Recording of MoDs

Discussion in 'REME' started by EScotia, Oct 18, 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. At the risk of embarrasing myself :oops: , when did it officially become a REME responsibility to maintain a regiments' mod register.

    Yes I know we've nearly always done it for practical reasons, but if memory serves, Mat Regs used to say it was a QMs responsibility to demand mods and submit a 1045 to REME for them to be fitted, then record them in a register.

    The latest version of the JSP now says it is a REME responsibility to maintain the mod register.
  2. My understanding is that it's always been a REME responsibility for equipment that the LAD/Wksp had a capability to support, so typically for vehicles and weapons systems while we didn't maintain one for Comms Eqpt as there were no 1st Line Tels Techs. That said Small Arms mods were wrapped up in the 6 monthly inspection report (AF C351) and the Comms Eqpt by the Mod Strike Plate. JAMES now provides the vehicle Mod register.
  3. Sorry but I disagree. During my 30+ years service REME always held the mod register for units because it was our responsibility to check mod status on annual inspections. It was their job to demand mods that were applicable to their eqpt because they owned the eqpt, they held their own tech publications block scale and mod instructions therefore came through the QM(T). REME also would have received mod inst through their tech pubs bin number.

    Also James does not yet provide a full and proper mod register as the only mods that show up are the ones the IPTs have listed. James 2 is supposed to rectify this. The James team say there is currently no function that allows you to list all the fitted mods on a vehicle (unless someone out there can tell me how to do it?)
  4. This could be completed on FEMIS.
  5. Manic, I think you've you've missed my point and not all units are on FEMIS.
  6. EScotia,
    I guess REME became responsible for maintaining unit mod registers when the latest JSP became live.
    It was always a unit responsibility to maintain the register, however the first LEUMS AESP had it as a REME responsibility, despite DES AESP stating it was the unit's job. Just goes to show even REME didn't know who had to do it!
    I raised an AESP form 10 on the issue (in about 2002 I think) and was told that the next amendment would reflect it as a unit task. I guess times have changed.

    Oh, and DEME(A) said all REME units with 4 or more tradesmen were to use FEMIS - with only a couple of exceptions, I guess that's changed too now with JAMES.
  7. Nige,

    Unfortunately we need to use both FEMIS and James until we get james 2 which will do both!! This means that there is a fair bit of double reporting

  8. Can I just stop this RUMOUR now.

    REME units DO NOT NEED TO USE JAMES as well as FEMIS.
    The only REME pers who needs access to JAMES is the MT rep.
    If anyone needs any clarification on this please PM me.

    EScotia, which units are not on FEMIS? If they have 5 or more tradesmen they should be on FEMIS, if not I can sort this out for them.
  9. Mmmmm, some slightly conflicting views here...

    As far as I've always known it IS a REME and always has been responsibility to maintain the MOD Reg - there is even an extant EMER on the subject that lays it down in black and white - cant remember the ref off the top of my head, but it was only last year that I read it and it was still extant then - a quick check with the relevant SMIs confirmed that. This is all pre-james/B Veh test/cert etc so is nowt to do with all that malarky.

    The comments re JAMES are correct - we steadfastly refused to use it in my last place, much to the 2i/s's annoyance, but this was backed to the hilt by DEME(A) and his mob so we were fine - dont use it - you dont need to, it doubles up on you time and in essence JAMES is just a glorified fault book - you didnt keep that for the troops did you - so why do it for JAMES, just tailor the unit fault reporting sytem to make all JAMES inputs, less for inspections a user responsibility and untill the advent of JAMES II you've halved your work-load reporting-wise..........

    As for the MOD reg on FEMIS - yeah it works and can work well - but you need to be very warey of it as it needs to be tightly controlled or it spits out daft things like mods being non-applicable when they are and its easly messed up in the wrong hands. - It also shows up some holes in aspects of fleet management when you populate it as well - much to the QM(T)'s anger in past experience!

    Anyhoo, enjoy, 3 months to go.
  10. 2012 I heard. If your unit does the JAMES training now all your pers will have moved on by then......

    Plus JAMES will have to revisit REME units to train them on JAMES land as it will be a much bigger beast than the JAMES workticket print that everyone uses it for now. :wink:
  11. Further to the above, just because pers will have moved on by 2012, don't put off training them. If everyone does that, then no one will be trained when JAMES comes in. Train your men for the next unit, don't have a short term, selfish view.

    I am facing similar problems down here in Aus where units won't release people for eqpt courses required for next postings, leaving the receiving unit with the problem of untrained tradies arriving every January - fcuking painful!
  12. JAMES is not a glorified faults book at all. If used correctly it can help in planning maint events (if you bother to use JAMES you can see clearly when future ex, ops, leave or other events occur within your unit and if they effect maint/insp dates for all your equipment).

    Someone needs to let the loggies I've just left know that! - the best SMI in the Regt on JAMES was in fact the Rech Mech Sgt in the LAD, so much so that the fleet manager would ring him to ask how to do stuff, along with the QM(T) dept.

    MM - I see what you're saying and yes, there is merit to using the thing correctly, but if my experience of it is anything to go by (3 units now) all you end up doing is correcting input errors by the user , showing them how to do their job or actualy doing it for them as its easier/quicker. Whilst using it is as a good a substitute for training as possible, its only a stop-gap and as already mentioned, JAMES(LAND) will be an entirely different beast and will (or should) come complete with a new training regime for all of you lucky boys and girls who will still be around to use it.......

    Still only 3 months to go...........
  13. M_M I totally agree, the problem we are facing with JAMES is that people on the whole have not read the JAMES SOI, therefore do not understand it. Chapter 4 of the document highlights everything it can do. If everyone takes 10 mins to scan through it and set aside their preconceptions then they may be surprised. It is a very good tool if utilised correctly. The concept of JAMES being an "MT" tool will seem flawed also after reading the SOI. The SOI's can be found on the main JAMES webpage.