It would seem so, with a fresh reminder of that licencing/servicing requirements etc.
I note the notice in the “Licence acquired after 1 Jan 97” doesn’t reference vehicles that are adapted for reduced mobility which can be up to 4.25 tonnes and still driven on a B cat licence - ah la Minibus Lite which falls squarely in this category and is a vehicle that I know many Sqns operate.
I would be concerned that Sqns operating a Minibus Lite on a B Licence could be inadvertently breaking the law. The payload of one of those buses is 385KG. If you choose their 17 seat bus, then that only gives you about 22.5KG per person, including the driver, which isn’t a lot.
If you fill every seat with average weight 13 yeard olds, and a 70KG driver, then the bus will be nearly half a ton overweight. And that is without any luggage…
IMHO, these buses are only suited to operators moving young children about (primary schools and the like), not organisations like ours.
delegated it down?
something a sector commander/WSO could check as part of a quarterly visit?
(although i would have thought things like MOT, Tax and servicing history would be routinely checked by the CoC on an AFI or similiar check anyway…?)
No no no no
I’ve gone a bit postal about this. This should be part of a WSO’s normal checks, if anything. Do not make me do it on one night again, AFIs currently are terrible
well if this is the case then compliance is already being checked…
based on the link provided
within regulations and that we can provide necessary evidence. Currently this evidence is in question as we are unable, as an organisation, to guarantee that we have the suitable records available for inspection/audit.
does this imply WSO checks cannot be trusted?
and if so - how does HQAC intended to check? scanned documents??
if a P19 is valid for 5 years surely HQAC will only be checking every 5 years (given cries of lack of resource will they really set themselves up for annual checks?) so for the interim years will MOT and Tax be checked?
I would have thought that it meant that there was no Corps wide policy in place to ensure that a) Servicing et al takes place, and b) squadrons can prove it when required.
WSOs may well be doing checking these things, but casting an eye over the MOT, receipts for oil changes, etc isn’t the same as formally recording dates, garages, servicing levels, defects, etc.
what is the difference?
ok so i know one is formal full recording the other a cursory glance, but it adds time, effort and paperwork for the volunteer.
the WSO checks and ticks a box “all in order” - there is little if any benefit in recording the dates, receipt numbers and the like - this is already recorded on a Squadron record somewhere, possibly a second copy for the treasurer to pay the bills…if all HQAC want to know is “all in order” what does copy down dates offer? more data to be filed, updated (and potentially lost)
I think what HQAC are getting at, is that there is no standard way of managing roadworthiness.
Sqn A, with 40 grand in the bank, might take their nearly new transit to a Ford main dealer, and in return for paying a premium, get an itemised job sheet back, showing how much coolant was added, how much the engine oil has degraded, tyre pressures and condition etc.
Sqn B, with 4 grand in the bank, might take their 10 year old, high milage transit bus to ‘Bodgit and scarper’, a back street garage that only accepts cash, and get a receipt that simply says “service”.
Both ways are currently acceptable, and would satisfy the WSO tick box method. I’m guessing that HQAC, as the issuer of the P19, is nervous that, in the event of an accident or audit, Sqn B will not be able to prove that it’s vehicle was roadworthy. And, as we’ve learnt from the Gliding debacle, if you can’t prove the vehicle is roadworthy, then it is, by default, unroadworthy.
I’m sure it will end up with more paperwork than now. It will probably end up costing squadrons more as well. And I’m guessing that the net result won’t be a minibus fleet that is much safer than now - however, it will probably reduce the risk of a successful legal action against the RAFAC in the event of a serious accident involving cadets.
What is CI A turns up and owns a minibus? Would HQAC stick their nose in then? No they would t the same as if CI B turned up with a people carrier or CI C turned up with a car.
Make roadworthiness the drivers or the OC’s responsibility and be done with.
But then you’re back to the " do we need a permit 19 to transport cadets in a minibus" question…
If the answer is yes, will that CI be breaking the law by driving cadets around in his own, private, minibus?
A very good point - I know MT have been subjected to slightly twitchy traffic officers and weigh bridges recently which has sharpened their attention on the matter.
Depending on the number of SOV’s out there - it wouldn’t take too long to run it through the relevant websites to check MOT/Tax and Insurance.
There is an app called Vehicle Smart, available on Google play (dunno about Apple thingimajigs), that will show you if a vehicle is taxed and MOTd.
Insurance is slightly trickier - as an organisation, we specify a minimum standard, that is higher than the legal minimum. There would need to be a way to ensure that we are compliant, rather than just ensuring that a policy is in place.
