“That’s nice - let me just have a chat with our Civcom chair…oh and as OC I want to see driving license, DVLA printout oh & a check ride first as the Sqn CO is the authorising person as per HQ - if you want my bus Wg SME you will jump through our hoops 
”
4 Likes
Easy answer to that.
No. Its my Sqns and youre (whq etc) a useless bunch of ingrates who couldnt be trusted with a spork let alone my radio set et al.
Again.
Lol.
Its my sqns bus, not a shared resource.
You want it. You rent it, from us.
And a copy of the insurance that you are taking out for it, because you are not authorised via our policy.
3 Likes
Anyway, we’re getting a little carried away again.
Overall though, a section on SMS for recording all SOV related stuff would be good. Someone should suggest it formally - no point me doing it, because I don’t have one.
At which stage I contact the the police and report it stolen (TWOC) and being driven without insurance. See you in court
1 Like
Wait for the new WSO role (IC Logistics) to be announced 
NOBODY gets to borrow my spork
2 Likes
And what is in the Squadron non-public stores inventory, off limits to anybody outside the Squadron, unless a suitable fee for hire is agreed and contracted for including return, damage and loss. Got very deep pockets have you?
Can we try and keep remotely to the topic and not worrying about made up or fictional rules please? We have enough trouble with real ones!
5 Likes
This bit I agree with. If done in collusion with the traffic commissioner, it could form part of the legal requirement to store maintenance records, and provide the unit with an online calendar system and will help prove you have a planned maintenance and inspection cycle. If kept up to date, that is.
This is where I start to go off the idea. Any SOV SMS tabs should be for the convenience of the unit staff only. The ACTO clearly states that requirements for moving cadets in SOVs, that the Civ Chair, through the OC are wholly responsible for ensuring the SOV meets with our requirements. There should be no need for anyone outside of the unit to be creating reports, inspecting paperwork, or otherwise getting involved.
3 Likes
Cough South West Region Cough
2 Likes
I’ve removed the latest “down the rabbit hole” hypothetical hyperbole bearing no resemblance to the actual known policy.
You were all aaked nicely not to:
But it was funny!
Get it right?
1 - So, updating a 2 yr old IBN about HQAC no longer issuing Permit 19s is “right”? I saw it and thought “I already know HQAC no longer do this (and surely it’s way more than 2 years ago?) and as I have already started the paperwork to get it done myself this doesn’t apply to me”. Surely, if new rules are being brought in which aren’t pertinent to the document title then a new IBN should have been produced. Or was someone trying to sneak the new rules in under a false title?
2 - ACTO 150 still says “a Permit 19 – obtainable by the Sqn Cdr on submission of an Accts F82 to HQ RAFAC " - despite having been updated subsequent to the original date of the IBN.
3 - IBN 045 - " therefore Sqns must have a Section 19 Permit for all SOVs”
“An SOV cannot be operated without a Section 19 Permit”
cf “The guidelines for the safety checks are to be followed regardless whether a Section 19 Permit is in place.”
cf “must have a Section 19 Permit (GOV.UK Section 19 Permits guidance) for all SOVs with 9 or more passenger seats”.
4 - What is the situation if a SOV has fewer than 10 seats. Permit 19s are only issued for vehicles with 9 or more passenger seats?
5 - What is the situation regarding SOVs with more than 16 passenger seats ie classed as a “large bus”? From the Traffic Commissioners’ Permit 19 Application Form - “Large bus permits can only be issued to a body which helps and coordinates the activities of not-for profit bodies concerned with: a) education; (b) religion; (c) social welfare; or
(d) other activities of benefit to the community – that is a local authority or an “umbrella organisation” for voluntary groups.”
2 Likes
Yes. Get it right. Roll back the changes that effectively stopped use of SOVs. I would call that progress and a positive step.
3 Likes
Thank you for tagging me in this, it is something we previously discussed but had held off whilst policy was being reviewed and as we work towards a release of units. I’ll add it to my to do list to pick up with the team and the policy makers to see what we might be able to develop as a work package that supports this.
13 Likes
… And this is why we need Volunteer input!
An admin fix to help out at squadron level.
3 Likes
I do often think that the people on this forum are their own worst enemies. You’ve just suggested a new SMS admin process requiring Sqns/WHQs/RHQs to get involved in SOVs, which is ultimately going to land on the OC Sqns to-do list.
SOVs are a committee matter, as suggested by the IBN, HQ RAFAC take no responsibility for them, so leave it out of SMS/Units. If committees need support in going digital for various aspects of their role, then I suggest a separate web app and database for them is created (not tagged onto SMS DB @Ben_Wakefield), and any oversight should be limited to Wg/Rgn Ctte. Otherwise, once again we blur the lines about where CoC responsibilities ends and where Civ Com starts. If an RC wants to know this information they can ask their Rgn Chair.
5 Likes
The committee has access to SMS.
2 Likes