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
Ghandi's Flip-Flop said:
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 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
Click to expand...


We were told that as it was on your PIC then you have to drive. My argument was that I paid for my license, not the RAF, so it should be my decision on whether I want to drive.... And then argued that if I was already on the admin action route then I could feign injury to protect my arse....as could anyone else
 
chumpzilla said:
We were told that as it was on your PIC then you have to drive. My argument was that I paid for my license, not the RAF, so it should be my decision on whether I want to drive.... And then argued that if I was already on the admin action route then I could feign injury to protect my arse....as could anyone else
Click to expand...

PIC or not, if you paid for your civilian driving license, then you can hand back your FMT600 any time that you want.

I am also concerned that people are talking on this thread about insurance. Unless things have changed in the past few years, there IS NO insurance on MT. You drive on a "certificate of security" from the MOD which in effect says that if you have an accident and somebody else is involved them the MOD will pay them from a "pot of gold" (if there is any in the pot)! This also only covers you legally if ALL paperwork is in place for the trip.

You cannot claim against the MOD for any of your own losses (as I found out) even if you were not deemed at fault by the police for the accident. I had to go through the courts to get my damaged personal goods back (clothing, broken items etc) as the MT car was a total write-off.

It was when I found this out, that I handed back my F600 and told my boss if he wanted me to go anywhere for him (I was in a mobile trouble-shooting job) then I needed a driver to take me for the duration of tasks - you should have seen his face!

It ended up with him buying a Class 1 business policy for me from his budget annually.
 
Smacks of the MT Trade simply empire building again and trying to justify their existence pre-SDSR15......
 
Perhaps you can have it issued by your OC - the one who did 47mph and didnt get MAA'd. Then when it comes to you making a statement, you could include the "irony" of being warned as to your conduct by someone who had exceeded the limit by more than you at a lesser speed.

MAA's still get reviewed by senior officers - that would make an interesting morning!
 
Got caught last month. Times didn't add up, I'd signed in to a building 10 mins before. Got my boss to query it, and it wasn't me !
(must have been the Sqn Ldr coming to the same meeting) :PDT_Xtremez_25:

MT sent the wrong paperwork to the 'regulator' allegedly.....
 
Digzster said:
PIC or not, if you paid for your civilian driving license, then you can hand back your FMT600 any time that you want.

I am also concerned that people are talking on this thread about insurance. Unless things have changed in the past few years, there IS NO insurance on MT. You drive on a "certificate of security" from the MOD which in effect says that if you have an accident and somebody else is involved them the MOD will pay them from a "pot of gold" (if there is any in the pot)! This also only covers you legally if ALL paperwork is in place for the trip.

You cannot claim against the MOD for any of your own losses (as I found out) even if you were not deemed at fault by the police for the accident. I had to go through the courts to get my damaged personal goods back (clothing, broken items etc) as the MT car was a total write-off.

It was when I found this out, that I handed back my F600 and told my boss if he wanted me to go anywhere for him (I was in a mobile trouble-shooting job) then I needed a driver to take me for the duration of tasks - you should have seen his face!

It ended up with him buying a Class 1 business policy for me from his budget annually.
Click to expand...

I have commented on the lack of insurance and rightly so. As the required paperwork was not completed the journey was not legal and anything that may have taken place during that journey i.e. Injury or damage where the driver was at fault, the driver would have been personally liable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FOGHORN LEGHORN said:
I have commented on the lack of insurance and rightly so. As the required paperwork was not completed the journey was not legal and anything that may have taken place during that journey i.e. Injury or damage where the driver was at fault, the driver would have been personally liable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
When you say illegal what do you mean, I would have thought that the journey was duty and required to be made in the performance of a defined task.
 
FOGHORN LEGHORN said:
I have commented on the lack of insurance and rightly so. As the required paperwork was not completed the journey was not legal and anything that may have taken place during that journey i.e. Injury or damage where the driver was at fault, the driver would have been personally liable.


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

There seems to be a lot of sloping shoulders from MT on this point, if the paperwork wasn't completed why was the op allowed to take the vehicle? surely there is a failing on the mt controller on this point?

as for insurance i fail to see how it is done on a journey by journey basis especially as the white fleet cars are simply lease cars from LEX like many company pool cars which don't need individual trips to be signed for. besides if the vehicles hand brake fails whilst on a hill, it rolls down the hill and causes a crash does that mean that car is not insured?
 
FOGHORN LEGHORN said:
I have commented on the lack of insurance and rightly so. As the required paperwork was not completed the journey was not legal and anything that may have taken place during that journey i.e. Injury or damage where the driver was at fault, the driver would have been personally liable.


