Various points regarding transport

[DeV]

Once trained if the driver says they can't do it.......

[Barry]

A (PDF) (Training) Officer told a 3 Star "Trooper, take me down THAT hill in your Nissan". "What hill Sir?" asks the driver. "That bloody hill" (he points to a hill covered in trees, ditches, and at a decline of about 60 degrees). "No Sir,it is too dangerous to drive down THAT hill Sir, however we could go around the (forest) road". "No, I said that hill. Give me the keys" says Officer. Dirver obeys, gets the req duly endorsed, Officer takes off down THAT hill, and guess what? a tree jumps in front if him, and Nissan gets wrapped around it.

So was the driver right or wrong in what he did? He was given an order, he did question and disobey the order, but had he not done that, where would he be? He'd be the Bagger ddriver who wrote off a Nissan.

Do not forget that the DRIVER is responsible for the vehicle, not a gung-who Officer who likes to issue orders cause that's what he does.

Note that I said lawful order. An order which would cause a breach of DSOs is not a lawful order. A driver who breaches DSOs (even if an officer tells them to) and ends up writing a vehicle off or similar can be charged with failure to follow a lawful order.

[Steyr Fan]

Note that I said lawful order. An order which would cause a breach of DSOs is not a lawful order. A driver who breaches DSOs (even if an officer tells them to) and ends up writing a vehicle off or similar can be charged with failure to follow a lawful order.

As far as the Officer was concerned it WAS a lawful order. Don't know why it was so imperative for him to get down the hill. Afterall, the vehicle could be regarded as an OFF road vehicle, and he wanted to go OFF road, but in the eyes of the driver, it was dangerous. He disobeyed the order, and was proven right that it WAS not approprite.

If a driver feels tired/fatigued, and is ordered to drive (and the issuer of the order considers the order lawful), the driver should NOT drive. The fact that an order may be lawful does not of necessity make it one a driver should obey if in his opinion to obey that order would put his or others lives, or the mission, in jepordy.

[luchi]

So was the driver right or wrong in what he did? He was given an order, he did question and disobey the order, but had he not done that, where would he be? He'd be the Bagger ddriver who wrote off a Nissan.

Do not forget that the DRIVER is responsible for the vehicle, not a gung-who Officer who likes to issue orders cause that's what he does.

Answer depends on the officer.

Once trained if the driver says they can't do it.......

NO
An STCV, nissan or pajero, is an off road vehicle.
If a driver is not competent or confident of his own ability to controll the vehicle as directed he must inform the officer giving the order. This covers a multitude of cases.
if the driver feels that damage may be caused then

IF ordered by his own officer to make a manoeuver which the driver conciders may damage the vehicle he will notify the officer of his reservations, have the req endorsed with the written order and comply.

IF the order is given by an non-tpt officer the driver will inform his own OC and comply with the instructions given by his OC.
IF it is not possible to contact his OC the driver will have the officer endorse the Req and then comply making every effort to maintain the safety and security of the vehicle. The details will then be made known to his own officer as soon as possible.

This is an interpretation of DSO Para 14

Note that I said lawful order. An order which would cause a breach of DSOs is not a lawful order. A driver who breaches DSOs (even if an officer tells them to) and ends up writing a vehicle off or similar can be charged with failure to follow a lawful order.

NO
Going off route is in breach of detail instructions.
However there is more than one reason that you are permitted to deviate.

Re being charged.
Not all DFRs are specifically noted in statute.
However a soldier can be charged with any breach of DFRs.

So TD you can be charged for exceeding detail instructions as per DSO para 13

If a driver feels tired/fatigued, and is ordered to drive (and the issuer of the order considers the order lawful), the driver should NOT drive. The fact that an order may be lawful does not of necessity make it one a driver should obey if in his opinion to obey that order would put his or others lives, or the mission, in jepordy.

If a driver is fatigued he has 2 options.
1. Report to the medic and be ED.
2. If driving an LTCV then he can also quote the RTA driving hours.(section 114 RTA 1961) this is reenforced by later tacho regulations which do not however apply to military vehicles

[DeV]

NO
An STCV, nissan or pajero, is an off road vehicle.
If a driver is not competent or confident of his own ability to controll the vehicle as directed he must inform the officer giving the order. This covers a multitude of cases.
if the driver feels that damage may be caused then

IF ordered by his own officer to make a manoeuver which the driver conciders may damage the vehicle he will notify the officer of his reservations, have the req endorsed with the written order and comply.

