The same MT Warrant Officer that said you couldn’t go to the supermarket for supplies for your camp because that’s not an authorised use, or stop at a Service Station for lunch because it’s only for use to transport from A to B as listed on the paperwork.
Just another example of HQAC paid staff not living in the real world.
Sounds like madness unless you drive professionally and what you do outside work surely doesn’t count to statutory driving hours.
So someone feels hungry, loses concentration with a lowering blood sugar and has an RTC, the driver loses out both ways. Didn’t stop because they weren’t authorised and responsible for an RTC because they were hungry.
Some people need dragging and kicking into life outside the wire
It is in acp300
Its not about work / non work, it is about fatigue and tiredness. Equallyvsoneone could do a strenous non driving job then drive for cadets whilst tired and fatigued, then have an accident.
Its is not a 1 cap fits all, and not all the policy is sensible either. For e g stopping for lunch on a service station so driver gets a rest is actually sensible. But why sensible get in the way of bad policy 
It’s a case of bringing in the wrong person for the job. The idea was to get someone to look at the MT side to make sure things were covered.
The result was someone who had no experience of civilian driver or fleet management so couldn’t apply the legislation to our weird aspect of the RAF as the safeguards they normally relied on don’t exist.
As with much of policy when we’re beholden to what the MOD or RAF say, it’s not written for our use case, but instead of getting inclusions or exemptions we just bend ourselves to fit in a different shaped hole, because those in charge of applying those policies don’t understand the world outside the wire.
They also conveniently forget or ignore (or are somehow ignorant to) how certain aspects of policy are bent, ignored, or flouted. How many SP have you seen with green or white fleet in a services Maccies or a supermarket? Was that on their works ticket? If policy genuinely says no, why aren’t they held to that? Or are we simply, once again, being held to an overzealous interpretation?