electrical output; the system involves prime mover control, voltage/frequency regulation, cooling, exhaust and protection. Rated output depends on conditions, and appliance starting currents can exceed steady-state demands. A list of nameplate watts may miss motor starting peaks, battery charging loads, simultaneous-operation patterns and duty cycle.
Power source selection involves a transfer mechanism and the prevention of unintended backfeed. Incorrect interconnection can expose users and utility personnel to severe hazards. This course therefore teaches source-selection diagrams only: no generator starting, fuel handling, exhaust work, source-paralleling, or electrical modification. Evaluate proposed configurations against the specific equipment instructions and appropriate professional review.
Effective fault isolation distinguishes a generator that does not start from one that starts but fails to deliver usable power, and from a case where load-side distribution does not receive power. Each failure class implies different evidence. A good report identifies preconditions, nameplate data, historical patterns, fault indications and whether protective devices have operated; it does not promote indiscriminate resetting.
Worked quantitative model · Load fraction and reserve
A nominal 3,600 W generator supplies simulated concurrent loads of 1,600 W and 900 W: 2,500 W total, about 69.4% of rating. The arithmetic leaves 1,100 W nominal headroom before considering starting surge, altitude, temperature, power factor and equipment restrictions.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
Shore power works, the generator starts, but several AC loads remain inactive. Interpret an instructor-provided distribution one-line diagram and identify what qualified diagnostic data would discriminate transfer-device versus downstream faults.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Design a load-scheduling spreadsheet and annotate a de-energized source-selection diagram. Evaluate a simulated overload event using data only; no live generator operation.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
A 3,600 W rating is compared to a 2,500 W load: 69.4% utilization. Add a 1,500 W motor starting event and explain why transient capability cannot be inferred from continuous rating alone.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Use a genuine generator nameplate/manual to distinguish rated, surge, derated and altitude-related constraints.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Submit a generator systems analysis with capacity scenarios, expected transfer states, hazard register and evidence-based explanation of three alternate causes of power loss.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 12Envelope durability, rainfall exposure, and evidence-based moisture diagnosis
BUILDING PHYSICS • MATERIALS • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Explain moisture ingress as a multi-path transport process.
- Calculate exposure volumes while distinguishing rain contact from leak volume.
- Design a traceable roof and sidewall inspection evidence package.
Analytical lecture
An RV enclosure faces wind-driven rain, capillary action, pressure differences, thermal movement, vapor diffusion and mechanical vibration. A roof stain is not a uniquely identifying signature of the entry point. Water can travel along framing or wiring before appearing at a ceiling seam. Diagnostic reasoning therefore separates entry, transport path, accumulation and visible manifestation. Replacing all sealant without identifying the governing failure mechanism may conceal rather than resolve a problem.
Materials have different thermal expansion, stiffness, adhesion and moisture behavior. Sealant selection depends on compatibility with the actual roof membrane, substrate and manufacturer maintenance instructions. Adhesive bond performance is affected by contamination, surface energy, cure conditions and joint geometry. A generic statement that a product is 'RV safe' cannot substitute for the OEM’s approved material specification.
Quantitative exposure estimates are useful for appreciating scale but should never be mislabeled as actual water intrusion. Rainfall depth multiplied by exposed area gives incident water volume; it does not say what fraction crosses a breach. Photographs must be labeled with location and scale, moisture instrument readings must identify conditions, and inspection reports should state which regions were inaccessible and which conclusions remain provisional.
Worked quantitative model · Incident rainfall volume
For an idealized horizontal 100 ft² roof receiving 0.50 in rain: V = 100 ft² × (0.5/12) ft × 7.4805 gal/ft³ ≈ 31.2 gal incident rain. This is NOT 31.2 gallons leaked into the RV; runoff and infiltration fraction are unknown.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A customer sees dampness at a rear closet only during highway travel after rain. Compare wind-driven ingress, roof penetration failure, sidewall interface and condensation hypotheses.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Inspect calibrated photographs and benign mock joints; assemble a defect matrix documenting orientation, suspected pathway, confidence and OEM document needs. No climbing or roof access.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Double the assumed rainfall depth in the worked example: incident volume doubles to ~62.3 gal. Explain why the relationship between rain depth and interior damage need not be linear.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Compare two actual OEM roof-maintenance bulletins for inspection interval and sealant compatibility; cite model applicability.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Prepare a roof-system forensic memo with a scaled leak-path diagram, compatibility decision chart, evidence quality analysis and staged inspection plan.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 13Trailer dynamics, load distribution, tires, brakes, and weight compliance
STATICS • VEHICLE SYSTEMS • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Perform static load reconciliation using scale-ticket style data.