IF the order is given by an non-tpt officer the driver will inform his own OC and comply with the instructions given by his OC.
IF it is not possible to contact his OC the driver will have the officer endorse the Req and then comply making every effort to maintain the safety and security of the vehicle. The details will then be made known to his own officer as soon as possible.

This is an interpretation of DSO Para 14

Thats kind of what I meant but in more detail (it made sense in my head)

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there,
It was my experience that some duties had the option to be dropped home built in, ie, such as pers. on call or on 24-hour duty. All depended on the OIC.
Were there drivers who abused their position with DF vehicles? Sure there were.Were there Officers who abused their position with DF vehicles? Same answer. Standing Orders are all very well but they often don't have the intellectual "rigour" to stand up in court.
regards
GttC

[hptmurphy]

Were there drivers who abused their position with DF vehicles? Sure there were.Were there Officers who abused their position with DF vehicles?

Depends on whose house furnishings you were moving at the time.....

Depends on how long the driver had to sit and drink tea, if it was an officer who asked the driver in, while the officer visited his relatives, having deviated from the approved route.

[Steyr Fan]

Deviating from the approved route -ffs - remember when some officers wanted to move a boat from one canal to another, and borrowed a man 4x2 while we were on the range in Carna. Dont; know who the authorised driver was, or what happened but it appeared on the range again many hours after it should have.

As one 3* who is a good mate of mine says "ask the butt end of my bloxxcks" when asked to retro-sign (don't ask) a req & duty order (as it was then) to cover over this episode.

Thank fcuk times have changed. But ahve they really. Do officers still think they can do this shite?

[DeV]

Depends on whose house furnishings you were moving at the time.....

On Repayment?

[luchi]

As one 3* who is a good mate of mine says "ask the butt end of my bloxxcks" when asked to retro-sign (don't ask) a req & duty order (as it was then) to cover over this episode.

I won't ash but if the vehicle was detailed to Go from A to B and the canals deviation added little to the overall milage what difference does it make?
From what you said it doesn't seem as if it had a negative effect on what you were doing,

Thank fcuk times have changed. But ahve they really. Do officers still think they can do this shite?

ha ha

[GoneToTheCanner]

I remember a DF Landrover allegedly deviating from it's journey and ending up being photographed outside an alleged drug dealer's house, said photo being published by Sinn Fein in their rag, during their anti-drug campaign.

Hi luchi, as for what difference does it make, it does when the driver is in cahoots with a quartermaster to shift stolen DF materials for which my Apprentice Class were docked out of our wages.We fought back and won that round!
regards
GttC

[Steyr Fan]

I won't ash but if the vehicle was detailed to Go from A to B and the canals deviation added little to the overall milage what difference does it make?
From what you said it doesn't seem as if it had a negative effect on what you were doing,


ha ha

I was not privy to what was or was not on the rec other than "Connolly Barracks to Ex area, return to Connolly Bcks".

I was to take a bike from the range back to barracks after a night shoot - gear was on the truck, which did not return to the range until 3am when the rest of the troops left at 11pm - this was after a 48 hr ex, got to my cot at 5am, and was BOS for the day.

So YES - it did have an effect on what we were doing.

[luchi]

From your earlier post there was no indication that anyone was inconvienienced.
But my point stil stands,
IF it does not effect training then whats the problem.

IF that had been the MT school and the driver being trained got to drive from Dublin to Athlone and back instead of just spending 4 hours driving around Dublin would it not actually be better experience for the driver?

IF you are going from CBB to Gormo and someone from Finglas left something at home would it really be so bad to swing by?

[hptmurphy]

On Repayment?

the only payment was the driver usually got a few bob from the guy moving house.

[ollie]

the only payment was the driver usually got a few bob from the guy moving house.

in one circumstance i remember being in a work detail on a saturday helping a tossifer move home, our payment was to be left standing out in the pissing rain while the furiture was in the back of the truck, oh happy days.

there was a time when duty driver in the curragh meant being a taxi for officers leaving the mess.