MT big brother AKA Trimble [Archive]

teeteringhead

20th Nov 2013, 08:59

Can't see the "traffic lights" any more. My new staff car has its Trimble hidden somewhere in the bowels of the vehicle (at least - that's what they tell me ........).

Much less fun - roundabouts and wiggly country lanes were always good sport - or even a swift motorway lane change. :E

MT tell me the local record is 106 mph - now that is very silly! (assuming it wasn't down a runway!)

Edited to add aviation content:

Reminds me of an aged pilot telling me his first jet (Meatbox or Vampire??) had accelerometers retro-fitted before they had published G limits.

Of course, the game was on..........:E

CoffmanStarter

20th Nov 2013, 09:31

Teeters :D:D:D:D

Blue Bottle

20th Nov 2013, 10:38

Why would you not make the lights come on and if its a good trip you should always get an e mail from MT telling you how well you did.

ShyTorque

20th Nov 2013, 10:57

MT big brother? Some years ago, SROs published a diatribe from the MT Section informing drivers that it was their personal responsibility to check that the wheelnuts were tightened to the correct torque before driving any service vehicle.

The next day one of my colleagues had to use a service car and went to sign it out. He asked the duty MT NCO for a torque wrench and information on the correct wheelnut torques so he could check the car, iaw with SROs.

The answer? "Torque wrench, Sir? I have no idea what you are talking about....we don't have any torque wrenches....why would you want to do that?"

NutLoose

20th Nov 2013, 11:13

You have data logging onboard? where is the fun in that? must have a fuse somewhere or can you not just disconnect the battery for say 10 mins. If it hasn't a back up that should clear it ;)

I suppose taking the likes of an RAF Sherpa around the remaining banked track at Brooklands with everyone in the back piled over to one side to help with C of G issues is frowned upon these days. :O

Thank God the only flashing light I get in my car is the one telling me I have exceeded the Quatro systems grip limits, and we are entering slippy slidie territory ;)

Mr C Hinecap

20th Nov 2013, 12:56

Not sure what this has to do with millitary aviation

Ah. The same mistake of thinking that 'ground safety' has nothing to do with 'flight safety'.
Given the cost to the MoD (financial, lives, reputation etc), something had to be done. Training and licensing evidently did not work. It appears to be a reasonable idea that was not well implemented. Other similar schemes across many areas (inc Heathrow) have had great success.

Courtney Mil

20th Nov 2013, 13:35

Mr C H, I take your point, but I have to ask, have we had a particularly high accident rate in the Forces? Any figures?

I wonder if things changed significantly when we stopped having professional drivers.

Mr C Hinecap

20th Nov 2013, 14:02

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/publications/health/deaths/land-transport-accidents/2012-12-31/31_december_2012.pdf

Quite hard for anyone responsible for the safety of their people to ignore the statistics of higher risk in that report.
I can't find any figures for the financial cost. With the MoD being 'self-insuring' for all road vehicles, the cost to defence per accident is very large as they pay for everything including compensation to other parties. I have seen a few presentations by the MoD team responsible for this in the past and 'cost per crash' is a big enough number to warrant some effort to reduce.

The MT Trade is still proud of being professional at operating vehicles.

Courtney Mil

20th Nov 2013, 15:44

CH, thanks for the stats. Rather shocking, I see what you mean.

Courtney

Hangarshuffle

20th Nov 2013, 16:02

Yes very sad that, highest loss rate after Hostile action is Land Transport Accident according to the link there, in recent years.
I used to tell all my lads if they were late, adrift for work never to speed, ever. Rather see them all in eventually.....safe. I couldn't care a less if they were late, if I'm truthful.
Now approaching the usual station/ sections usual anti-drink driving period now I suppose...?
Smashed up car outside the main gates with big signs on it saying " Don't do this" or words to the same......do they still do that?

WASALOADIE

20th Nov 2013, 20:34

A couple of years ago, 3 of us were returning from a det up north and pushing to get home by a reasonable time. Called MT to inform them we would be later than expected and that we would sign the vehicle in the following morning. They asked who was driving, thought nothing of it and gave them the correct answer, turns out we were doing 80+ and they could see it on the tracker!

One young student was logged driving an MT vehicle, his average speed was 90+, he was banned from driving MT and had to give a brief on the MT tracking system at the next wing brief!

Once A Brat

21st Nov 2013, 05:36

I know this will sound geeky, but.......whilst I was still in I thought I would have some fun with the MT role office since they introduced this system without consulting other functional areas as they were supposed to. So I asked for the safety case that showed that the commercially available GSM (mobile phone) based technology met prescribed safety protocols for electrical and transmitting equipment in explosive areas. When they couldn't, I pointed out that it is illegal under UK law to use a mobile phone at a petrol station, against Mil safety rules to do so in an explosive atmosphere area (flight line) and against explosive regs to do so in an ESA or indeed to have non-safe electrical items. The arm and CIS role offices then got very involved, especially when I got OC Eng to threaten having all the equipment removed on explosive safety grounds.......upshot was all the armourer vehicles and those allocated to the flying squadrons were trimble free at a secret AD base in Lincolnshire. I've been gone from the base/Service for 12months+ so don't know if its still the case, but would like to think that my sucessor maintained the same stance.

I'm all for improving safety, but if something is worth doing - do it properly otherwise it becomes a false 'safety blanket' or as with trimble, mis-used.

dragartist

21st Nov 2013, 12:42

Do I assume we are talking aboutt he DRIVES system. (Three little lights on the dash)? we were all told this was not being recorded and was advisory. Then.... got called into see the surrogate MTO at secret RAF base Nr Huntingdon. Been doing 106 mph down the M5 on way to ABW. Apparently the record was held by a Gp Capt. I agreed and did modify my behaviour. When I was shown the print outs it did not have location just time.