Any vehicle is only ‘roadworthy’ the day it is serviced same as an MoT. Main dealers hmmm, friend recently to delivery of his new LR Evoke, no coolant in the system and number plates different front and back and not the same as the registration documents.
The people who would define ‘unroadworthy’ are VOSA or the police, either as a random check o following an incident. Just because a vehicle is nearly new, dooes not mean that its roadworthy and in any incident the biggest nut is behind the wheel.
Unless you have a serious smash and the Rats come out most Police wouldn’t have a clue and would have even less interest.
I get that, I really do. Like I said, in reality, it probably won’t increase safety in the long run, but let’s imagine your SOV has been involved in a fatal accident, and lack of roadworthiness was suspected to be a major factor.
You’re in court, charged with an offence. Which do you think would be the more robust defence?
A) “I paid the main dealer/reputable garage to ensure it was roadworthy and here is the evidence to prove that it was serviced on a regular basis, and here is an itemised schedule of what was checked, and what was replaced”
B) “Bodgit and Co. Told me it had been looked at, but all I’ve got is his word, and this scrap of paper that says it’s been serviced…”
I know which scenario I would prefer.
This thread has made me very aware that Roadworthiness, much like airworthiness, is not just about ensuring your SOV complies with the legal minimum. It’s about proving you did you best to ensure that every time a cadet climbs in it, they will climb out safely at the end of the journey.
I get what is being said and the message
But at what stage does it stop?
Those without SOVs – ie using private vehicles that is a simply self-declaration that a CFAV complies. What makes a SOV different to a private vehicle? Until recently HQAC had no interest in a SOVs history.
Will this approach now bring into the spotlight private vehicles?
Although I appreciate it looks better for a main dealer to service a vehicle, will Wings or HQAC be insisting Units with SOVs only use them??
I can’t see it happening. And if it does it may well end up with a reduced Cadet experience as unit funds don’t stretch far enough for the extra expense/hassle or the money is pinched from elsewhere (replacement AT budget/Stationary budget/subsidising the annual dinner etc)
If it were to happen there would be calls for HQAC to negotiate deals with main dealers given the increased business they’ll now see, a quick solution would be a “voucher” which is presented (much like the pilots medical prior to flying solo) where lets say £40 is paid by HQAC towards work being conducted.
Now we all know this won’t happen, we’ve been forced into a digital way of working yet HQAC have done nothing about providing discounts for PCs, laptops, projectors or any kind of discounts via a preferred high street or online supplier.
Further to this – irrespective of service history, at which point does a SOV become “past its best” – if the attitude is “only the best service history is good enough” will this force units with a 12 year old 120k miler SOV to chop it in because only PCVs which are less than 6 years old and under 60k miles are considered “safe enough” for HQAC to issue P19s?
Much of this strikes at the very heart of the problem.
When it comes to vehicles be they SOVs which become impractical due to HQACs meddling, or, worse still using your own vehicle to transport cadets becomes more trouble than it’s worth, then the paper shufflers, will find themselves with less paper to shuffle as squadrons just don’t do things, unless the mum and dad taxis get more use.
HQAC have interfered and insisted on doing it like this and that for no reason than HQAC say so and not contributed or given us low cost solutions to acquire things.
We have done things for decades (and by and large things have been OK), and not had the amount of tinkering we have had in the last decade, none of which has been to the benefit of the staff or cadets.
I’m guessing that it’s the operation under a P19?
I think an edict specifying that all services should be carried out by a main dealer would be a step too far. But, I think that it is probably that units that operate will be asked to create a servicing schedule for their vehicles, which will require signing off by a qualified mechanic, with records retained for 24 months. Or pay a third party for a safety inspection, as suggested by DVSA.
I hope not, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Last month the NWRFCA auctioned off 10 or so 6/7 year old ACF minibuses with between 20,000 and 40,000 miles on the clock. That seems to be routine practice for the ACF around here. I’d certainly be interested to know why they don’t run them for longer, and if ensuring roadworthiness was a factor?
whole heartedly agree, Hqac has done nothing to help the people on the ground deal with the world they created!
I know a Sqn nearby who put in for a lottery grant and were knocked back as the letter said the lottery now want to aid new group to set up not help existing groups in the community
But back to the SOV question if HQAC are so stupid to implement the conditions on SOV’s then i will be the end I recon of simple transport in the corps as they would have to do similar with Personal vehicles too and then nobody would be getting taken anywhere