Would you rather wait until after there is a nasty accident?
The question that you need to ask is has there been any ânastyâ SOV accidents in all the time that squadrons have had minibuses?
Iâm certain that is there had been, the rules around SOVs would have been much,. much tighter and more rigorously enforced. Probably there hasnât because squadrons do ensure they are kept roadworthy, that and they are used so infrequently.
I have become more sceptical about the wider interest of the RAF, as they donât offer solutions to the problems they seem able to find, only introducing barring tactics.
If off the back of this RAF mechanics (do they have them of are they all civvies now?) came out to squadrons and did all the maintenance etc at no cost to ATC squadrons, excellent, but can you see that happening? Squadrons will be expected to comply with whatever comes out and the find the costs and as squadrons with SOVs run them as an expense, any additional costs will in time mean squadrons, ditching them.
I dare say they can. But the MOT test is a fixed price test, with fees set by the government. Garages rarely make any profit on a MOT test, so the sooner the vehicle is inspected and off the ramps, the better.
Besides, the MOT standards are the absolute minimums required as well as being non invasive. For example, making sure the tyres are at the correct pressure is not included in the test, nor is braking under load, but youâd probably want someone to check those on a safety inspection. Exhaust emissions are on the suggested dvsa safety inspection checklist.
Ultimately, garages are free to set their own hourly rate, and I canât think of any reason why they wouldnât want to make a profit on a job like this. If the hourly rate is ÂŁ160, and the book says it takes an hour, you will get a bill for ÂŁ160. It doesnât matter that the technician rattled through it in 40 minutes, and then started on another inspection.
Yes, except that you could just book an extra MoT instead. Assuming that Iâm probably not the only person to think of this, there wouldnât be much business in charging ÂŁ160 if you can get essentially the same thing for ÂŁ60.
Would any garage accept the work? MOT testing stations can refuse to test a vehicle, if they have a valid reason.
If you were the owner of a garage, would you agree to MOT a minibus, for ÂŁ50, that held a valid test certificate with 6 months left to run, when you could legitimately charge ÂŁ160 for almost exactly the same amount of work?
Which is the key part.
If you submit a vehicle for MOT testing and still have time on the old certificate and it fails the previous certificate is void. You cannot drive away on the old certificate, the tester downloads to the DVLA the new certificate or the reasons for refusal. Rules just changes recently.
Or:
J. âSorry mate, our tester called in sick today - hereâs your 50 quid, why not give quick fit a call. Donât let the door hit you on the way out.â
Donât get me wrong, I think garage labour rates can be extortionate, especially main dealers, but trying to manipulate a system that is put in place to protect motorists being overcharged for mandatory annual inspection is wrong IMHO.
But youâre happy for them to be overcharged for a quarterly inspection?
Overcharged, or charged the appropriate hourly rate for a skilled technician to complete safety assurance checks?
MOTs are capped for a specific reason (I also think insurance should be capped as well, but thatâs another topic), and that reason isnât to make non-mandatory safety checks more affordable for a national youth organisation. Like I said, the MOD could negotiate on our behalf for preferential rates with national garagesâŚ
FWIW, Iâm not advocating introducing additional checks, just wary that the âTotal Safetyâ mentality at HQAC will mean they err on the side of caution with this issue, and by introducing a policy that aligns with the DVSA guidance, effectively prices SOVs out of existence. Especially since one of the requirements of the P19 seems to be regular safety inspections.
Given that MOTs are all on a central system, of you take any vehicle in for an MOT well within the current ones life you are going to get asked a question. Theyâll still take your money.
I feel for squadrons with SOVs, as not only are they âgarden ornamentâ for effectively 11 months of the year, but they have the expense insurance and MOT and now it seem any sort of additional admin and costs HQAC decide on the whim of some random theyâve got hold of. That way it should be well maintained etc and if it goes wrong itâs not your problem.
I doubt the MOD would have the will to do this. They could have done so much like this and havenât across a range of things. Better still get a preferential deal through a national vehicle hire company, so all we need to do is quote a code and get that rate, no involving anyone in the ATC CoC. As long as you meet the driving licence requirements, youâre fine and you can charge what you like, no permit 19 BS as itâs not your vehicle.
While not a reason behind HQACs thinking, as that would ascribe a notion that they can think before doing anything, this will be the consequence, as like in so many ways HQAC do not understand ATC squadrons or staff. If a minibus needed regular tests, who takes it for the test. remembering they need to be suitably licenced? If the people who could do this, work, theyâd need to take a day off. The squadrons I know with SOVs say that even MOTs create problems like this.
Might be being a bit simple here, but Squadron Owned Vehicles arent owned or operated or insured via HQAC. The Civilan Committees would surely make decisions based around recommendations from HQAC - rather than enforced policy on something they dont own, maintain, insure or manage?
If thatâs the case why do SOVs come under the AI questions posed to OCs and not the CWC âAIâ?
It seems that something that the provision. upkeep etc as suggested sits outside the âuniformedâ side, is scrutinised within the uniformed side.
Youâre also overlooking the fact that HQAC are (in their opinion) the universal experts on everything related to squadrons
You mean like they tried to do with Flight Sims a while ago?
Iâm guessing a possible change in rules could be seen as:
âThe CC can do what they like, but cadets on duty are only to be transported by minibus if the stipulated conditions are metâ
If that means that the cadets canât travel in an SOV which someone has just paid x thousands for, then thatâs the CIâve Comms lookout, and not the fault of HQAC.
Sell the SOV and put the money into a pot to hire vehicles as needed. Thus removing any HQAC interference.
If an SOV is seen as a MUST have, put the money used to pay for the SOV each year towards hire costs.
I would imagine many squadrons with them, use SOVs when parents could be encouraged to do the transporting, just because itâs easier. We donât have an SOV so parents get asked and you know what they donât mind.
The DfTâs clarification letter seems to address those groups that already hold permits to provide assurance as to whether they can still use them.
I read "I want to make clear that the following groups of permit holders are
unaffected by Regulation 1071/2009: " to mean that the group would already hold a permit.
In the Section 19 Permit info under definitions it states âThe payment may be made by the passenger or on the passengerâs behalf. It may be a direct payment, eg a fare or an indirect payment such as a membership subscription.â
Naturally the Government advises that getting legal advice to quantify operations if there is any doubt is the way to go, which is why I assume the question has gone to the DLS.
I can only see safety of assurance increasing admin - obviously itâs a key issue and I have no idea why Air Command suddenly decided to take a look - I know of no trigger event but perhaps someone somewhere took an interest. Iâve been hearing a lot of chatter from various MTâs about minibuses being overloaded above the MAM whilst carrying the bespoke number of passengers (16) resulting in driver fines. Seems the Traffic Officers have been told to have a crackdown and are hauling vehicles into onto weigh bridges to check all are complicit.
A possibility might well be a Transport Manager who is responsible for all SOVâs in the Corps, Lord only knows how that would work. So I figure policy updates are more likely.
I believe the engagement is 6-8 weeks.
I saw an email come out from a commercial provider about the every â10 weeks safety checksâ it was swiftly followed up by another saying they are recommended and not mandatory as I assume they must have received a number of panic replies from School business managers who could see their deficits getting progressively deeper!
Itâs certainly an idea - Hiring brings itâs own addition admin however.
Generally I vehicle plan on an efficiency basis starting a Private Car, moving to 8 seat then 16 seat options as cadet numbers dictate - I prefer that idea rather than having multiple parentâs vehicles out on the road doing the job - however thatâs certainly the lightest route on the administrative front!