Hmm. Didn't they continue flying during the fuel pipe grounding?

That did seem a bit ott. No small boats to do the job? (I did see a Merlin approaching her late yesterday afternoon)

......
I'd say you're on the money there Davef........... Are there any Merlins based in Scotland these days ?

I would guess the cost of a Merlin per flying hour way exceeds the total discounted fleet lease/purchase cost of a Galaxy (Ford that is, not Lockheed) ..... Does anyone know if the offending vehicle has RN plates or is it civvie DVLA registered ?

BTW the ships gone 'stealf'

..........

The RN has been handling this situation with unbelievable clumsiness.

But if indeed he was "..reported by his own crew", I can see the ship getting a reputation as being an 'unhappy ship'.

If I were the MTO and had picked up on this, and even raised it with him (who knows, I'm not there...but I'd be staggered if it had not been) I'd report it if it were illegal and ongoing after a quiet word! It would be my Pension after all at stake here esp with all the insurance connotations! Owch! But since we all had it drummed in from Day 1 that "It's the little things that will catch you, Sunshine!" why he didn't go for the standard "plant the boat into a bridge/park it on a sandbank = promotion assured" technique I've no idea. Worked so well for many in the past!

I once (decades ago) had to pick up a MSO (Mildly Senior Officer) one evening from a train station. Finally, in desperation, used my beat-up car. "Where's the MT?". Wearily, my response "Out of hours, Sir, and you are only a MSO!" did not go down well. I silenced further grumbling by suggesting "Well, there's always a bus out to camp! Next one in about 3 hours!". How many rules that trip broke I'd hate to think - including the latest barking "union rule" governing out-of-hours use (or not!) of MT...... :ugh:

Hot 'n' High wrote: I assume you meant a quiet word with the person suspected of using a service vehicle contrary to the rules?


One thought - why not equip such high profile 'company' vehicles with tracking devices which can send vehicle location, speed and time to whatever passes for MT Control these days? Many other fleet users have such systems.

Exactly! :ok:

Whatever the reason the way it has been handled has really done the RN no good at all .................... all over the media for all the wrong reasons

They do. All service vehicles are GPS tracked. Possibly how he was found out...

Not a definitive answer, but I read the quote below in one of the newspapers:-

Update - Saturday 0900A
 

...
QE came past Dungeness an hour ago at a cracking 23kts, Now slowed to 18kts in traffic.
I wonder who's in charge ? Destination still showing as Portland.

..........

I should emphasise that I'm not having a go at Nutty, but his opening words have made me wonder whether anyone can recall any recorded instances of anyone standing up, or officially complaining in any way, about any of the many reported, and usually admiringly, incidents in this forum of aircraft from all three Services being used for all sorts of obviously less than official purposes.

Taking up Nutty's point about the command of QUEEN ELIZABETH, the Executive Officer should indeed be able to take over temporary command, but as alluded to earlier, the best replacement at least in the short term is clearly the incoming Captain of PRINCE OF WALES.

Jack

Looks like the MoD needs to sort out its service vehicle policy and do so rather quickly. This event and a few significant others have caused confusion and consternation. There are many service personnel who, by the nature of their role and duties, are required to be on-call at all times (except on leave) and must only be driving service vehicles due to the equipment carried or their role. It was understood that COs had broad powers to determine who fell into such categories and that these vehicles would inevitably be used for domestic travel, including things like taking kids to school, in order to meet the out-of-hours response times.

A number of VSOs are also required to respond out-of-hours and are issued with a vehicle and sometimes a dedicated driver. Some even require CPOs at all times when traveling in their area, including any domestic journeys involving their family. There has also been a well-established practice of using MoD vehicles for carriage of civilians and family members (medical, compassionate, repatriation et al) but these too have fallen foul of contradictory policy. Apparently the least helpful document is an AGAI that effectively prohibits vehicles from any domestic use or carriage of civilians. Further confusion exists as the AGAI is, by its name, an army document under army control. Some in the MoD think the AGAI applies equally to all 3 services and MoD civil servants; the RAF and the RN are unclear but some of their documents also point at the AGAI. Of course, with the increasing number of joint establishments the level of confusion increases.