- Explain why combined axle capacity does not prove per-axle compliance.
- Prioritize critical unknowns in a towing readiness assessment.
Analytical lecture
A trailer’s rated limits operate at several levels: gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), component ratings and tow-vehicle limitations. Weight distribution is not captured by a single 'dry weight' advertisement. Static force equilibrium requires the sum of support reactions to equal total weight, but individual axle and tongue reactions depend on cargo location and geometry. A combined axle scale measurement cannot reveal whether one axle is overloaded.
For a simplified static beam, moments about a support location relate load magnitudes and distances. Cargo moved behind the axle group can reduce tongue reaction while raising or redistributing axle forces; this does not imply safe handling. Dynamic factors such as braking, road input and sway are not resolved by a static worksheet. Document the origin and date of every rating and scale reading before drawing a compliance conclusion.
Brakes, bearings, tires and suspension components are safety critical. Proper inspection requires manufacturer procedures, appropriate lifting and support, calibrated tools, and trained personnel. The course does not authorize lifting a trailer or servicing brakes/bearings. Case studies use photographs, component data and simulated tickets to practice identifying when a vehicle must be removed from service or professionally inspected.
Worked quantitative model · Scale-ticket reconciliation
Illustrative trailer: GVWR 7,600 lb; measured combined axle reaction 6,500 lb; measured tongue reaction 800 lb. Estimated gross trailer weight = 7,300 lb, leaving 300 lb below GVWR. This does NOT prove compliance with any individual GAWR, tire rating, hitch rating or tow-vehicle limit.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A loaded trailer has an acceptable total scale weight but abnormal tire heating on one side. Explain why aggregate GVWR compliance is insufficient and describe qualified next steps.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Interpret synthetic individual-axle and tongue scale tickets; reconcile totals, identify missing ratings and annotate a free-body diagram. No jacking, towing or mechanical work.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Using the illustrative 7,300 lb total and 7,600 lb GVWR, calculate 3.95% nominal remaining GVWR margin. Discuss why a margin near zero must be interpreted cautiously.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Identify vehicle manufacturer labels and OEM documentation needed to verify GAWR, GVWR, tire loading and hitch limitations.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Complete a towing-readiness analysis with rating-source table, payload scenarios, two support-reaction calculations and a risk communication letter.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 14Pre-delivery inspection quality systems and customer-facing evidence
QUALITY ASSURANCE • INSPECTION METHODS • COMMUNICATION • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Design a repeatable inspection protocol with disposition and verification logic.
- Evaluate false positives, false negatives and limits of observational tests.
- Prepare a professional customer briefing and defensible unresolved-item list.
Analytical lecture
Pre-delivery inspection is a quality-assurance process designed to establish the observable condition of an RV at a defined moment, not a promise that every component is defect-free. A useful procedure specifies prerequisites, test method, measurement, acceptance criterion, evidence to retain and disposition when criteria are not met. An unobserved test cannot be reported as 'passed'. Distinguish 'not tested', 'not applicable', 'inconclusive' and 'failed'.
Inspection quality can be assessed with the logic of diagnostic tests. A false negative occurs when the process fails to detect a condition that exists; a false positive occurs when it flags a problem incorrectly. Increasing inspection coverage often improves detection but requires time, skills and access. A worksheet should prioritize life-safety hazards, document component-specific instructions and include reinspection after corrective work. The institution must determine which checks require certified staff.
The final customer document translates technical evidence into an informed decision. It should name confirmed findings, reasons for referral, unresolved risk, test exclusions, recommended next steps and authorization required. Ethical language avoids claims like 'everything tested good' when only a partial systems survey occurred. Customer education must preserve the distinction between normal operation, observed anomaly, and unverified expectation.
Worked quantitative model · Inspection classification
In a simulated set of 100 known inspection cases, an inspection flags 18 of 20 actual defects and flags 8 of 80 acceptable cases. Sensitivity = 18/20 = 90%; specificity = 72/80 = 90%. Explain why simulated performance does not establish actual field accuracy.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
A PDI form lists all items “passed,” yet there is no record of the water system operating and shore power was unavailable. Rewrite the report with valid status language and a customer follow-up plan.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Perform a non-invasive PDI on an inert lab rig or simulated dataset. Peer-review evidence attachments and classify each observation using a standardized disposition code.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
Given 18 true positives, 2 false negatives, 8 false positives, and 72 true negatives, compute sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (18/26 ≈ 69.2%). Interpret the base-rate effect.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Compare a manufacturer PDI checklist with a generic template and justify additional model-specific checks.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Submit a model-specific inspection plan, completed simulated inspection, evidence index, defect-priority log and a two-minute oral customer briefing scored against a communication rubric.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
WEEK 15Integrated diagnostic capstone, oral defense, and technical portfolio
SYNTHESIS • APPLIED EVIDENCE • PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY • 3 h lecture · 2 h supervised lab · 10 h independent study
Measurable learning outcomes
- Integrate seven RV systems in a coherent, evidence-based fault analysis.