Spent the early days experimenting to find out what the parameters were. You could cruise at 80 true but over that the lights flashed. if you did not back off it stayed on. The system was also equipped with accelerometers. so braking sharp to avoid a duck at 20mph also kept the red light on for 5 mins.

Willard Whyte

21st Nov 2013, 16:37

A bit of wheelspin pulling out of a damp T-junction resulted in the red 'good skills' light coming on for about the same amount of time.

TomJoad

21st Nov 2013, 18:18

Isn't this type of in car monitoring working its way into the private motoring. Some insurance companies already have an app you can run on your mobile - data is measured by the phones accelerometer and gps to present a profile of your driving style. Theory being if you are a safe driver it could lower your premiums. I think it wont be long until the insurance companies mandate the fitting of black box recorders - useful for assessing general risk and accident situations. Must admit I think there's already too much technology in cars. If you ever get the opportunity to drive a 1960 car then do it so much fun.

Courtney Mil

21st Nov 2013, 18:23

TomJoad

21st Nov 2013, 21:09

As this new and helpful feature arrived after I left, may I ask what exactly happens when one causes a red light? Is it like and ASBO that "customers" can display proudly on the office wall or are there actually sancions involved.

I think I know what my reatio to this would be.

Yes, 3 strikes and you loose your flying pay.
4 and you pay back FRI :E

No I think they just bring it to your attention so you can self moderate. Maybee they need to say "do it again and you will be taken off the deployment list":p

Courtney Mil

21st Nov 2013, 21:32

Or maybe, Tom, they take away your MT Diver's Permit so that you have to be given an MT driver to to take you wherever you need to go. Tough love, eh? :{

Mr C Hinecap

22nd Nov 2013, 00:31

Two parts to that:

Firstly. You don't become another accident statistic because you can't be trusted to drive to the safe and legal limits.

Secondly. MT gets overloaded and starts being unable to meet the tasks. It gets so bad that some cocky Exec raises it in front of OC Eng or the Staish to try and score cheap points over OC Logs. MTO is summoned to Staishes office and there produces detailed stats of all station personnel who have had their MT license revoked and why. Staish knows what Duty of Care means and subsequently tells his Execs that the problem is theirs for not gripping their people and he backs the actions of the MTO.
In the end, nobody wins, some people will never learn a lesson, but less people are dead or injured.

Courtney Mil

22nd Nov 2013, 06:09

CH, sorry I didn't make it clear, but I wasn't being serious, I was joking with Tom. Your points are quite right, though.

BEagle

22nd Nov 2013, 07:01

...Been doing 106 mph down the M5 on way to ABW...

Why?

.

Party Animal

22nd Nov 2013, 09:54

CM,

Where I work, there is roughly a 20% tolerance margin. If you are outside of this, then a snotagram follows with the details through the Stn Cdr to your line manager. I think, if 3 of these are received, you are banned from MT for 3 months and may well lose your car pass too. Very serious breaches such as the one above, or doing 70mph outside a school 20mph zone are treated more sternly.

Courtney Mil

22nd Nov 2013, 10:43

Good answer, PA, thank you. I guess that seems pretty reasonable on balance.

Hey, that could be a new box on the good old annual appraisal form. I must suggest it to the powers that aren't! :E

ShotOne

22nd Nov 2013, 13:39

dragartist

22nd Nov 2013, 15:12

BEags,
Cos if you were driving more than 12 hrs they made you stop over!!

No the truth is that I was working on a UOR and had to get some 2* signatures on the RTS before they went home.

I became a supporter of the system to some extent. As soon as I knew they were interrogating the system I slowed down. so it did have the desired effect.

Now I do think they should have publicised the fact rather than let us find out by defaulting.

Biggus

22nd Nov 2013, 15:15

Reference:

"....You don't become another accident statistic because you can't be trusted to drive to the safe and legal limits...."

While not condoning illegal driving, I should point out (hopefully an obvious point) that it is perfectly possible to become an accident statistic without personally doing anything wrong/illegal/unsafe - as was my own case when someone crossed the center of the road and hit my vehicle head on, they were only 2.5 times over the legal alcohol limit for driving.

Ultimately, the only way to ensure you never become a road accident statistic is to never go anywhere near a road.

If the RAF (MOD?) is serious about improving road safety then a comprehensive, long term and sustained campaign is required, akin to that for flight safety, not just the installation of technology in MT vehicles. After all, if RAF personnel are driving irresponsibly they are just as likely to have an accident/injury/fatality in their own vehicle. So is the current approach really about duty of care, or more about reducing the MOD bill for accidents? It's alright for you to have an accident in your own car, but not an MOD one...

Bladdered

22nd Nov 2013, 15:47

Question: Tampering with a GPS device (http://uclue.com/?xq=3196)

Willard Whyte

22nd Nov 2013, 16:28

"....You don't become another accident statistic because you can't be trusted to drive to the safe and legal limits...."

It's also possible to exceed those (purely arbitrary) limits by, amongst other things, braking suddenly to avoid some numbnuts who suddenly walks, or swerves their bicycle, into your path.

If one treats people like idiots expect to get a healthy dose of scorn in return.

And as for the 'tick test' to allow one to drive in a foreign country... probably deserves a thread to itself.

