electronic forms

Discussion in 'REME' started by lawsom34, Apr 5, 2006.

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. has anyone got the newer 932(b) on word or anything else electronic if so could they send me a copy as cant find one at mo
  2. Electronic copy available on JAMES website, sry dont have link to hand.
  3. Warning. Electronic copy or photocopy of AFG932B is not valid for MEI or 6 Monthly Safety Inspection. It must be an origonal copy (until JAMES 2 comes out).
  4. We have used photocopies of the latest 932(B) and passed an ECI, in fact our Bde ES Branch told us to use photocopies until we could get originals from DSDC(L).

    Where does it state that it must be an original form? (it isn't in B Veh test & certification AESP)

    The original of the completed report should go in the Docs, but as far as I'm aware the form you write on can be a copy.
  5. Depends wholely on what Div you are in - along with a plethora of other ECI related stuff, some insist its a pukka 923(b) from a pad, some say copies are OK.......... It all stems from how they interpret 2300-A-050-013 and the para about the handling of the 'original' 932(b) - some take that litterally, some dont...... (thats from an ex - ECI Team members perspective, by the way........(Twice))

    You do not yet HAVE to be using the new ones apparently, its OK to waste out the old ones.... And the reason for this marvelous never before heard of comon sense idea?.......................

    Simple, Llangenaghhhhhhhgghhhhh, cant keep up with demand and so there are'nt enough new ones to go around................
  6. If your Bde ES gave you the OK to use them you're asbestos I suppose (since the 07/02 version is not to be used after 31 March 2006), providing the AFG932B(Rev09/05) is copied and then you write ON it, a photocopy of a completed MEI/6MSI report would be as acceptable as a photocopied MOT cert to a copper. As for electronic forms,unless they are authorised and issued by DTech, you cannot use them.

    The new resentencing box on side 2 before the start of Part 2 worries me a bit.If you have repaired the VOR jobs within 28 days you resentence it"Fully Fit" but the 2 yearly service has still to be done, the 601 is out of date and some mods are outstanding. Is the vehicle back on the road and when these jobs are done where do you resentence Part 2?
  7. Battsimm I agree totally with you about the interpretation lark but ECI is now flavour of the month and LAND are going to standardise all procedures. Big changes are afoot and,according to The Craftsman, it will all be in place by Dec 06. No, it was not published in the Apr 1st issue either !!

    Keep the faith and try not to burst into tears.
  8. At the risk of this turning into an 'I love you too' thread...

    I agree with you too Crusty...

    Easiest way around the problem of re-sentancing is to endorse it 'L2'. That way you are only commenting on its fitness from a level 2 (REME) perspective and if the user wants to use it without completeing the stuff they are responsible for and then completeing the relevant sections of the 1004 and 932(b) (its not JUST a REME responsibility, you know, the user is actually allowed to write in there every now and then too - though some of 'em are completely ignorant of that fact...), then thats up to them and there would be no negative come back on our cap badge at ECI time as it was claerly stated that it was only fit from a REME point of view and NOT from the users......

    Thats the way I do it anyway and I insist that the USER completes the rest - make them take reponsibility for THEIR kit/documents.....

  9. As usual these things have been pushed out in haste with little or no guidence, our interpretation of the 28 day rule in our unit is that any defects picked up inder pt1 require recertifying within the 28 days. However if Servicing is out of date or a jack failure in Pt 2 then this is not subject to the 28 day rule but the vehicle remains non-taskworthy until the task is completed. i.e. Pt 1 can be certified as fully fit, Pt 2 non-taskworthy.

    The original MEI date (or RBT date if earlier remains extant)
  10. Just a quick one as with ECI looming on us, not having to re-certify part 2 within 28 days, can you tell me where that is written down.

    Just the reason I ask is on our pre ECI visit we had it sprung on us that writing brake results down on the inspection reports was not good enough (even though the brake machine we were using doesn’t print out) to quote the man "Its is a legal requirement to have a computer printout from the RBT". I didn’t think this was right so a phone call to the guy who wrote the inspections AESP should sort this out. Yep it did he said nope you don’t need it, you can use a Churchill still after all if you don’t have an RBT and as he said you don’t get a print out from that.
    So informed the guy who was in the middle of putting half our fleet of the road for RBT printouts on an advisory visit, of this new information. As expected from anyone when stuck in a corner and not wanting to admit it, no that’s not right, I make brigade policy, they need a print out, the guy that writes for the ARMY is wrong my decision stands.

    Sort of not related but what i am trying to say after ranting about this guy is Basically his favourite saying of this guy is "where’s you evidence" even though he needs none to VOR your fleet on a whim of the day. After all we were doing it the last time he came with no problems. so if we dont recertify pt2 in 28 days he is going to say "where is your evidence to support this as all VOR jobs have to be complete in 28 days" remember he dosent have to prove it we do and after the story above it has to be concrete.

    To end this if it is a legal requirement for the RBT computer printout then why do the MOT people only give you and emissions printout? The law is the law to all not just the army.
  11. It doesn't matter what you do, it will be wrong. Everyone in the UK has access to an RBT machine that does print outs even if its through CRB.
    Your best bet is to dip into Coy/Sqdn funds and run the motors round to an MOT centre and then produce the pass cert instead of a 932b, smoke print out and RBT report.
    Your vehicles are then as legally on the road as the white fleet car the team leader tips up in.... :D