- Defend a sequence of safe discriminating tests and evaluate alternative causal models.
- Present a reproducible portfolio with calculations, references, limitations and corrective actions.
Analytical lecture
Advanced technical practice integrates evidence across subsystem boundaries. A low-voltage event may affect a slide controller, water pump, thermostat and power transfer diagnostics; visible correlation across components may point to a shared supply, common return, protective device or operating condition. A capstone should avoid assuming a single root cause merely because the symptoms began together. Each proposed test must specify what distinct results would mean for competing hypotheses.
A strong capstone report is reproducible. Include the complaint history, system architecture, measured and assumed quantities, instrument condition, calculation work, source limitations, fault-tree revision history and final disposition. Distinguish a confirmed root cause from a most-likely explanation when the approved lab cannot reproduce a field failure. Where evidence is insufficient, a qualified referral with a focused test plan is a legitimate and professionally responsible outcome.
The oral defense is not a memory contest. Students must explain why their chosen test came before a different test, quantify the significance of a finding, evaluate safety boundaries, and respond to a challenge involving alternative interpretations. Technical competence includes the willingness to revise a conclusion when new evidence contradicts it.
Worked quantitative model · Cross-system synthesis
An isolated DC trainer reads 12.6 V unloaded and 11.8 V with an 8 A simulated motor load. Apparent series resistance = (12.6–11.8)/8 = 0.10 Ω. If the 12 V pump and control panel share the same return, propose a discriminating voltage-drop test before condemning either load.
Present derivation, units, sensitivity and the limits of every result. Values in illustrative problems are not equipment specifications.
Diagnostic case conference
Simulated RV: the pump stops intermittently when a slide is commanded, the charging system reports normal status, and a customer reports prior rain exposure. Investigate shared ground, protective device, supply sag, harness damage and observational bias using a provided evidence packet.
Discussion protocol: State observed facts; formulate ≥3 competing hypotheses; identify one discriminating test for each; rank severity-first risks; report what cannot be inferred from the evidence.
Controlled laboratory / practicum
Teams defend an instrumented low-voltage diagnostic demonstration on a fused, current-limited trainer. The instructor evaluates safe setup, measurement repeatability, hypothesis testing, interpretation and documentation.
Lab authorization gate: instructor-approved equipment, verified isolation or simulator status, documented limits, and stop-work authority. Work on energized shore power, LP gas, generators, elevated roofs, or unstable trailers is excluded from unsupervised student activity.
Applied problem set
A final answer must present at least one hypothesis disproved by test evidence and one unresolved issue with an ethical customer communication recommendation.
Scholarly and manufacturer-source research
Cite at least four manufacturer/standards-level documents and identify which guidance is model-specific rather than universally applicable.
Identify author or issuing organization, revision/date, model applicability, relevant pages and conflicting assumptions. Explain what a source does not establish.
Independent study schedule · 10 hours
| Work | Hours | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Technical reading and annotation | 3 | Source-annotated reading notes |
| Quantitative exercise and assumptions | 2 | Calculation sheet, units and sensitivity |
| Diagnostic case analysis | 2 | Evidence table and alternatives |
| Technical writing / research memo | 2 | Formal report with sources |
| Lab briefing and reflection | 1 | Safety checklist and corrections |
Graded submission
Submit a capstone technical dossier (2,000–2,500 words plus appendices), complete raw data, model diagrams, three computed analyses, a defensible fault tree, risk disposition, and a ten-minute oral defense.
Rubric (100 points): technical reasoning 30; quantitative accuracy and units 25; evidence quality and source traceability 20; safety/limitations 15; communication and formatting 10. Mandatory critical safety criterion: unsafe procedures or unacknowledged severe hazards require remediation regardless of numeric total.
Oral defense questions
- Which observation most strongly contradicts your preferred hypothesis, and how would you revise your conclusion?
- Which assumption most influences your numerical result, and what additional measurement would reduce uncertainty?
- What is the boundary between classroom analysis and qualified field certification in this case?