Whilst we might smile of the thought of a VSO being punished for carrying his spouse in his vehicle as a formal +1 to whatever dinner, royal event, baby kissing, grin-and-grip et al, it is having an effect on the lowest ranks and their families - often at the worst of times. I have come across recent examples where family members have been kicked-out of service ambulances, or left abandoned during a repatriation of wounded, injured or sick. The army even directed that family members could not travel on service MT even when participating on a families course for the most seriously injured service personnel as part of their rolling-recovery programme. In that particular case a service charity had to step in and hire vehicles to move families around as a group.

Any remaining command flexibility in MT rules will have evaporated with this public sacking. The tension between the desire to reduce service family accommodation and encourage personnel to live out whilst maintaining an ever-increasing 'informal' out-of-hours commitments may have turned into a loud 'snap'. Moreover, even simple gestures of sending the CO's car to pick-up an injured serviceman's wife will be lost under the crunch of bureaucracy. Those that require weapons, crypto, controlled drugs etc when out-of-hours will face one set of orders that say 'service vehicle only' with another one that effectively says that the issued service vehicle has to stay at work.

I left the Service recently but joined at a time where the majority lived on base, when families could use the medical centre, service youth clubs had MT support, families could fly on MoD aircraft as indulgence passengers and the CO could do whatever he liked with his car and driver unless he was on formal leave. Now just moving civilian passengers across the pan at Brize on an MT coach for their flight to the Falklands has become a prohibited use of MT that the current CO can no longer ignore.

As a final point, whilst we all like to throw stones at VSOs anyone on the MoD system can view their diaries and see how crushing their diaries are by day and by night. Some of these will be the same VSOs dragged-in when a civilian airliner enters UK airspace and causes a big thinks bubble, or when a counter-terrorism response is needed. A CO can be recalled to his ship or command at any time; deprive them of a vehicle or a driver then the 'any time' bit has to be removed too. No doubt the PM will be returning from her constituency home this weekend by driving her own car back to Downing Street...

........
Thank you JTO - a nice dose of hard home-truth and common sense there.

HMS QE just entering Portsmouth Harbour 1730A - Sorry about the Portland duff gen earlier. - Ships Twitter had it all along.

.......

TBH, Flashy, we all know just how skilled the MoD is at taking a simple concept and then making it into a nightmare! Seems all the MoD is actually good at some times! And Just This Once... just got a bit defensive re VSOs to which my response is (a) like the VSO payslip (b) really like the VSO pension and (c) promotion to VSO is not compulsory! You want (a) and (b) crack on! The deal is you accept what (c) brings! Questions? No! Good! Carry on!

What the actual argument is here (quite apart from my earlier military humour re sand banks and bridges - please, do lighten up a bit) is (i) either the RN completely over-reacted over this or Nick, nice guy, (ii) stuffed up big time ...... orrrrrrr .... (iii) there's some agenda where Nick is a fall guy. That's the real question on PPRune. What is it? (i), (ii) or (iii)?

Just sayin', H 'n' H

It strikes me, that this has been a PR disaster, OK the question of who drove the MOD vehicle and why, is on the face of it interesting. How much has been invested in a career for on the face of it, it all to be poured down the drain because of use of a vehicle.
More on the PR disaster, is why was a Merlin detached to transport a ship's captain from his ship to dry land, at a cost of what, when as I understand in the Queen Elizabeth has a number of ship's boats, the captain could be piped off the ship and instructed to drive the offending vehicle to an appropriate location to return it, saves a lot of money and embarrassment.

it seems I am not the only person to be frustrated by a boss who does not understand technology. Nor are we the only navy to suffer political retards:

Trump’s obsession with steam sets up collision with US Navy

US President Donald Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on the US Navy to return to the days of steam-powered catapults for launching jets from aircraft carriers – a multibillion-dollar shift that could take nearly two decades to achieve and would likely spur a clash with Congress.

Trump has spent two years criticising the US Navy's decision to switch to an electromagnetic launch system for its newest class of aircraft carriers, citing delays in rolling out the technology and complaining that “you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out”.

Perhaps he meant Micheal Faraday?

I was surprised about eighteen months ago when I heard someone claim that if we had gone for CTOL and F/A-18 when would have regenerated Carrier Strike by 2017. He did not say why he thought that. Political dithering delayed the construction, political interference caused no end of problems, and political toxicity made it harder to mitigate against the consequences.