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

Is there any point in having 'Subject Matter Experts' (SMEs) in the RAF if they aren't going to check the paperwork before handing over the keys.?

Go to any car hire firm in the street and they want everything except your inside leg measurement as proof of ID and address before handing over keys.
 
Maa & trimble

When you enter any MT vehicle or MT hire car there will be a pack up within the vehicle. Within that pack up there will be a FMT1001 which YOU have to sign to say that YOU will drive that vehicle, have completed a DI of that vehicle, what mileage and fuel etc. As a FMT600 holder each driver is aware of the legal requirement for this and signs each year to confirm this as part of orders. This paperwork cannot be completed until the keys have been handed over and is required to stay in the vehicle. The fact I'm having to explain this is concerning given the level of experience on this forum. The level of ignorance towards MT regs from non TG6 I experienced on a recent exercise where hire cars were utilised was an eye opener. Especially from the TG I once belonged to.

Everyone wants those keys in their hand and to keep hold for the whole det to use as their own personal vehicle yet want nothing to do with the actual paperwork which, in the event of an RTI etc, protects them legally. As for Dvrs Hrs... Well the amount of people I witness who are more than happy to risk theirs and other peoples lives after a long shift when they are beyond duty hours by driving when they are too tired to do so is shocking. I have seen what can happen first hand and can say without doubt that it is never worth taking that risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In fact whilst I'm here... For those techies out there... Would you decide not to sign for a job on an aircraft because you couldn't be arsed? No? Why?

So why on earth would you not sign paperwork that is required (and takes 2 seconds) to ensure your journey is legal and that you are not personally liable? It baffles me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FOGHORN LEGHORN said:
When you enter any MT vehicle or MT hire car there will be a pack up within the vehicle. Within that pack up there will be a FMT1001 which YOU have to sign to say that YOU will drive that vehicle, have completed a DI of that vehicle, what mileage and fuel etc. As a FMT600 holder each driver is aware of the legal requirement for this and signs each year to confirm this as part of orders. This paperwork cannot be completed until the keys have been handed over and is required to stay in the vehicle. The fact I'm having to explain this is concerning given the level of experience on this forum. The level of ignorance towards MT regs from non TG6 I experienced on a recent exercise where hire cars were utilised was an eye opener. Especially from the TG I once belonged to.

Everyone wants those keys in their hand and to keep hold for the whole det to use as their own personal vehicle yet want nothing to do with the actual paperwork which, in the event of an RTI etc, protects them legally. As for Dvrs Hrs... Well the amount of people I witness who are more than happy to risk theirs and other peoples lives after a long shift when they are beyond duty hours by driving when they are too tired to do so is shocking. I have seen what can happen first hand and can say without doubt that it is never worth taking that risk.


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

Remembering that an institution or individual cannot relinquish their legal responsibilities doesn't that make the person that hands over the keys complicit in the offence because they haven't ensured that the vehicle is legal to be driven on the road?
 
Would I be right in thinking that sat nav gps is more accurate than a car speedo?
 
A verbal talking to, a bit of education and a positive comms exercise would have been a much better way of dealing with this and would probably have had the same desired effect of reducing speeding.
 
Remembering that an institution or individual cannot relinquish their legal responsibilities doesn't that make the person that hands over the keys complicit in the offence because they haven't ensured that the vehicle is legal to be driven on the road?

In a word? No. The processes used by MT are IAW JSP800 and the Dvr with the F600 is fully aware of their responsiblities. For the TG6 Pers to ensure all paperwork was correct throughout they would have to follow that individual throughout every stage of the journey... There is no requirement for this anyway as I have already stated several times. If you hold a FMT600 and sign MT orders annually in order to use MT vehicles you are signing to say that you understand your responsibilities WRT MT procedures.

The arguments on here baffle me tbh. How hard is it to fill in a FMT1001 and drive within the rules of the road? seriously? The guy has f*cked up and admitted it. What's the issue?
 
At the point of handing over the keys the person handing over should inform the recipient that the vehicle is not legal until all the correct paper work is completed. This is part of UK law whach says something along the lines that ALL citizens are responsible for preventing unlawfull acts wherever possible.

As for signing MT orders, they sign to say that they have 'Read & Understood' do they not. They do not sign for remembering those orders, the very orders that can change the day after they have been read and signed for.

Just because someone has signed an order book does not absolve the owner of the order book of their legal responsibilities.
 
Well it would seem you know better than JSP800. I suggest you present yourself to Air Cmd for the recognition you deserve... However, it might be worth noting that the contents of MT Orders covers the very points you raise and implicitly explain to all those who intend to use MT vehicles that they are to remain current WRT JSP800 and their responsibilities every time they use MT. The responsibility lies with the individual. If they don't want that responsibility, don't collect the keys. Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top