Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Maa & trimble

Trending This Week
View More Trending
D

delboy

SAC
117
16
0
The MT Big brother system has 'allegedly' caught me doing 84 mph in a 70. To my suprise I was informed yesterday that MAA action was being taken against me for the 'alleged' offence. Long story short I don't recall exceeding the speed and i'm not quilty your honour etc, the question is where do I stand?

For what it's worth it was over 5 months ago and I hadn't signed for the journey, also my OC got off with doing 47 in a 30 which makes it even harder to swallow.

Has anyone else had this?
 
Seen a lot of people MAA'd for this of late. And MAA'd for not signing out the vehicle.
 
Personally I think you're bang to rights. Trimble doesn't lie, you didn't sign for the journey IAW JSP800 and the orders you sign annually (means that strictly speaking you weren't insured) the fact it was five months ago is irrelevant as several members of my Sqn have just found out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MAA is much cheaper than a £100 fine and 3 points on your licence, which is what I got for doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone a few months ago.
 
Surely you should be getting 3 points as well. Speeding is a criminal offense. If you'd carried out a burglary 5 months ago they'd be looking at throwing the book at you.
I don't like this gps black box idea one little bit, it's hugely intrusive and in cases inhibiting. If you want to limit driving parameters to within the law and eco constraints then the tech is there to physically limit the vehicle, then there would be no worries about people breaking the limits. Aren't the big lorries already limited? (They seem to be on the A9) My preferred option is have them with a privacy caveat about anonymous information. There is no way the info should be getting down to the petty beauracrats that inhabit some areas of MT.
 
Playing Devil's advocate:

The RAF has proof you have broken the law (off camp and out of MODs jurisdiction) but choose to "keep it in house" and complete MAA and not inform CIVPOL, is this not perverting the course of justice?
 
Last edited:
I have just Googled 'Trimble' to see what you lot are on about.

I take it you are talking about MT supplied Hire Vehicles?

The questions that I would certainly be asking are ...

Is Trimble authorised by UK Law as a speed detecting and recording system?

Is the Serial Number of the Trimble Unit recorded against the journey for the alleged offence?

Was the Trimble Unit properly calibrated and in date?

Basically the same information (for their detection equipment) that the civilian police must have at hand in court for speeding cases.

Has a summons or Fixed Penalty Notice been issued by the Police for the alleged offence?
 
Am I bang to rights though? There is a policy note i've managed to get hold of which is 'ASCRO MT POLICY NOTE 22/14', basically there are guidelines on appropriate action to take on personnel caught mis-using MT vehicles. This policy note was released on 26/06/14, the date of the alleged offence was before that date.
 
Maa & trimble

Have you checked the policy that preceded that policy note? As I said there are members of my Sqn who are facing disciplinary for occurrences and those instances date back to January. You have also, by your own admission, driven illegally and without insurance. Fail to see what you think you'll achieve by fighting it other than a more severe punishment and possibly civilian proceedings. MAA is by it's own admission minor for what IMO should be a full charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As one of those who administers Trimble on my unit, I have to say that you are bang to rights. I do, however, believe that you are being dealt with inappropriately. For the policy on dealing with Inappropriate driving prior to the ASCRO note you have quoted see DIN reference 2013DIN04-063. Hope this helps.

John
 
I'd try the calibration issue, especially if the MAA states the speed rather than just that you were exceeding the speed limit.

At the end of the day you shouldn't speed, however, the RAF have to prove the offence even for an MAA otherwise is a dodgy decision and open to service complaint, especially if the OC was let of for a more serious speeding offence.
 
If you're certain you weren't doing it then the question about the calibration is a fair one. Beyond that sounds like you'll be dropping yourself in more s**t, so if it comes back calibrated fine, bend over!
 