Personal study marker only · Not official attendance, grades or college credit
Advanced assessment exemplars · Worked problems for college-level study
Unlike the introductory knowledge checks elsewhere on MRR University, these applied items require quantitative justification, assumptions, and a written defense. Solutions are provided for self-study, not as secure summative examination keys.
A · DC measurement and uncertainty
Problem: An isolated trainer has 12.7 V open-circuit and 11.9 V under 8 A. Calculate apparent series resistance. If the drop measurement itself has ±0.08 V uncertainty, estimate the resulting resistance uncertainty assuming exact current; identify a confounder.
Study solution: R_app = (12.7 − 11.9)/8 = 0.10 Ω. From voltage uncertainty alone, approximate resistance uncertainty is ±0.08/8 = ±0.01 Ω. Actual uncertainty also includes current error, contact and lead resistance, temperature and source dynamics.
Instructor expectation: Show steps, units, caveats, and one competing explanation.
B · Battery planning under poor weather
Problem: Daily AC load is 900 Wh, inverter efficiency 0.88, 12.8 V 200 Ah battery, 80% nominal usable fraction. Ignoring other losses, estimate how many no-charge days the battery sustains the load, and name two reasons the estimate is optimistic.
Study solution: Estimated usable DC energy = 12.8×200×0.80 = 2,048 Wh. AC-deliverable energy = 2,048×0.88 ≈ 1,802 Wh. ≈2.00 days at 900 Wh/day. Inverter standby draw, temperature, battery aging, BMS limit and transient overloads can reduce runtime.
Instructor expectation: Show steps, units, caveats, and one competing explanation.
C · Thermal conversion and system efficiency
Problem: An idealized cooling system transfers 10,200 Btu/h while consuming 1.20 kW. Calculate an approximate COP, then explain why this is not a diagnostic confirmation of refrigerant condition.
Study solution: 10,200 Btu/h ÷ 3.412 ≈ 2,989 W cooling. COP ≈2,989/1,200 = 2.49. COP is conditional on load, ambient state, airflow and measurement accuracy; it does not identify a particular sealed-circuit defect.
Instructor expectation: Show steps, units, caveats, and one competing explanation.
D · Trailer loading and inference limits
Problem: A trailer is rated at GVWR 8,000 lb. Combined axle scale = 6,950 lb and tongue scale = 700 lb. Calculate estimated gross weight and remaining GVWR margin. What cannot be certified?
Study solution: Gross ≈7,650 lb; remaining GVWR ≈350 lb (4.38%). Combined figures do not verify per-axle GAWR, tire limits, hitch/tow-vehicle ratings, scale conditions or safe dynamic handling.
Instructor expectation: Show steps, units, caveats, and one competing explanation.
E · Inspection sensitivity and communication
Problem: A simulated PDI process finds 42 true positives, misses 8 defects, flags 12 nondefects and correctly clears 138 items. Compute sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value; identify a customer-reporting caveat.
Study solution: Sensitivity =42/50=84%; specificity =138/150=92%; positive predictive value =42/54≈77.8%. Results depend on the simulated sample and prevalence; they do not establish accuracy for an actual RV model or guarantee a fully defect-free vehicle.
Instructor expectation: Show steps, units, caveats, and one competing explanation.
Proposed assessment and grading framework
| Assessment | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Analytical problem sets / technical memoranda (12 graded) | 20% | Calculations, uncertainty, fault-tree reasoning and primary-source citations |
| Supervised lab portfolios (15 evidence logs) | 25% | Recorded measurements, diagrams, hypothesis tests, repeatability and safety gates |
| Midterm applied analysis (Weeks 1–7) | 15% | Multi-step technical problems, structured responses and critical hazard analysis |
| Final synthesis examination (Weeks 8–15) | 20% | Integrated systems analysis, quantitative cases and evidence critique |
| PDI and diagnostic capstone + oral defense | 20% | Reproducible technical dossier, seven-system coverage, oral defense |
Proposed performance threshold: at least 75% overall, 70% on each exam, and PASS on every critical safety gate. Analytical grading uses evidence, method, and defensible uncertainty—not memorization alone. These are draft institutional standards, not an authorized grading or credential system.
Final student portfolio checklist
- Customer-stated concerns and work authorization boundaries.
- RV/component identifiers and documentation sources.
- Seven-system PDI record: observed / not tested / unsafe / referred.
- Current-limited DC trainer readings with units and connection context.
- Photo-indexed condition report with explicit uncertainty.
- Supervisor sign-off; customer summary and next-step referral notes.