CoffmanStarter

22nd Nov 2013, 16:30

Ahhh ... I spy a cunning plan afoot here Gentlemen :suspect:

If you add all this technology together ... I reckon there's a plan by the Airships to deploy all the future Air Traffic Control Officers, that Shawbury keeps turning out, as RAF MT Fleet Controllers :}

See what can be done ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/dn24619-1_1200_zps051728aa.jpg

Image Credit : Eric Fischer, Mapbox

A crop-dusting aircraft's graceful, looping route over Russian farmland is tracked by the pilot's GPS, resulting in a beautiful map you won't see anywhere else.

This aerial concoction is one of many by custom map-maker MapBox, which has developed a way to overlay the world's largest trove of open-sourced GPS data – submitted over nine years to the free wiki Open Street Map – on top of aerial imagery to create beautiful, traveller-friendly maps.

Mapbox's GPS routes are colour-coded by the course of travel, with each direction given its own hue, to help future users verify one-way streets, roads not displayed on traditional maps or, in this case, display one aircraft's vivid rainbow path across the sky.

Perhaps you might even get a "Precision Approach" if the M1 gets clamped by fog :eek:

Willard Whyte

22nd Nov 2013, 16:33

The pilot can't have known that map would be created, else the they would have gone to greater lengths to draw a c0ck 'n' balls.

CoffmanStarter

22nd Nov 2013, 16:33

WW :D:D:D:D

ShyTorque

22nd Nov 2013, 17:17

WW, Some years ago I was told such a story by a particular perpetrator, by then a Group Captain and my Station Commander. As a young pilot he was a Valley QFI tasked to carry out the weather check, in his Hunter. He drew a huge "wedding tackle" in persistent con-trails, which was visible for many miles against a bright blue sky.

The station received a number of complaints and eventually launched a four-ship formation to cross it out!

Mr C Hinecap

22nd Nov 2013, 19:02

If the RAF (MOD?) is serious about improving road safety then a comprehensive, long term and sustained campaign is required, akin to that for flight safety, not just the installation of technology in MT vehicles. After all, if RAF personnel are driving irresponsibly they are just as likely to have an accident/injury/fatality in their own vehicle.

Done to death. Regular training, awareness, courses, reminders. However, people believe it won't happen to them and switch off. The likes of Flight Safety also take the higher priority and everything else becomes background noise. The commute is something stn MT and local plod will regularly cooperate over in an attempt to improve things for all. Playing devil's advocate here, but if you have been trained and passed a test to drive your own car why should you think the RAF should accept responsibility for your actions in your own time?

While not condoning illegal driving, I should point out (hopefully an obvious point) that it is perfectly possible to become an accident statistic without personally doing anything wrong/illegal/unsafe

Quite right. But the MoD can do nothing to influence those other drivers. They can do more to ensure that the people they have a Duty of Care for are driving safe and legal vehicles in a safe and legal manner. I said this was a reasonable idea poorly executed. I'm sure the near misses in aircraft would be far less if there were no other aircraft up there.

BEagle

22nd Nov 2013, 19:56

No the truth is that I was working on a UOR and had to get some 2* signatures on the RTS before they went home.

If it was that 'U' a UOR, surely the 2*s would have agreed to stay until you arrived safely, rather than you having to risk the necks of yourself and other road users by your 51.4% excess speed?

No excuse really....:rolleyes:

And if the MT wagon was anything like the wretched things I recall from 10 years ago, I certainly wouldn't have wished to drive it at such a speed. Although I've certainly driven at over 140 mph on a motorway.....

....in Germany on a derestricted Autobahn. In a well-maintained car.

kaitakbowler

22nd Nov 2013, 21:16

Ok guys, it's a long time since I left and the contract out of the "white" fleet had happened prior to my leaving. Now the original contractor operator had a fleet of vehicles that exceeded fifty thousand in number. Their business model was/is heavily dependant on maintaining the resale value of the vehicles when they are returned at the point specified, that point may be age or use related, it was very clear from the start that the vehicles would be subjected to a rigorous examination upon return, a cracked wheel trim on an Astra, for example, resulted in a bill for £70 (1997 price), the price of a complete set.

Now can anyone tell me if this "spy in the cab" was installed at the instigation of the RAF, or was it at the instigation of the contractor? Of course the contractor may have made a case on safety grounds to the service, who then funded the system out of public funds, the contractor gets his vehicle usage closely monitored and the customer has funded it for him.

It would be illuminating (for me anyway) to see a breakdown of the end of contract damage costs over the years.

PM

Laarbruch72

22nd Nov 2013, 21:29

Surely the point of installing a costly system like this is to publicise it to modify driving behaviour? But as its existence comes as a surprise to many of those being monitored it seems in fact to be being used as a weaselly gotcha.

But it doesn't come as a surprise to those being monitored, everyone driving a service car equipped with it knows it's there, you can see the warning light box for starters, and it's in MT orders (which you read and sign once a year) for another. It only comes as a surprise to those PPRuNe members who haven't been in an MT car in the "however many years since it came in". Must be well over 5 years now since DRIVES / Trimble came in.

Although I've certainly driven at over 140 mph on a motorway.... in Germany on a derestricted Autobahn. In a well-maintained car.

Fine, accepting that of course the maintenance of a car is niether here nor there when a half asleep Polish truck driver veers across his lane. No amount of maintenance is helping you to react to that 60 mph moving roadblock when the closing speed is now 80mph and you only have 300 metres to react. On only two lanes.

