GMG, toothache…
1 Like
I got drips, they’re multiplying
And they’re out of control
’Cause the pressure you’re supplying
It’s just taking its toll
Happy Leaky Monday!!
Just when you think SW region seems to have sorted itself out and got better, they publish a “matrix” of what they expect to be attached to all types of SMS activities, and it’s largely garbage. It’s not even worth querying it because no one at a wing level cares, and telling the regional people is like weeing into the wind.
2 Likes
For example - they’ve included what you’d need in order to do car park marshalling, but then done strikethrough on the text (so we know they don’t want us to do it?) but haven’t done the same for non-service flights. So I can submit those?
They have a tab for aerospace, which includes something about air shows, but then a separate tab for “PIPE” [I thought we got rid of that terminology years ago] which also details air shows, and distinguishes between RAF Air shows and non-RAF air shows, and has different requirements.
It says refer to ACTO 10 for things, and then tells us we need to add Public Liability Insurance and a transport risk assessment which ACTO 10 says we don’t need.
They’ve recently (sensibly) looked at the lead time needed for authorisation for regional things, and brought it down to 3 weeks. This document puts some things back at 6 weeks. It’s not clear why or if this is a typo.
Archery now wants us to have a range diagram for every application.
For some drill training they want a “warning order”, an “admin order”, “Joining instructions” and a Main Events List/Programme.
I saw that… realised it was a complete mess and carried on with my day.
2 Likes
Which is fine until some toad rejects an application for not having one of the made up documents.
The links on the main page don’t even go anywhere, they give 404 errors 
Fairly certain that some of those approval timescales for a higher risk to life activities aren’t the same as the timescales laid out in the governing HQ policy documents.
It’s almost like somebody is making up policy in places - where an explicit policy already exists.
2 Likes
Interesting. I’ve not seen this yet.
Save the bother, it’s a waste of time and resources
Are you disagreeing with yourself?
1 Like
Are you suggesting that pEp is as consistent as RAFAC policy?
Both things can be true
No. It can be and is a waste of time and resources because it doesn’t function properly and isn’t consistent.
And because of that, I can guarantee someone who thinks they’re important in life will reject something, further wasting time and resources.
1 Like
I see youve met the average 2* then…
GMG. Outsourcing software to a supplier who’s technical support is only available from 3pm-5pm because their technical support is based in Texas and we don’t pay for their “premium service” of having technical support available from 9-5 UK time…
So, if I tip coffee dregs down the sink, they end up in the more or less the same place for water treatment…….
Ultimately, yes. But your kitchen drain will go via a treatment plant, whereas a storm drain may not.
Its an important law but this was certainly an overapplication.
1 Like
Imagine if she’d poured hot coffee in a bin, and it had then been quickly emptied by a bin worker scalding their hands?
2 Likes
it makes me wonder given:
the notice would have been rescinded because it is a minor contravention which the recipient agreed not to repeat
what is the threshold?
even more so given:
the body-worn footage of the incident had been reviewed and the council was satisfied the enforcement officers acted appropriately.
suggesting that any volume being poured is adequate reason for officers to step in, while at the same time given the “minor contravention” is not worth pursuing suggests the law is in place for a reason, but that the threshold to follow through is clearly higher than a mouthful of coffee…
reads like a contradiction to me
This might just be talking about their attitudes/approach? ie, they weren’t rude or condescending etc. and were enforcing what they believed to be valid.
This may be more a lack of training, rather than inadequate laws?
The law is aimed at people like me who need to safely and properly get rid of waste oil etc, rather than just pouring it down the drain. Even when we mop, the waste liquid goes into an IBC, not in the drain!
1 Like