Written midterm/final exams and faculty keys are held in a separate instructor review packet. The public self-checks above are not certification tests.
Technical vocabulary reference
| Term | Working definition |
|---|---|
| Inspection | An evidence-based observation and limited check against defined criteria. |
| Diagnosis | A reasoned determination of fault cause, supported by appropriate testing. |
| Scope of work | The customer-authorized boundaries of the service. |
| Safety-critical finding | A condition that requires stop-work, isolation or qualified escalation. |
| Evidence | A labeled image, measurement, record, or observed result with context. |
| PDI | Pre-delivery inspection: structured verification of RV readiness and documented exceptions. |
Optional companion: Faith, Truth & Craftsmanship (15 weekly reflections)
Voluntary, original Christian vocational reflections on truthfulness, stewardship, service, responsible work, and accurate interpretation of Scripture. These reflections are noncredit and are not used to evaluate technical ability or academic achievement. They are not affiliated with or endorsed by John MacArthur, Grace Christian University, or other institutions.
- Week 01: Proverbs 11:1 — truthful measurements and honest dealing.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 02: Luke 16:10 — care in small things.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 03: Colossians 3:23 — work wholeheartedly.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 04: Proverbs 18:13 — listen before answering.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 05: Romans 12:10 — honor and care for others.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 06: Proverbs 27:23 — know the condition of what is entrusted to you.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 07: 1 Peter 4:10 — serve others as stewards.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 08: Proverbs 21:5 — diligent planning.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 09: Psalm 82:4 — protect the vulnerable.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 10: Ephesians 4:25 — speak truthfully.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 11: Mark 10:45 — service over status.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 12: Proverbs 12:22 — truthful reports.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 13: Philippians 2:4 — consider another’s safety.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 14: 1 Corinthians 14:40 — order and care.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
- Week 15: 2 Timothy 2:15 — diligence and accurate handling of truth.
What does this passage teach about truthful responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, humility, diligence or mercy? How could those convictions shape the way you write a report, accept correction, or protect a customer? Identify a concrete action and a possible conflict of interest.
NEW · INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING
RV courses for colleges and workforce partners
Explore five proposed workforce training syllabi (96 planned clock hours), learning objectives, supervised practical exercises and college evaluation pathways. All materials are draft and are not accredited or approved for college credit.
Explore the institutional course catalog →MRR University is not affiliated with or endorsed by Grand Rapids Community College.
Current status — development and planning only. The programs, instructional hours, syllabi, instructor forms, written questions and practical rubrics below are draft planning materials, not state-approved programs, accredited education, RVTI coursework, qualifying college credit or a certification examination. MRR does not currently offer tuition enrollment or award credentials. Safety-critical exercises require appropriate supervision and qualified instructors.
RV Owners
Understand how your RV works, identify warning signs, and know when to call a qualified technician.
Take the free starter lesson ↗Aspiring RV Technicians
Explore structured pathways in electrical, plumbing, appliances, roof systems, diagnostics and safety.
Explore the curriculum ↗Working Professionals
Planned advanced education in diagnostic workflows, service documentation, fabrication and operations.
Register your interest ↗MRR UNIVERSITY · COURSE CATALOGCOURSE AREA 01 COURSE AREA 02 COURSE AREA 03 COURSE AREA 04 COURSE AREA 05 COURSE AREA 06 COURSE AREA 07 COURSE AREA 08 COURSE AREA 09 COURSE AREA 10 COURSE AREA 11 COURSE AREA 12 COURSE AREA 13 COURSE AREA 14
Learn every major RV system.
Fourteen proposed subject areas support the detailed course catalog and lesson outlines below. These are planning descriptions, not state-approved courses.
RV Fundamentals
Construction, major systems, inspection routines and service terminology.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →12V DC Electrical
Battery banks, fuses, converters and safe fault isolation.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →120V AC Electrical
Shore power, breakers, GFCIs and safe diagnostic boundaries.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Plumbing & Water Systems
Fresh water, pumps, water heaters, waste tanks and leak diagnosis.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Heating, Ventilation & AC
Furnaces, rooftop air conditioning and ventilation fundamentals.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →RV Refrigeration & Appliances
Refrigerators, controls, operating conditions and service basics.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Roofing & Exterior Sealing
Inspection, moisture intrusion, sealants and exterior assemblies.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Slide-Outs & Awnings
Drive types, maintenance, alignment principles and troubleshooting.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Propane Systems & Safety
Component identification, hazard recognition and qualified-service protocols.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Solar, Batteries & Off-Grid
Charging, inverters, solar controllers and power planning.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Chassis, Bearings & Brakes
Running gear inspections, bearings, brakes and service safety.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Custom Fabrication & 3D Printing
Fitment, materials, non-structural fabrication and design.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →Vintage RV Restoration
Cabinetry, upholstery, pop-ups and repair versus replacement.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →RV Service Business Operations
Estimates, documentation, customer communication and workflow.