140mph is ludicrous, given what other drivers might do. Doesn't matter what the limit is.
(Besides which, Autobahns aren't derestricted, they have an advisory limit of 100kph and the Polizei will stop you if well in excess of that and advise you of your error, they'll also reserve the right to fine you if your speed was excessive to the point of dangerous).

Willard Whyte

22nd Nov 2013, 21:42

He didn't say autobahns are deristricted, he said it was on a derestricted autobahn.

Many are derestricted.

And although the advisory limit is 130 kmh, not a poncey 100kmh, exceeding it is NOT illegal. Sensibly the Germans allow discretion - you know, treating people like adults.

It certainly isn't "well over 5 years since it was introduced" either. The minibus I drove on the A1 in 2009 certainly wasn't equipped with an electronic member of the green party.

BEagle

22nd Nov 2013, 21:47

Laarbruch72, I can assure you that many, many stretches of Autobahn indeed remain unrestricted! Neither is there an 'advisory' 100 Kph limit. However, if you have an accident at above 130 kph, you have to prove that speed was not a factor.

The design requirements for Autobahns are vastly more demanding than the requirements for UK motorways. Radius of curves, subsoil stability, surface condition and the number of lanes lead to speed limits where engineering considerations require them rather than by the opinion of some nannying politician.

Angela Merkel has been very forthright about slapping down any weenie-greenies who want to introduce blanket speed limits - a refreshing, commonsense and adult way to treat the population.

cornish-stormrider

23rd Nov 2013, 00:23

And I'd be very interested to compare motorway vs autobahn death/serious injury stats for accident per mile, along with contributing factors e.g. speed, weather, etc.

As far as having nanny in the car with you - good. I certainly don't want to be on the recieving end of a knackered liney racing an MT wagon down the road to get back to base so he can go home for the weekend.

FWIW - i was sent to Leconfield to do HGV, I got as far as " the military are exempt from tacho law (at the time) and as such can exceed driving hrs."

I was not going to put myself in that position - so I CT'd myself.
which suprised the hell out of the army......

I won't pretend to come over all holier than thou and preach I have never sped, as i'd be lying badly.

I did drive and ride stupidly - fortunately I was lucky enought to never get caught/in a speed related accident. Certain rules have been made into law precisely because people have had the it will never happen to me attitude, firms made people drive for far too long.

HMG is responsible for your arse, just as much as you are. If you (generalising now) keep driving like berks and hooning about like Max, you can expect them to take steps.

it might be nice for them to REWARD some good and sensible driving, say arrange a beercall ( with drivers laid on to get you home, obviously) for the section with the best score in 12 months.

as to 106 mph - what would civpol do to you, before your boss gets hold of you, after he has to go to court to try and be a character witness.

If you are not prepared to take all the consequences of speeding then the answer is simple, ease of the gas.

Most modern cars come with an MPG meter - if you switch to the live one you can see how miserly you can drive, if you spend £50 per week on fuel commmuting, and you can eke that out to do the same miles in £40 then every couple of months you can have a free night out paid for by sensible driving - and your journey will not have taken much longer.

if you want to go fast - take a track day or two.

I shall relinquish the pulpit now, and stop preaching at you.
but if you choose to ignore everything I have said then do me a favour, please please please, don't come to Devon. I have no wish to be involved in, witness, or be delayed by your untimely death due to driving like a pillock.

drive safe now -

Dan Winterland

23rd Nov 2013, 00:54

GPS Jammer Signal Jammer Blocker - YouTube (http://youtu.be/cfPc8tH8vBY)

cornish-stormrider

23rd Nov 2013, 02:43

Yep. you can -
and how long till they rewrite the ECU code to do the equivalent EUMS download - though not on a cassette tape:E from the car ECU.

all vehicles would end up with a 12 month loop of speeds and rev's data and link this into the diagnostics port with a coded downloader.

you sign for the car - go for it and give it back.

next Service the car goes in and the fitter plugs in the data unit, sucks all the data out to the MTO's computer.

it cross references to driver and you end up in the same position

BEagle

23rd Nov 2013, 07:16

This MT fleet telematic system seems quite reasonable to me and shouldn't cause any issues to normal drivers. But it will identify those who flout the law - and quite rightly so too.

As for GPS jammers, I've occasionally encountered them on motorways when some white van man has one fitted, which has then confused my SatNav. In the US, one idiot was fined $32000 for using one:

GPS jammer costs driver $32,000 after interfering with plane signals - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10228874/GPS-jammer-costs-driver-32000-after-interfering-with-plane-signals.html)

Serves the bugger right and that should serve as a warning to others...:=

Al R

23rd Nov 2013, 07:26

Fleet telematics is different to unique driver telematics. If you ask retail insurance companies of the benefit, they'll say they don't lose out financially and that it does show some benefit in terms of high speed accidents among young males. We are becoming used to the idea of the black box, soon, I have little doubt that we will have to have one and pay road use related tax. Fleet managers won't talk of saving lives and increasing road safety. The RAF is self insured so it wants to keep the lease costs down, and these things will be a condition of that, first and foremost, lets be clear about this. Telematics monitors a few vehicle KPIs, such as harsh acceleration away from, or harsh breaking into stop lines with a view to looking at tyre and brake wear, etc.

Max Power magazine had a driver programme back in the day which made a tangible difference; it involved real people and took the best part of 2 years to evolve and roll out. However this is implemented, and whoever is responsible for it, I wonder if they know that if saving lives IS the genuinely most important factor, it isn't an efficient way of doing it? Once you establish and accept that, then this becomes little more than ammunition for those who receive a quite pointless "management e-mail".

