I’m glad you’re not doing it with cadets in your work fleet. HQAC would have a merry fit! 
4 Likes
I wonder if the scouts have to do the same now as well.
It needs someone, somewhere, to come up with a pragmatic solution that will work for voluntary organisation. Sqns clearly do not knock up hundreds of miles a day (often, not even in a month), so it is a huge sledgehammer being used to crack a peanut!
Perhaps a guidance document for minimum “service / checking” period (6 months) & / or mileage would be much more appropriate. Having dumped the IBN on everyone, I don’t see HQ RAFAC running with this.
HQAC have for once actually done a half decent job with this. They have cut and paste the guidance and signposted you to the document needed and left it alone. We all know what happens when they meddle with requirements so I’m grateful of that at least.
To determine how often the vehicle needs its inspection should be discussed with a professional. This means sitting down with a garage who regularly deal with PCVs and more specifically minibuses. As a written agreement it should be decided how often it’s brought in based on its age, type of use and mileage. This will I can almost guarantee be within the timescale set out in that document and not every 6 months plus.
It doesn’t matter if you are the scouts, the cadets, rotary club or a local football team. the guidance is for anyone running a PCV under a section 19 or 22 permit. It’s always been there, it’s just finally HQAC have decided to highlight it to people.
This increased responsibility is hardly breaking the bank. Set your inspection intervals at 13 weeks. One MOT at week one, one service at week 27 and two inspections at week 14 and week 39 and you are covered. Grand total around £200 above your yearly MOT and Service.
Even with an old vehicle, if you can prove how little it’s used (receipts, logs etc) no one is going to bat an eyelid that you set your intervals at 13 weeks, especially if you keep the maintenance up when it appears, not just when it goes for an inspection. If at every inspection it turns up with an issue (even a blown bulb) you will have to decrease the time between intervals as it is not being looked after correctly.
I’ve been bleating on about this to people for years. I’ve sat at an enquiry in front of the traffic commissioner before. It’s not an experience I ever want again.
If something happened and a civil suit was brought about because of something involving your minibus. It wouldn’t be the ATC lawyers and regional commandant sitting in court. It would either be the CWC or the Sqn Oc (or even both) as the holders and managers who own and operate a PCV.
One could argue that a template safety management system could have been produced (in consultation with the traffic commissioner and the DfT) by the person paid to be a MT SME, which could have been then approved by MOD legal.
By now we could have template safety inspection logs, fault logs, servicing logs, areas on sharepoint to store our SOV records - maybe even create an editable electronic form for running logs, fault logs, accident forms, drivers hours logs, all available online, ready to fill on via phone/tablet or print off if needed.
All of it could have been designed by our SME to be compliant with the law/DVSA requirements, with just the service contracts to be sorted out locally.
Instead, we have placed the responsibility on Civ Com Chairs (who may have never been involved with this before), and OCs, who have always had more work than time to do it.
But its OK, cos the MT SME has issued a poster about driving into low lying sun…
5 Likes
They could have, but unfortunately as it currently stands. They neither own, manage or operate any of the vehicles and have no power over the CWCs to actually make them use any system they put in place.
They could enforce that no squadrons can use an SOV without the system being used. But then that is a post for Aries to argue how murky the waters are by trying to enforce rules over a committee on how an asset owned by the squadron is managed centrally.
I offered to my wing commander 2 years ago to actually help out squadrons put in place robust systems for running the busses. It fell on fully deaf ears. Any time I’ve used a squadrons bus and found a problem, it’s normally a “yeah yeah I know (but don’t care)”, or a “someone else deals with it I’ll tell them (and don’t)”.
Don’t get me started on our supposed SME, I don’t know the new one, but if they have had zero time outside of the forces dealing with running permit 19 vehicles or commercial vehicles then they are not an SME outside of white fleet and Phoenix vehicles.
1 Like
Rather than enforcing it, each P19 holder could have been offered the option of adopting a pre-produced, “Gold Standard”, MOD legal checked system, which would ensure the road worthiness of vehicles operated under those particular users.
Given that transport is a high RTL activity, not to mention the reputational risk should we have a fatal accident, it blows my mind that HQAC is happy for each and every Sqn to create their own with no additional guidance or quality assurance system.
2 Likes
Actually, the more I think of it, the more ridiculous it seems.
We can’t pay for one cadet to go flying with a CAA approved flying instructor, because someone at HQAC doesn’t have oversight of their airworthiness, and yet they are happy to put roadworthiness in the hands of Chairman Bob, who might only be in the role because Bob Jnr is a cadet, despite the fact a SOV crash could result in many more fatalities than a light aircraft crash?
Crazy.
8 Likes
Talking of Chairman Bob, he doesn’t have a driving licence and only uses his bicycle to get around. But don’t worry it’s fine because he is deemed competent in the Corps eyes.
7 Likes
Actually it’s worse than that.
Chairman Bob 15 years ago was another charity trustee responsible for among other things a local youth groups minibus. He doesnt have a drivers licence, has never driven but that previous charity had an accident due falty breaks and killed 3 kids.
He wasnt the driver, he wasnt the mechanic, he wasnt a signatory to the vehicle but as a trustee had to deal with the insurance after.
Nonthing would show on a DBS check as he wasnt charged.
His experience is vast. Yet useless.
But he is now accountable.
1 Like
@themajor Have the civ com reached any conclusions yet?
The IBN has just been updated, which jogged my memory!
Has taken aback seat with Covid, and putting my chair though for a commission.
Will nudge
1 Like
Fair enough!
Knew they would commission anything these days.
6 Likes
What was the update?
It Clarifies that the Civ Com are wholly responsible for SOVs, with assurance by Sqn OC.
2 Likes