Curriculum in planningGet notified about courses →01 / DRAFT ACADEMIC CATALOG
↓ Download course list (CSV)Training programs with a clear course plan.
Four proposed learning pathways organize 14 RV subjects. Listed clock hours are initial curriculum-development estimates, not approved hours or an advertised enrollment schedule.
Owner pathway · MRR-OWN36 proposed clock hours
RV Owner Maintenance Foundations
Learn to recognize problems, document inspections, and make safe decisions about professional repair.
- Delivery model
- Planned hybrid / guided
- Entry expectation
- No prerequisite planned.
Proposed sequence: RV-101 · RV-130 · RV-160 · RV-180
See detailed course outlines ↓Career exploration · MRR-TECH106 proposed clock hours
RV Systems Technician Foundations
Build systems literacy, troubleshooting documentation, and practical observation skills before specialized technician training.
- Delivery model
- Planned supervised hybrid
- Entry expectation
- Foundational safety orientation; other prerequisites under review.
Proposed sequence: RV-101 · RV-110 · RV-120 · RV-130 · RV-140 · RV-150 · RV-170 · RV-180 · RV-200
See detailed course outlines ↓Specialty pathway · MRR-CUST56 proposed clock hours
RV Restoration & Custom Solutions
Plan nonstructural parts, custom interiors, preventive exterior care, and restoration work.
- Delivery model
- Planned workshops / hybrid
- Entry expectation
- Foundational systems knowledge recommended.
Proposed sequence: RV-160 · RV-170 · RV-190 · RV-210 · RV-220
See detailed course outlines ↓Business pathway · MRR-BIZ16 proposed clock hours
RV Service Operations Essentials
Understand service workflows, work orders, estimates, customer authorization, and quality assurance.
- Delivery model
- Planned online / case studies
- Entry expectation
- No prerequisite planned.
Proposed sequence: RV-101 · RV-230
See detailed course outlines ↓| Code | Course | Category | Estimated hours | Outline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RV-101 | RV Fundamentals | Foundations | 8 h | View syllabus |
| RV-110 | 12V DC Electrical | Electrical | 14 h | View syllabus |
| RV-120 | 120V AC Electrical | Electrical | 14 h | View syllabus |
| RV-130 | Plumbing & Water Systems | Water systems | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-140 | Heating, Ventilation & AC | Climate | 14 h | View syllabus |
| RV-150 | RV Refrigeration & Appliances | Appliances | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-160 | Roofing & Exterior Sealing | Exterior | 8 h | View syllabus |
| RV-170 | Slide-Outs & Awnings | Mechanisms | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-180 | Propane Systems & Safety | Safety | 8 h | View syllabus |
| RV-190 | Solar, Batteries & Off-Grid | Electrical | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-200 | Chassis, Bearings & Brakes | Running gear | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-210 | Custom Fabrication & 3D Printing | Fabrication | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-220 | Vintage RV Restoration | Restoration | 12 h | View syllabus |
| RV-230 | RV Service Business Operations | Business | 8 h | View syllabus |
Student information: Program admission requirements, tuition, refund policy, start dates, attendance requirements, facilities, instructor assignments and official program approval are not yet established. No paid enrollment is offered through this page.
02 / DETAILED CURRICULUM
Objectives, lessons, demonstrations & learning outcomes.
Open any syllabus to see its proposed lesson breakdown, estimated clock hours, instructional method, observable outcomes and practical evidence. Course outlines are independently developed MRR planning materials; they are not RVTI material.
14 course outlines
RV-101RV Fundamentals8 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Identify major RV assemblies and their functions
- Document an inspection and separate safety concerns from routine maintenance
Instructor demonstration
Instructor-led RV walkaround and a completed inspection report.
Practical evidence
Identify ten components and complete a visual-only inspection checklist.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RV assemblies, construction types and terminology | Guided concepts | 2 h |
| 2 | Systems map: power, water, propane and body | Demonstration and case review | 2 h |
| 3 | Walkaround inspection and owner handoff | Supervised activity and evidence | 4 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 8 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-11012V DC Electrical14 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Interpret a basic RV DC diagram
- Document safe low-voltage measurements under supervision
Instructor demonstration
Demonstrate meter setup and measure an isolated training board.