If a fault is identified, and if it isn't rectified properly, this is just yet more annoying remote nannying. If a bad driver is identified and who then goes to plough into a full bus stop, then what? Some savvy solicitor will simply ask, "If the MoD does claim a duty of care, why did it not choose to retrain this unsafe driver that it clearly knew about or report the matter to external agencies in order to prevent this calamity?". Unless there is a proper rectification programme in place, why do it? I am not anti road safety by the way. I am a (back in the day) ex-mil trained car and ye olde HGV instructor (long story zzz) and DSA qual'd bike instructor. I too, have done my time hooning about in mil cars and looking back, it's nothing to be proud about.

But in the old days, there were proper 'Deltas' (for those who remember them), master drivers, nasty MTOs and RAFP Flt Sgts who had real impact and authority. Now? Well, Ford is trialing internal accoustic mods to allow conversations to be linked to fleet telematics.. now that IS scary and you can understand why some people mutter "thin end of the wedge" under their breath. Anyway, none of this applies to me - Alfa enthusiasts prefer flair, panache and presence to prosaic key performance indicators. Still safer now mind, maybe that's just age though. C Hinecap, nice to see you back.

kaitakbowler

23rd Nov 2013, 08:32

FWIW - i was sent to Leconfield to do HGV, I got as far as " the military are exempt from tacho law (at the time) and as such can exceed driving hrs."

That would be the "crown exemption" it allowed such things as driving hours, certain construction and use regulations and drivers age limits to be applied to suit service needs.

In my day in the RAF drivers hours were laid down in the JSP and were probably only exceeded during the build up to GW1 and Corporate, which if managed could be carried out safely.

In the lead up to GW1 a vehicle left our unit at 0730ish and was involved in a fatal RTC some 3 miles from base, a car had crossed onto the wrong side of the road and gone under the front of a fully loaded artic, the car driver had just completed a 12hr night shift and was driving home. We (the RAF) could demonstrate the Cpl MTD was fully rested and complying with the drivers hours regulations, as far as rest time and previous days hours.

As an aside, the vehicle was fully loaded with BL755 cbu's which sharpened the attention of the first police officer to attend.

PM

Laarbruch72

23rd Nov 2013, 20:48

It certainly isn't "well over 5 years since it was introduced" either. The minibus I drove on the A1 in 2009 certainly wasn't equipped with an electronic member of the green party.

It is over 5 years. The fleets have never been 100% equipped with this kit, and they still aren't (it's only on selected vehicles, generally the standard cars, minibuses and vans along with specialist vehicles aren't equipped), so the fact you drove a minibus once that didn't have it says nothing about the introduction date.

Whenurhappy

24th Nov 2013, 08:40

During my last tour overseas working for a EUCOM element in Germany, local military drivers would regularly shuttle us to the airport - they were limited to 200 km/h on the Autobahn. . If 'Transportation' couldn't meet requests, local taxi firms would be contracted in. On my last journey, the taxi driver reached 230 km/h!

As I've mentioned before, reduction of RAF footprint and reduction of SFA availability under NEM could result more RTW RTAs - as SP commute longer distances from their (affordable) own homes . DASA did some interesting work on this in 2006 and came up with some pretty shocking predictions - basically, double-digit fatalities expected. Should the CoC also consider offering this kit to private vehicles, thus exercising a broader duty of care?

TomJoad

24th Nov 2013, 12:16

Should the CoC also consider offering this kit to private vehicles, thus exercising a broader duty of care?

No he should not. To do so would represent a gross intrusion into an individual's private life. :ugh:

Out Of Trim

24th Nov 2013, 19:28

Sad to see this expensive kit installed in MT vehicles. We are the Armed Forces; not the Brownies!

A higher element of risk is surely endemic in Service Personnel. That's what they want in life.

What next, speed restrictions on the Typhoon, just in case one might get into high spirits and get a bit carried away.

Also, what's all this Health and Safety crap with Liney's wearing a Hi Viz vest over DPM uniform... :ugh::yuk:

Bring back the old days!

TheWizard

24th Nov 2013, 19:42

This is not an "RAF" thing, it's an MOD thing.
Try getting anything done about fleets and equipment these days and you need to look at the green side of the triangle.
The internal lights system is NOT monitored but the cars are tracked wherever they go.
This has resulted in at least two (probably more) prosecutions for fraudulent journey claims.

Willard Whyte

24th Nov 2013, 19:57

Whilst not excusing criminal activities, and that does not include speeding in my not so humble opinion, one wonders how much those 2 (or more) fraudulent journey claims cost - in relation to equipment through to prosecution.

TomJoad

24th Nov 2013, 20:16

Alas it seams that removing human input or thought is where car design is heading. From windscreen wipers that turn themselves on, automatic headlights, self dimming rear view mirrors, lane control, self parking etc it's only heading one way. Google have been beta testing a self driving car for the past year. No doubt in the future we will salute the reduction in driver attributed accidents. And laudable that will be but I can't help but think we are loosing something here. The most enjoyable car I have driven had no power steering, no assisted braking and suspension which lent itself more to the horse and cart era.:E

Mr C Hinecap

24th Nov 2013, 23:03

A higher element of risk is surely endemic in Service Personnel. That's what they want in life.

Go and read the report I linked to. If you cannot see the virtue in this sort of effort then you have never held a position of responsibility and, if you have, never took it seriously. If people are at risk of death or injury from something that is avoidable, you work to avoid it. People don't join the Forces because they want a pointless death in a car crash :rolleyes:

Al R

25th Nov 2013, 04:08

CH,

You make a good point, but let's not kid ourselves. This 'virtue' isn't driven by a warm hearted desire to save lives - rather, hard nosed rational based on punitive updating of corporate manslaughter legislation in 2008. OOT has a point in that people who gravitate towards the military do have a different perception to risk and loss (not a more cavalier and irresponsible attitude, just a different one).