FOGHORN LEGHORN said:
Have you checked the policy that preceded that policy note? As I said there are members of my Sqn who are facing disciplinary for occurrences and those instances date back to January. You have also, by your own admission, driven illegally and without insurance. Fail to see what you think you'll achieve by fighting it other than a more severe punishment and possibly civilian proceedings. MAA is by it's own admission minor for what IMO should be a full charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

how can they give me a more serious charge if I were to contest it? There are atleast 3 flaws on the paperwork that I can see not to mention the dozens of offences committed from other people during that month (some are officers and have 60-70% above speed limit offences), my point boils down to the fact that the whole system is flawed and it appears to be 1 rule or 1 person and a different rule for another.
 
delboy said:
how can they give me a more serious charge if I were to contest it? There are atleast 3 flaws on the paperwork that I can see not to mention the dozens of offences committed from other people during that month (some are officers and have 60-70% above speed limit offences), my point boils down to the fact that the whole system is flawed and it appears to be 1 rule or 1 person and a different rule for another.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, the system is not flawed. It is not perfect and sometimes does give an erroneous report. A little bit of effort from the system administrators can soon identify those reports which are doubtful. If what you say is correct then the flaw lies with the way your MT section is dealing with events. For a start, how do you know that dozens of offences have occurred, this should not be common knowledge. Secondly the offences and those committing the offences should be dealt with swiftly and in line with the guidance in place at the time of the offence. I do not understand why you would state that you did not sign for the journey, you are, at worst, leaving yourself open to a raft of charges ranging from unauthorised(and uninsured) use of the MT vehicle up to theft of fuel and even theft of the vehicle.

John
 
Big Jock said:
Sorry mate, the system is not flawed. It is not perfect and sometimes does give an erroneous report. A little bit of effort from the system administrators can soon identify those reports which are doubtful. If what you say is correct then the flaw lies with the way your MT section is dealing with events. For a start, how do you know that dozens of offences have occurred, this should not be common knowledge. Secondly the offences and those committing the offences should be dealt with swiftly and in line with the guidance in place at the time of the offence. I do not understand why you would state that you did not sign for the journey, you are, at worst, leaving yourself open to a raft of charges ranging from unauthorised(and uninsured) use of the MT vehicle up to theft of fuel and even theft of the vehicle.

John
Click to expand...

I had a lool at the DIN quoted so cheers for that. Ive seen the trimble report for that month and the majority of the offences are noted as 'no recorded journey details' so again the problem is obviously greater than just myself although the 'parity of tteatment' seems to somewhat differ.
 
Concentrating on your issue rather than deflecting with other occurrences will serve you well. Your arguments so far would not even be considered by most and as I have stated, rather than providing you with mitigating circumstances, appear to incriminate you further. Your ignorance to MT regs is no excuse. You hold a FMT600 and as such sign to say you understand the rules. Failure to adhere to those rules is cause for administrative action. Simple really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
timaloy said:
If you hadnt signed for the journey how do they know it was you driving?
Click to expand...

Fair point taken. I take the point about bringing other occurences into but they appear to be using me as a scapegoat, no one else AFAIK is getting admin action taken against them.
 
Id take the MAA and so be it. When you talk about it in the T-Bar, you will be the cool kid..and everyone has been there, inc your bosses

I have had a few fall outs with MT recently, and me having a FMT600 is helping them out, especially when they want me to take a 1-way hire, as they are short of MT Drivers.

Swings & Roundabouts... I have throught about surrendering my FMT600, or not renewing the orders and then having the FMT1000 (FMT658) stamped with no service vehicles available and take my car...& yes... i do have business insurance.
 
If I were you I'd simply hand back your F600. The RAF is supposed to be implementing a just culture yet MT seem to insist on instilling a blame culture instead.

The way this whole Trimble system has been implemented is flawed IMO. Making a judgement call on driving standards based on an uncalibrated computer readout whilst miles away from the incident and no actual witness wouldn't be allowed to pass anywhere else.

The RAF would quickly grind to a halt if everyone who received an MAA simply handed in their F600.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top