Practical evidence
Trace a simulated 12V fault on a low-voltage trainer with instructor oversight.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Voltage, current, polarity and DC distribution | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Battery, fuse, converter and charger identification | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Meter reading and a documented fault-isolation workflow | Supervised activity and evidence | 7 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 14 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-120120V AC Electrical14 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Explain shore-power safety boundaries
- Identify when work requires a qualified electrician
Instructor demonstration
Use a de-energized demonstration panel to explain major AC components.
Practical evidence
Complete a no-live-work AC hazard recognition exercise.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shore power, outlets, breakers and GFCI identification | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Grounding concepts and hazard recognition | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | De-energized inspection and escalation decisions | Supervised activity and evidence | 7 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 14 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-130Plumbing & Water Systems12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Identify RV fresh and waste systems
- Develop a non-invasive troubleshooting plan
Instructor demonstration
Trace water flow through an isolated training rig.
Practical evidence
Document a simulated water leak and suggest safe next checks.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fresh-water routing, pump and pressure components | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Water heaters and winterization basics | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Leak symptom mapping and service documentation | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-140Heating, Ventilation & AC14 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Distinguish ventilation, electrical and combustion-related hazards
- Organize HVAC symptom observations
Instructor demonstration
Observe an instructor-controlled HVAC training unit.
Practical evidence
Prepare a diagnostic intake report from a simulated HVAC service call.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Furnace and rooftop air-conditioner component overview | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Airflow, thermostat and control fundamentals | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Symptom triage and safe referral thresholds | Supervised activity and evidence | 7 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 14 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-150RV Refrigeration & Appliances12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Explain common RV refrigeration types
- Write an appliance symptom and maintenance record
Instructor demonstration
Compare appliance labels, airflow paths and sample fault reports.
Practical evidence
Identify appliance type and complete a visual-condition report.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Absorption versus compressor refrigeration | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Operating conditions and airflow principles | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Owner-level checks and qualified-service referrals | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-160Roofing & Exterior Sealing8 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Identify typical roof failure indicators
- Prepare a photo-backed inspection report
Instructor demonstration
Inspect sample membrane and sealant condition boards.
Practical evidence
Record mock roof defects using a standardized photo checklist.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Common roof membranes and sealant categories | Guided concepts | 2 h |
| 2 | Visual moisture intrusion assessment | Demonstration and case review | 2 h |
| 3 | Inspection reporting and preventive-care schedule | Supervised activity and evidence | 4 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 8 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-170Slide-Outs & Awnings12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Recognize major mechanism types
- Create a safe symptom log and inspect accessible components
Instructor demonstration
Review a stationary mechanism model and diagram its components.
Practical evidence
Assess a de-energized mock-up for observable maintenance concerns.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Common slide drive and awning mechanisms | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Mechanical pinch points and lockout principles | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Inspection notes and service referral criteria | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-180Propane Systems & Safety8 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Recognize propane hazards and immediate response requirements
- Know when to stop and refer to a qualified professional
Instructor demonstration
Instructor demonstrates hazard recognition using non-pressurized props.
Practical evidence
Complete a scenario-based stop-work and emergency-response evaluation.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Containers, regulators and appliance identification | Guided concepts | 2 h |
| 2 | Leak alarms, ventilation and emergency response | Demonstration and case review | 2 h |
| 3 | Scope of work, documentation and licensed-service escalation | Supervised activity and evidence | 4 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 8 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-190Solar, Batteries & Off-Grid12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Sketch a high-level off-grid power architecture
- Estimate an energy budget using provided specifications
Instructor demonstration
Review a demonstration solar charging schematic without live high-energy work.
Practical evidence
Create a basic load worksheet and identify isolation points on a diagram.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Solar panels, charge controllers and batteries | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Loads, charging and energy-budget fundamentals | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Battery chemistry hazards and system documentation | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-200Chassis, Bearings & Brakes12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Recognize visible running-gear concerns
- Document defects without performing unsafe roadside service
Instructor demonstration
Identify components on a stationary training assembly.
Practical evidence
Complete an inspection report for simulated bearing/brake concerns.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Axle, wheel, tire and brake identification | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Inspection indicators and safe support considerations | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Inspection records, torque-spec documentation and referrals | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-210Custom Fabrication & 3D Printing12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Recognize when a component is safety-critical or structural
- Create a nonstructural replacement-part specification
Instructor demonstration
Measure and prototype a non-load-bearing cabinet clip.