Tom/Whenur,

Don't speak too soon, the revised legislation (above) also compels employers to ensure that even private vehicles used for business purposes aren't exempt. I imagine this wouldn't apply to ops, but it probably would if attending courses, etc.

Whenurhappy

26th Nov 2013, 06:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whenurhappyhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528153-mt-big-brother-aka-trimble-post8169996.html#post8169996)
Should the CoC also consider offering this kit to private vehicles, thus exercising a broader duty of care?
No he should not. To do so would represent a gross intrusion into an individual's private life. :ugh:

Well, I was being tongue-in-cheek but it does beg the question where liability rests when an employer is assisiting with commuting costs and is introducing policies that specifically remove housing 'entitlement', requiring considerably longer commtes - and almost always by car or bike. Apart from RAF Northolt, I can't think of any RAF unit that has good public trasnport links...

Party Animal

26th Nov 2013, 07:44

Back to the subject of MT safety. Firstly, the car I was given to drive recently up to Lincolnshire and back was virtually asthmatic. 0-60mph probably took about 17 seconds. It actually felt dangerous at times driving along the A1, particularly heading south where High Dike joins the A1 just north of Colsterworth. With my foot to the floor, I must have made it to about 40mph by the end of the accelerating lane. Quite scary with the very fast moving traffic trying to get around me.

Secondly, my colleague had a red light come on during a very long drive to Lossiemouth with most of the journey in darkness. With the box mounted just above the dashboard, it was extremely distracting to have a huge bright light reflecting off the windscreen as it came on and off intermittently.

Mr C Hinecap

26th Nov 2013, 12:50

Firstly, the car I was given to drive recently up to Lincolnshire and back was virtually asthmatic. 0-60mph probably took about 17 seconds. It actually felt dangerous at times driving along the A1,

You did report this to MT Control when you got back to your unit didn't you?

it was extremely distracting to have a huge bright light reflecting off the windscreen as it came on and off intermittently.

Was that not a sign that he should modify his driving in order to keep the light off?

Party Animal

26th Nov 2013, 13:07

You did report this to MT Control when you got back to your unit didn't you?

The car was brand new! Economy model plus very small engine capacity to save money = crap performance and dangerous in my book.

Was that not a sign that he should modify his driving in order to keep the light off?

No. It was a sign that the box had an intermittent fault that resulted in a startling bright light coming on and off at will. Similar faults have been reported on several occasions where I work.

Out Of Trim

26th Nov 2013, 13:09

Was that not a sign that he should modify his driving in order to keep the light off?

No, he should have covered the lights with some bodge tape and put the car U/S on arrival!:E

teeteringhead

26th Nov 2013, 13:46

Was that not a sign that he should modify his driving in order to keep the light off? Not in fact Mr C. Even if one is perfect, the light is bright green and not off, and unlike all other cockpit lights does not appear to dim when external lights are selected.

Moreover (good staff word!) a momentary excursion - swerving to avoid bird/dog/idiot for example - which exceeds the lateral g limit ensures that the red light illuminates for (I think) 5 further minutes.

Fortunately (as I noted in an earlier post) my new staff car has the device hidden in the bowels of the vehicle (or - in a cunning double bluff - is not there at all!), so I'm forced to rely on my own judgement to decide whether I'm safe/legal/sensible or not.

Sorry to spoil your point with facts .......... ;)

BEagle

26th Nov 2013, 14:15

Party Animal, whatever was this feeble vehicle?

The High Dike slip road is only about 400 ft long, so assuming you were doing about 15 mph on entry, if the wheeze-box had only cracked 40 mph when you joined the A1, that would have given you an average acceleration of only about 3.75ft/s² - meaning if it kept up that stunning rate of acceleration it would take nearly 24 seconds to reach 60 mph. Almost 100E Anglia performance - if that isn't an oxymoron....:(

Party Animal

26th Nov 2013, 14:24

Not in fact Mr C. Even if one is perfect, the light is bright green and not off, and unlike all other cockpit lights does not appear to dim when external lights are selected.

Quite right Teeters. It makes you wonder if the designers (and supporters) of such systems have ever driven along an unlit road at night - let alone been anywhere near a cockpit!

BEagle - Ford Fiesta with the smallest diesel engine available. Engine felt like it was seriously straining at 75 mph. Overtaking HGV's cruising at 56 mph took forever and it didn't take long for a line of faster cars (with irate drivers) to build up behind me during such manouvres. Of course, the safety minded may suggest that I should have stayed with the HGV's at 56 mph but in the real world....:*

Mr C Hinecap

26th Nov 2013, 14:43

The car was brand new! Economy model plus very small engine capacity to save money = crap performance and dangerous in my book.

Poor you. Your employer deems it suitable. Adapt your driving technique or take public transport.

Sorry to spoil your point with facts

You may have noticed the question mark at the end of my question that denoted it being a question. I was asking a question because I did not know the answer. If this was such a problem for the driver, a small kerchief or other item could have perhaps shaded the light.

It makes you wonder if the designers (and supporters) of such systems have ever driven along an unlit road at night - let alone been anywhere near a cockpit!

As I've said before - a good idea poorly executed.

teeteringhead

26th Nov 2013, 16:16

You may have noticed the question mark at the end of my question that denoted it being a question.

