Squadron Owned Vehicles

[themajor]

@anon59391077

They almost always deliver a day or two before though if it’s for a weekend.

But would charge for OOH delivery, but the hire period would be as per the MT request (we ware not insured if used outside those times)

[JoeBloggs]

Reviving an old thread!

There is now a single stand alone document that covers the requirements for SOVs, rather than it all being spread out in various other documents/IBNs/polices etc. It all seems to be the same stuff, just all in one place, but there was one bit that stood out that I didn’t know before:

Vehicles owned by cadet units should be marked in a manner to ensure that they could not be mistaken, by terrorists, for vehicles carrying regular forces. Should a service pattern vehicle be loaned to a cadet unit it should be fitted with signs indicating its use by cadets. There is no requirement for yellow ‘school-children’ plates to be displayed on passenger carrying vehicles carrying cadets unless they are undertaking activities as part of a school programme.

Does this mean if we hire minibuses we need magnetic signage to indicate we are cadets? Certainly a new one for me!

[mprentice1]

@JoeBloggs

Does this mean if we hire minibuses we need magnetic signage to indicate we are cadets?

Only if it’s a “service pattern vehicle”

[JoeBloggs]

So white alone is fine too if it’s a Sqns bus? Are they just worried about some CWC sticking RAF on it and that alone without reference to cadets?

I had assumed what it meant was a bus full of people in uniform could be mistaken for regulars, so would need signage stating otherwise.

Is a plain minibus okay too if it’s squadron owned?

[VirtualRealityTrooper]

Its EXACTLY as is says…don’t read between the lines or think the unnecessary. Plain colour is OK, RAFAC is fine, ACF livery is fine, but supposing you got hold of an RAF Falcons or Red Arrows bus then it would need Cadet’erising…avoid MTP wrap or Olive Drab!

[JoeBloggs]

@VirtualRealityTrooper

Its EXACTLY as is says…don’t read between the lines or think the unnecessary.

Okay then, if you take it at face value then

“Vehicles owned by cadet units should be marked in a manner to ensure that they could not be mistaken, by terrorists, for vehicles carrying regular forces.”

means that a plain white minibus is not allowed, as it is not marked… It literally says “should be marked”. There’s no if. So if you don’t read between the lines I’d say plain colour is not fine.

Yes, it’s semantics, but it’s why I’ve brought it up.

[Farmerdan]

Do we really think terrorists are going to give a crap? They’ll take the view that anyone in a uniform is a legitimate target.

[bob]

@JoeBloggs

I had assumed what it meant was a bus full of people in uniform could be mistaken for regulars, so would need signage stating otherwise.

You assume that terrorists would actually care, all they would see a bus full of people in a military uniform, never worried them in the past, why should it worry them in the future.

Cadet blinded by an IRA bomb has payout doubled

Or worse this one and this was a civilian coach no military marking and all IIRC were in civilian dress.

M62 coach bombing

[steve679]

@mprentice1

“service pattern vehicle”

my experience of “white fleet” is exactly that - it is white!

[Phantom]

Not if you don’t wash it. Urban camouflage.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

So your black Ford Galaxy and your Wife’s silver Peugeot are owned by your Squadron, are they?

You don’t, perchance, have something to do with a rugby club, do you…?