From 20 Mar - effectively the same thing.
c260 ATC bids for a pot of £360K currently with HM Treasury for consideration.
I fear I already know the answer but here goes… Has anyone heard any updates in regards to LIBOR? I’m sure it must have been raised at some point during last week’s conference…
1 Like
Update from Convention from C&L
The LIBOR fund bids requested last year were all past to the Government and were accepted. The bids were heavily oversubscribed, but we have been promised that funds will be allocated against these bids. No date for this was available as it is outside the control of HQAC.
1 Like
wildly off topic, but reading the update offered by themajor
with regards the comments on use of SOVs
what other assurance can be offered??
an MOT indicates a vehicle is Road Worthy - what other tests or hoops cans their be to ensure this remains the case save for a MOT more frequently than annually?
What is it that MT Sections do (or indeed other operators) that is above and beyond a MOT to keep “legal”?
an MOT is only an indication that it’s roadworthy at the time it’s tested.
MT sections will check the vehicles much more often than once a year. In the MT orders for my local station, you are supposed to check that all the lights work before you take it away and what not. So at a minimum I would guess that.
Lightly loaded vehicles - easy operating conditions Frequency 13 to 6 weeks
Carrying out your own inspections and maintenance
If you carry out your own safety inspections and maintenance, you must keep records that include:
•vehicle details
•a list of all items to be inspected
•when and by whom the inspection is carried out
•the result of the inspection
•details of any work carried out
•a declaration that any defects have been properly fixed
Walkaround checks
You must make sure your drivers carry out a ‘walkaround check’ before driving a vehicle for the first time each day.
This is because HQAC have employed the services of an WO MT for advice and guidance. I can see HQAC having all Sqns register as “Operators” to ensure that all SOV are “safe”. Forge hammer to crack a nut because HQAC got a bit twitchy over Permit 19 exemptions even though SOV are owned by charities they have no control over them. Subs to Wing and Beyond
i understand a “first parade” check - but that is only what the “joe public” can check - fluid levels, tyre pressures and lights…that doesn’t prove brake condition, wheel bearings, suspension items etc.
if it good enough for everyone else to live with a MOT and if need be a “first parade” walk around check - what else can be expected?
Tango_foxtrot indicates “as a minimum” I struggle to see what can be achieved which is more than that yet less than an MOT while being as efficient.
based on the_silverbacks comments if doing that list yourself is it not easier to just get another MOT done? rather than do it yourself once proven you are suitably qualified to make an inspection?
Maintenance is different.
this doesn’t prove it is road worthy or increase its chances it could be argued increases longevity of the vehicles service life not necessarily keep it road worthy (an change of oil and filters change is a typical service job list, but doesn’t prove or change roadworthy condition)
but the 6 to 13 week checks are done by a qualified fitter in a garage. This is normally along the lines of an MOT.
This is for commercial vehicles that will normally be on the road all day like buses. they can use yo their service interval in a month. A coach can easily do a few 1000s miles an a few days.
I can see this making SOVs uneconomical.
Sorry for thread creep
thanks for the expanded answer…
i have to agree if this is forced upon us SOVs will become a money pit.
Question - how do other Permit 19 charity operators cope?
Thank you kindly good sir.
A quick google gave this information:
Edited to add: And This:
Skimming the last guide, it does have scope to choose our own safety inspection periods - lets hope the MT WO looks at the issue from a self funded, volunteer run Sqn perspective, rather than an “when I was MTO at RAF somewhere, we did this…” perspective.
You can bet your bottom dollar it will be approached from the latter…
1 Like
Having read around the submit area it would seem the onus is on the Permit holder rather than the Permit Issuer to ensure that which is listed at Section 4 of the Section 19 + 22 Gov docs is adhered to so Sqn’s (as Permit Holders) are I believe already liable rather than HQAC if it issue arises. I’m sure it would feed back up the chain however.
The application of Permit 19 for RAFAC business is currently being reviewed as part of the engagement, the question in question is whether cadets in transit constitutes Hire or Reward or not. Previously ACTO151 required all SOV’s to have Permit 19’s to be in place as it was believed that this was the case. Section 3.1 Para 2 would seem to support that view but there is use of the word “may” which has resulted in consultation with the lawyers for a final definition.
Perhaps one solution would be to have all Sqns apply direct to the traffic commissioner for their Permit 19’s (if deemed that our vehicles should have them which I believe they should) as that might well remove HQAC from accountability on an issuing basis, (they could cease to be a [designated body])(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/section-19-and-22-permits-not-for-profit-passenger-transport/section-19-and-22-permits-not-for-profit-passenger-transport#annex-1---designated-bodies) but ultimately it would reflect on the organisation if something went wrong.
I’ve never operated a preventative maintenance schedule as such, only completed daily checks, combined service intervals with MoTs and addressed faults as they have occurred/been spotted through the former checks. This seemed best practice considering we self fund for these vehicles. I’d hope a measured approach is taken as SOV’s are integral in the delivery of the cadet experience, now even more so as the Flying/Gliding offer contracts to fewer locations, that are further apart.
I have a thread open with said WO MT on this specific issue and I’m happy to convey any thoughts direct. Effectively the solution needs to be minimum cost and minimum admin in order for maximum adherence.
Apologies for continuing thread drift - I’ll open a new one.
Anyone heard anything about these grants? It’s been over a year now!
It really is a joke… we were rushed to put our bids in and have had to wait so long for a result (either way). We have put off applying to other sources for our project so as to avoid the chance of duplicate funding. I think I’m actually at the point of writting this off.
1 Like
“The new cadet units, established under Cadet Expansion Programme, are backed by £50 million funding from LIBOR funds, which pays for set up costs, cadets uniforms, equipment and training”.
From the report recently published on the positive effects of cadet forces. At least someone is getting some LIBOR funding…
Has anyone had a further update on whether we will actually see any money from these grants? Think I may look for funding elsewhere…
Last i was told was no news. That was 6months ago.
I’ve already considered it dead.
Lottery is good for money. Easy as pie also.
Or the stock market…