Well, every day's a schoolday! ;)

And you Sir may have noticed the ;) at the end of my dotted lines (or ellipsis if you will) which denoted irony... ;)

But I do agree with you - a good idea poorly executed.

BEags Almost 100E Anglia performance - if that isn't an oxymoron.... but the piece de resistance of the 100E and similar was surely the wipers working (sic) on manifold vacuum, thereby ensuring they wheezed to a halt when you put your foot down to accelerate - even at 1072 Flathead Ford rates.

Party Animal

26th Nov 2013, 17:02

Poor you. Your employer deems it suitable. Adapt your driving technique or take public transport.

My employer is MOD and I'm not aware of such models being procured for use by Stn execs or higher levels of command.

The MT contractor where I work deems it the cheapest solution versus the maximisation of profits. Two very different things.

As an advanced driver, just what technique do you recommend exactly for accelerating onto a motorway/dual carriageway? Are you suggesting stopping at the intersection until there is a gap in the traffic?

As for public transport - what budgetholder would approve a mixture of rail travel and taxis at huge expense when MT is duly available?

Mr C Hinecap

26th Nov 2013, 17:34

My employer is MOD and I'm not aware of such models being procured for use by Stn execs or higher levels of command.

So what? This has no bearing upon your car or it's suitability. The glib answer would be 'RHIP - get promoted then' and Wg Cdrs got Corsa level cars last time I saw them.

The MT contractor where I work deems it the cheapest solution versus the maximisation of profits. Two very different things.

That has nothing to do with the car you used - which is approved for use on UK roads and meets all required standards.

As an advanced driver, just what technique do you recommend exactly for accelerating onto a motorway/dual carriageway? Are you suggesting stopping at the intersection until there is a gap in the traffic?

Whatever magic technique the other people driving similar cars or other slower vehicles use. It seems to work. I've seen them on the roads.

As for public transport - what budgetholder would approve a mixture of rail travel and taxis at huge expense when MT is duly available?

There members of the Armed Forces who can't / won't drive. They use public transport. If yo want to read the regs it is still probably the default mode of transport and what you'd be offered if a car were not available.

Your wants and needs are not the same thing, and that has forever been something MT suffers from. Special customers want a gold-plated turbo-charged air-conditioned answer, when what they need is a metal box with not much more than a wheel at each corner and a steering wheel. If it were the Army bitching about the crappy transport fleet you'd shrug and say 'that's what we've got, sorry. We want better.', yet some poor bugger in MT is at fault for dealing the cards played?

Whenurhappy

26th Nov 2013, 17:36

As I mentioned above, public transport (and I mean buses and trains) are hardly an economical option (both in fiscal and time-management terms)when travelling to and from most RAF and Joint Units (try to get to Shrivenham using public transport - the taxi fare from Swindon to Shriv is more expensive than an off-peak Paddington-Swindon ticket). Accordingly MT is required - principally self-drive. But having outsourced much of the white fleet, the Services are behoven to the contractor and through the Army lead. Having said that, friends working in other government departments don't seem to be under the same degree of pressure. The FCO have a fleet of rather smart hybrids - and a fleet of bicycles! Furthermore, FCO officers still travel by first class for rail journies greater than an hour, and mid-tour leave from overseas posts is still via Business Class for the whole family (dropped in June this year for seconded MOD personnel). Ditto Home Office officials.

Mr C Hinecap

26th Nov 2013, 18:05

try to get to Shrivenham using public transport

The 66 bus runs to / from Watchfield and is a 7 min walk from Swindon Station. Anything from 28 to 40 min total journey time and it is pretty regular.

Always happy to help you, whenurhappy! :ok:

Biggus

26th Nov 2013, 18:12

Does the 66 run on a Sunday?

Almost every military course I've ever been on starts first thing on a Monday morning. Trying to get to St Mawgan for a course starting at 0900 on Monday, in an era where air travel wasn't being authorized, meant leaving the north of Scotland on Saturday because of the train times. It was also only a 3 day course, so why couldn't it be held from Tuesday to Thursday (and yes, I did put that in the course critique, but needless to say nothing changed!!)

Mr C Hinecap

26th Nov 2013, 18:17

Does the 66 run on a Sunday?

Yes it does. :ok:

Just for those who occasionally use public transport is a superb website that tends to give the best answers is www.transportdirect.info (http://www.transportdirect.info/Web2/Home.aspx?cacheparam=6)

Postcode to postcode, links trains, buses etc.

Biggus

26th Nov 2013, 18:26

I'll have to remember that website......

...after, it's not that long until I get my free bus pass! :(

Al R

26th Nov 2013, 18:29

PA,

I feel your pain but although I was there earlier today, I certainly didn't share your sense of continental drift acceleration. My other half will crown me if she reads this - I was in her car. Maybe if you had continued a couple of miles and then turned left down that discrete lane, you could have part ex'd your Ford for something slightly less wheezy and rheumatic..?

Armoured Vehicles, MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Used Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale (http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicles/,37,/Armoured_Vehicles.htm)

Biggus

26th Nov 2013, 18:37

Al,

Have you actually checked the title of your link? :ok::ok:

Al R

26th Nov 2013, 18:43

I know, someone at Witham has too much time on their hands I think. Definitely more appetising than CH's (far worthier) link a few minutes before mind.. ;)

brokenlink

26th Nov 2013, 19:21

I have 2 different experiences with this bl@@dy system, again from a base in Hunts. Firstly the little LED flashing to red as I was parked (on the phone) in a layby on the A43 when an HGV went thundering past. The slipstram cannot have been that bad. did not even disturb the coffee!

