Before usage register

Discussion in 'REME' started by MuddyMettle, Apr 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi All,

    Would anyone have a before usage register for jacks axle stands etc, or where I could get a look at one?

  2. Doesn't your unit equipment care directive have one in there?

    Failing that just knock one up yourself, your MT/Recovery section will be able to help you out.
  3. Luems 2 should be used when writing the Unit Equipment Care Directive anyway.
  4. I think it was the advent of said registers that convinced me that the job isn't worth taking seriously anymore.
    "The straw that broke the back of common sense" was how one bloke described it. :D
  5. They aren't a new thing by a long way - they've always been a rqeuirement for as long as I can remember but they were never 'pushed' by the old PRE Teams. Then with the change to ECI they were amongst a large number of things that suddenly became popular nif-naff and triv items to put in ECI reports and got 'popular' as a result.

    Its nothing complicated - just a simple blank x-cel spread sheet with the date, name of t/man, ser no of kit used and condition it was in when he checked it then a box for him to sign at the end. There may be a set format in the new LOLA stuff but I dont recall seeing one.

    The comical thing about it is that although it makes guys check lifting kit before they use it, you are getting woefully under-qualified folk to comment on the condition of equipment that most of them wouldnt recognise a fault on if it bit them in the arrse. Daft really, but its just another of those daft things we have to put up with - like the TTM and tool-box inserts.................
  6. Absolutely correct, and it's a battle these day's to get the blokes on the shop floor to actually sign the Before use register.

    And usually playing catch up in the run up to ECI.
  7. The requirement to record it is just a mechanism to ensure that the before use check is carried out, good management I would suggest.

    The underqualified point misses the target. If you're qualified to use it then you're qualified to know that visually it is not fit for use.

    Delberto, I assume you're no longer in the trade then, or your employer just takes the risk.

    The one central register misses the point though that we're equally responsible for SHEF out of barracks as in. I've seen several units, including Engrs themselves, set up a register in an equipment folder for their vehicle (AVRE/AVLB) to record such checks. Top marks.
  8. Nope, still at trade. We kick the arrse out of it at our place, we don't just have a register for lifting tackle we have one for everything. We religiously fill it in as well , so much so that production is now running at 4 man hours for a Landrover TUM fan belt change. 10 minutes to change the belt and 3 hours 50 minutes checking the hand tools required, filling in the register for the hand tool check, doing a before use check on the vehicle, filling in the before use check sheet, filling in a drivers hours sheet, filling in a 1004/getting a JAMES one to move the vehicle, carrying out a before use check on the hoist/crawler board, filling in before use register for the check carried out on the hoist/crawler board, reading the safety data sheet in case you need to use ZX54, signing to say you've read the safety data sheet, checking any PPE you may need, signing the PPE before use register and then faffing about trying to get a new belt.
    Even then I still feel we're cutting corners and more could be done in this area.
  9. Delberto, I like it!

    Now all you need is a bit of Lean training to thin it all down eh!

    The good thing is if you don't cut corners in peacetime then the job should take as long as it needs to, thus ensuring we have the right amount of manpower so that when we do the job on ops we can take risk and cut corners without having to. In the same vein, our junior commanders will also have a better understanding of what to risk. Well that's a logical theory anyway.

    If you haven't served with the Engrs it's worth when you do looking into how much goes into their task planning. I seem to remember a few years back when we tried that level of task planning to develop the IST process we had to ditch it as it took too long.