Thread: trailer

Originally posted by FenianEel
Vlad,

In a previous life I worked for QT in a few areas. Don't get me started. (I'm scared to make that public knowledge on this forum - just kidding).

They wouldn't have a clue. Their system wouldn't have the particulars in there - but they can be added. They probably didn't know or more likely couldn't be bothered.
This is the reason you see 109 wagons registered as "leyland ominibus"
etc.etc., or all the strange (non-existent) variations of Land Rovers that you see on some registration slips!!!
V. nice trailer by the way. I'm sure she'll get over it.
Where do you get ex-army trailers and vehicles in OZ? Are there places like all the Ex-MOD suppliers in the UK?

I spent a few hours with the good people in the local QT office adding just such details to the data base. Got mine through no problems once one of the supervisors got into the act and added everything I suipplied....chatting with Vlad though and it seems they told him that PMC didn't make trailers "after" 1965 whereas when I got there with mine they told me they never made them "before" 1966....luckily I had all the details and I was assured that no-one else would have any trouble with PMC ex Mil WkSHP trailers again.......

I'm tempted to ring them and have words but what would it matter!!!

Sláinte (Your Health)

Originally posted by VladTepes


Antaine: I am interested by your comment re the nato hitches opening. While I will leave the pin in (there's certainly no reason not to) I am unsure how the thing would open by itself - it needs a fairly positive action to open it. Perhaps on really rough ground where things are bouncing all over the place ?

Presumably with pin in place there are no such problems ?

I have never seen a pintle hook trailer secured additionally with a chain (as ball coiuplings often are) so I figure they must be pretty secure !

Hmmm...well being threatened with a charge for not using the pin was always good enough for me to secure my Pintle hook as per regulations until the day I saw a driver come out of the RQMS' office crying with a LND (Loss and/or Damage) report in his hot little hand and tears streaking his makeup after his hook came undone and he had to pay for:
a) Trailer, No 5 x1,
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] GEN SET, 5Kva x 2
c) Jerrycan, petroleum x several

in addition to him being charged with several offences under the DFDA (Defence Force Discipline Act) when the hook did in fact come undone at 80 kms an hour on the Putty Road (sealed and straight section) and he admitted he'd forgotten to lock it with the pin.

He and his co-dvr both swore that it was properly seated and they didn't think the pin was really necessary....ohh and the co-dvr was charged as well just to be fair ('cause he should have checked)

Your choice to pin it or not Vlad [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

Sláinte (Your Health)

my qld rego sticker tells me i am driving a 6cyl 1959 series 1 rover 88" station wagon 8O

go figure...

it does get the yellow bit right tho ....

Antaine,

A Chara,

Which QT was it. Nambour by any chance?
That's where most of those examples came from!
It's all comes down to :
1. Operators not knowing about particular models/makes/variations of vehicles
2. Inflexible database (piece of z$*%)^ system & people not willing to input new details. (Which is pretty easy) - As you said if you insist a correct model can be added, but half of them don't want to bother or don't know how.

Due to details on compliance plates heaps of Landys are registered wrong as the databse had vehicle manufacturer as
LANDROVER
LAND ROVER
LANDROVERS
ROVER
LEYLAND
JRA
etc.etc.
Heaps of 70-early 80's Rangeys and Landys are reg'd as Leyland
Same with Mini's, Austins, Marina P-76's, Morris' anything under the old BMC umbrella e.g. Austin/Morris/MG/Leyland.

So check your details folks - they can be corrected. Like any govy dept, keep insisting until it happens - or you get a different person! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

Originally posted by abaddonxi
I suspect that a lot of those lost models are stored under the Landrover marque, not Land Rover.

Could it be that simple?

Cheers

Simon

or Rover

Originally posted by FenianEel
Antaine,

A Chara,

Which QT was it. Nambour by any chance?
That's where most of those examples came from!
It's all comes down to :
1. Operators not knowing about particular models/makes/variations of vehicles
2. Inflexible database (piece of z$*%)^ system & people not willing to input new details. (Which is pretty easy) - As you said if you insist a correct model can be added, but half of them don't want to bother or don't know how.

Eel a Chara,

It was Nambour they bent over backward to help. Listened and the only reason a supervisor got involved was she had access to the database to modify it and the girl I initially spoke to was limited in what she was allowed to change on the system.

So I know that the stuff inputed was correct. The system sounds like a kludge of mismatched bits of code from what I overheard being said about it [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

Anyone else wants to register a WkSHP tralier in Qld, e-mail me and I'll tell you eactly what to tell them at the counter.

Slán go fóill

Originally posted by JDNSW

Last year, after years of protests by me, I finally got the RTA to inspect my 110 ... and furthermore was made in 1986 not 1985 as they had insisted for years.

Yes a common problem. I had the same drama in Bundaberg - and they wouldn't come check the compliance plate where I had the truck parked out the front, no, I had to go around to the "inspection bays" out the back where it took 1/2 hour for a 'qualified inspector' to come and read it. :roll:

It stems rfom the fact that LR uses financial years in its build dates - so a vehicle built in October 1993 is a 1994 model. Easy really. Except that Qld Transport couldn't quite cope with that logic.

Originally posted by Antaine
in addition to him being charged with several offences under the DFDA (Defence Force Discipline Act) when the hook did in fact come undone at 80 kms an hour on the Putty Road (sealed and straight section) and he admitted he'd forgotten to lock it with the pin.

Well, he;d be a stupid lad then, admitting something like that wouldn't he.
As I said - no reason NOT to use the pin - so I will.

Originally posted by VladTepes+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VladTepes)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<!--QuoteBegin-Antaine
in addition to him being charged with several offences under the DFDA (Defence Force Discipline Act) when the hook did in fact come undone at 80 kms an hour on the Putty Road (sealed and straight section) and he admitted he'd forgotten to lock it with the pin.

Well, he;d be a stupid lad then, admitting something like that wouldn't he.
As I said - no reason NOT to use the pin - so I will.[/b][/quote]

The admission only accounted for one more charge under the DFDA, he was going to get burnt anyway because the assessment of damge to equipment came back "NFW" or Non Fair Wear......usually an automatic charge in there somewhere....and it means you have to pay for it....the total price for a new one at that.

Sláinte (Your Health)