Secondly last week the little red light went on the moment I turned the key and stayed on for the entire journey, and I was being careful, following day on return trip all worked fine. Conclusion is it is not the most reliable piece of kit in the world

Union Jack

26th Nov 2013, 20:21

The MT contractor where I work deems it the cheapest solution versus the maximisation of profits.

Which reminds me of the old story about the young salesman complaining to the Fleet Manager, "Anyway, why do I only have a two door Fiesta?", to which the reply came, "Because, son, Ford don't make a one door Fiesta"!:ok:

Somehow, reading this thread, I can't help longing for the days when the Coxswain of an Admiral's barge doubled as his driver, and Flag Lieutenants to Naval Air Command Flag Officers doubled as their Personal Pilot, and were specifically appointed as such in the Officers' Appointment List.:sad:

Jack

BEagle

26th Nov 2013, 20:23

....but the piece de resistance of the 100E and similar was surely the wipers working (sic) on manifold vacuum, thereby ensuring they wheezed to a halt when you put your foot down to accelerate - even at 1072 Flathead Ford rates.

And when you lifted off, the wipers would thrash away like crazy. My late mother had to stop her 100E on many an occasion in the late '50s / early '60s to go looking for wiper blades which had thrown themselves over the nearside Somerset hedge!

...Wg Cdrs got Corsa level cars last time I saw them.

How simly appalling. Is that all that they're given these days, some tatty little grotbox?

I recall the time when MT at Abingdon expected people to take a supplementary driving test to drive the Montego turbo diesel. Why, they were asked - is it because it's so sodding slow? The requirement was later binned...:rolleyes:

Party Animal

27th Nov 2013, 13:50

How simly appalling. Is that all that they're given these days, some tatty little grotbox?

BEagle - you've been gone too long! I think it was the mid 90's when Stn Cdr's cars were downgraded to Ford Escorts and Stn execs received Vauxhall Corsas.

However, depite the comments by 22 year career MT operators such as CH, these were merely used as stn runarounds and to the married patch and back. Anyone needing to travel serious distances were provided with a Montego level of car.

CH,

I suppose a Suzuki Hyabusa is out of the question?

Mr C Hinecap

27th Nov 2013, 23:03

depite the comments by 22 year career MT operators such as CH,

Thank you for the backhanded complement. However, the blunt in the RAF can learn more than 'cows get bigger, cows get smaller' in a career. I'd never match a Tradesman for knowledge.

provided with a Montego level of car.

I'll let you off seeing as you are obviously very old indeed.

AR1

27th Nov 2013, 23:23

Sorry lads. Some of this legacy may be my fault...
Me:
I was doing just under 30 mph.

Sqn Ldr:
So why were the skid marks 90ft long?

Out Of Trim

28th Nov 2013, 00:18

Out Of Trim

28th Nov 2013, 00:31

Actually did enjoy a Detachment to Honington once, was given a Nice Green LWB Landrover with a Petrol V8 to play with. Now that was much more fun!:D

Whenurhappy

28th Nov 2013, 05:10

C. Hinecap,

Do the MOD use any hybrids? I would have thought they were useful on base.

Laarbruch72

28th Nov 2013, 07:03

They do, Prius are becoming very common fleet cars.

teeteringhead

28th Nov 2013, 09:27

One has seen the odd Gp Capt with a white fleet Skoda Superb, which seems to be a very nice motor.

Al R

28th Nov 2013, 09:30

Have the battery recycling problems been sorted out yet? It'll soon be time to start a Hybrid powertrain repair business.

Best just buy a 30 year old V8. Cradle to grave, far better for dolphins and fluffy lambs, and it sounds nicer too.

Union Jack

28th Nov 2013, 09:42

One has seen the odd Gp Capt

You mean there's only one?:)

Jack

PS I agree about the Superb, although I'm sticking with the V8:ok:

Willard Whyte

28th Nov 2013, 10:58

Sorry lads. Some of this legacy may be my fault...
Me:
I was doing just under 30 mph.

Sqn Ldr:
So why were the skid marks 90ft long?

Front wheel drive, full throttle, handbrake on - normally has that result.

NutLoose

28th Nov 2013, 11:47

Hmmm, struggling to remember any decent RAF MT Vehicles in my time. Probably the best were the Austin 1800's until the Montego Turbo Diesels.

Between those were a mix of horrible Vauxhall chèvettes in puke green, black Metro's that were even worse, the odd Ford Escort Estate Diesel in Black. Sherpa minibuses in various colours to deceive the IRA! And at least the SWB and LWB Landrovers which you knew what you were getting with an inch and a half steering play before the front wheels responded to any imput!Let us not forget the Mini as well, available in van variant and bog standard mode that were issued to Wing Co's etc. The Staish at Odious had one with his flag on the front when his Montego was in for servicing, he came in the main gate, thinking the guard hadn't saluted him because the low roof height masked it, he reversed up under the descending barrier that didn't have a cut out and could not be reversed until it did a full cycle, pinning him and his mini in place, luckily all witnessed by the SWO. :D

We managed to set fire to a van, a bit of stray locking wire in the back shorted out the battery under the seat and set fire to the horsehair in it lol.

LSS at Brize always got Station rejects because they never fared well, seemed lost on MT they were used 24/7. They finally relented and gave us a brand new Landrover 190 on pain of death if damaged... It lasted under a week and was sitting there minding its own business when a driver from MT took it out with a tug and wrote it off.. :D