Practical evidence
Document dimensions, material choice and limitations for a sample part.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Material and load-path recognition | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Measurements, CAD/fitment and prototype planning | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Nonstructural component evaluation and quality checks | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-220Vintage RV Restoration12 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Prepare a restoration condition map
- Develop a prioritized work scope
Instructor demonstration
Review a pop-up camper restoration case study and material samples.
Practical evidence
Produce a written restoration scope for a mock client.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vintage construction, moisture damage and condition mapping | Guided concepts | 3 h |
| 2 | Cabinetry, upholstery and soft-goods planning | Demonstration and case review | 4 h |
| 3 | Scope estimates and preservation versus replacement | Supervised activity and evidence | 5 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 12 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
RV-230RV Service Business Operations8 h · draft syllabus
Learning outcomes
- Build a complete service intake document
- Apply clear estimate and authorization workflows
Instructor demonstration
Instructor models estimate-to-invoice service workflow.
Practical evidence
Complete a mock estimate and customer handoff checklist.
| Lesson | Subject | Method | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Service intake, estimates and customer consent | Guided concepts | 2 h |
| 2 | Work orders, repair photos and communication | Demonstration and case review | 2 h |
| 3 | Quality checks, warranty notes and record practices | Supervised activity and evidence | 4 h |
| Total planned clock hours | 8 h | ||
Hours are planning estimates, not approved training hours, RVTI credits or college credit. Written quizzes and practical evaluations on this page are demonstrations only.
03 / INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATIONS & RECORDSInstructor record Credential evidence Instruction quality
Document the people qualified to teach.
Each course needs an assigned instructor whose relevant education or field experience and applicable licenses/certifications can be evaluated. No named faculty are listed or claimed as hired. The template below can be completed before formal regulatory review.
Professional background
Full name, assigned subject, work history, teaching experience, relevant education and resume/CV reference.
Verify qualifications
Certification name, issuing organization, credential validity, applicable licensing requirements and verification date.
Maintain performance records
Course assignment, assessor eligibility, training review dates and skill-assessment signoff.
Privacy safeguard: The worksheet below runs only in this browser tab. It does not upload or permanently save records and has no administrator login. For real instructor resumes, personal documents or protected credentials, use a secure, access-controlled administrative system—not the public website. Do not enter confidential identifying numbers here.
Open instructor qualification worksheet (local draft only)
| Name | Subject | Evidence review | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| No instructor records entered. No instructors are verified or assigned. | |||
Entries exist only in memory and disappear when this page closes or reloads. Export a draft before leaving.
04 / WRITTEN KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENTS
Introductory RV knowledge checks.
These four short quizzes are introductory review only. For the proposed college-sophomore-level MRR-RV205 course, use the analytical weekly modules and applied assessment exemplars above; these basic checks are not a substitute for the advanced midterm or final.
Practice scores are not saved to student records, do not count as RVTI exams and do not create a certificate or professional license. You may retake exams for study.
05 / PRACTICAL SKILLS ASSESSMENT
Hands-on evaluation rubrics.
Review evidence-based checklists for supervised RV training activities. Safety-critical criteria are explicitly marked. Use a qualified assessor and an appropriate controlled environment. A completed worksheet is not an industry certification.
| Criterion | Observed result |
|---|
CAREER EDUCATION
Credentials that mean something.
We intend to explore recognized industry training pathways and applicable school licensing before offering paid vocational programs. A certificate of participation is not the same as an industry certification, state authorization, or institutional accreditation.
Foundational learning
Free introductory materials and general education, clearly distinguished from paid training.
Practice assessments — Available here
Try written knowledge checks and review supervised practical rubrics below. Scores are educational only; no credits, awards or qualifications are issued.
Industry-recognized pathways — Under review
Any future RVTI-related credentials would be offered only with the requisite authorization and approvals.
HELP SHAPE MRR UNIVERSITY
Interested in learning?
Tell us which subjects you want to study. Your message goes to Michigan RV Repair; it does not create an account, reserve a seat, or charge tuition.
Questions?
service@michigan-rv-repair.com
616-290-3592
Form delivery uses FormSubmit and requires activation/testing on the receiving email account before publishing.
Academic development · New semester course
Advanced RV Systems Analysis & Diagnostic Quality Assurance
A 15-week, proposed 5-credit second-year technical course: 75 planned contact hours, 150 independent-study hours, 15 advanced problem-and-case units, supervised lab plans, and an integrated diagnostic capstone. Not accredited, state-approved, RVTI-authorized, or GRCC credit-bearing.
Explore the semester course →