PMV and Travel Limits While on TD

[CountDC]

Really good points to draw attention to.  I know if it were me, and I was going 1000km away on a Cl B for 2-3 months, I'd take my car.  I recall my Cl B callout days with no vehicle...not fun.  Of course, yes, then the mbr is effectively "a civie" travelling back and forth.  I've seen compromise too.  I've also see some units say "you can't use your Special Leave days to travel".  And others have no problem with it as it is 'paid leave'.

I don't blame anyone for taking their vehicles if they can.  A few months in Borden would be horrible without one.

The wording of the leave and the various interpretations need work.  Instead of using the term paid leave and then trying to impose annual leave just doesn't make sense.  If it was meant to be annual then say that.  Special Reloc leave though is clear in the LPM to be taken at location and is to give you time to organize everything for when you are away.  That one I agree with but don't see an issue with weekend and short if the CO wants to give it.  I still get paid when I take short leave.

As for other things I see.

One part that I always find amazing is how often people aim at the CAF for all these policies that are first put out by TB, appear in the NJC and then expanded further in the CAF to meet our needs (again approved by TB).  NJC 3.3.11 (c) has the same daily restriction.  The change for DND is that you can do 150kms along with a full day works vice NJC 250kms, most likely to protect the members as I don't see how that would be saving the military any money.  Again don't see anyone stopping you from making the choice, all of this is to protect the members as a restriction on what the chain of command can impose or expect from their members rather than have some of the stuff that happened in the past along with protecting the crown from liability.

Remember the CAF does not tell you to drive your car, you are asking permission to do it so yes the CAF and the government does have the right to put restrictions in there.  Saving a few dollars driving is not the only factor.  Liability - the member that decides to drive 1000kms, has an accident due to fatigue, runs to lawyers and lawsuit filed.  Injured someone else?  Again CAF expected to cover them too. Even without the lawsuits the member spends months unable to perform their duties.  That is a loss to the crown.  Yep, we are all investments by the crown, they have spent time and money training us to do certain duties and when we can't it is a loss.

At the end of the day, if you want to ignore policies put into place to protect everyone and choose to do something else feel free to do so.  Seems unreasonable to me to expect your employer to cover you though. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

The crew day scenario for flying, much like comparing what professional drivers are allowed to do, isn't valid as a straight across comparison. Max and EITS, after those 12 or 16 hour days, how many times have you had to get up and do it all again the next day for more than 2 days straight? I know the crew day rules as well, and unless there is an operational imperative, know there are mandatory rest periods R days. It isn't supposed to happen that you fly two straight 12-14 hour crew days, and then be in class the next morning at 0800 wide awake and ready to learn (yes, it probably has happened, but it isn't the norm).

I have regular 12 hours crew day with the minimum 12 hours crew rest and a lot of them consecutively.  Not abnormal...

I recently flew 16 hours in 46 hours with the minimum crew rest between crew days.  No issues or abnormal fatigue.

 

[ballz]

:facepalm:  :facepalm:

What does it matter if you drove straight across Canada in so many hours so many times. Good for you. You made an adult decision on what you could do safely. Congratulations.

An adult decision that I cannot make in the CAF because people, such as yourself, are advocating I be babysat when I am on my own time, and my own dime, and forced to take 7 days of leave for what is a 2-day drive (Edmonton to Borden, for example). That is why it is relevant.

And, of course, you are doing an about-face. First your argument insinuated that by not taking all the days, the member was not being adult-like.

And it doesn't matter what they do on civvy street, other than for individuals like you who continue to put forward the argument that its so much better than the CAF.

Uh huh. Who do we compete with for labour if not the private labour market? And how are the standards of other organizations not relevant? Are you going to pull the "on deployment" argument next?

Professional drivers, especially long haul drivers, do it for a living. Their bodies have adjusted to the job, and they are mentally and physically adapted to long days behind the wheel. Even then though, they suffer from fatigue, and if you Google it, there aren't many days go by that some semi hasn't been in an accident due to fatigue. They also aren't making money unless they are on the road.

I didn't realize all those long hours of slouching in a chair, drinking coffee, staring straight forward, did not adequately prepare me for perils of driving. Are you safe to drive home after an 8-hour shift behind a computer?

Capt Dumas or Cpl Bloggins who sits behind a desk or works on the shop floor for 8 hours a day and then heads home can't be expected to be able to pull 2 or 3 long days behind the wheel and then show up for class ready to go.

We're not talking about Capt Dumas or Cpl Bloggins being expected to do this, are we? You're mixing up when the member is told to drive a POMV or a rental car, and when the member is asking to take their POMV because it's for their own benefit.

But if they choose to, well that's a personal choice.

No, it's not. The personal choice part has been taken out because we're trying to babysit.

Ballz - I'm still not really sure what point you are trying to make.p.

There's two very clear points.

1. I am an adult. I can drive as far as I want when I'm on my own time and my own dime and it's none of the DND's business.

2. You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you're going to say "members are on leave for their travel" then you can't, at the same time say "but they can only drive 500km." Well, the DND clearly can suck and blow at the same time but that's why it's a waste of $20 billion a year.

Is the limit of 500km too little? Probably. But what should the limit be?

If I'm on leave, there is no and should not be a limit. Easy enough.

And do we need to be careful that we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot, because all of a sudden the Move entitlements change? How long before someone says that if you can drive 800km for non move related travel, you can do the same when moving (although I can travel a lot farther in a day without a wife, 3 kids the dog and a everything else I'm dragging along).

The 500km/day thing is insanely generous and I wish it would be changed to 800km / 8 hrs a day. If someone is so weak they can't drive for more than 500km / 5hrs a day without becoming a safety hazard, what exactly can they do? Clearly this is something that was negotiated by a bunch of unionized employees and it needlessly costs the taxpayers. But here's the rub, in practice, public servants are simply asked "what do you want to do, fly or drive?" and the approving authority picks the method requested. They don't play the nickle and dime game that we do. So the public servants don't have to have this gripe, one because they get to choose and two because they don't get sent to isolated crapholes for months at a time.

That one I agree with but don't see an issue with weekend and short if the CO wants to give it.  I still get paid when I take short leave.

That interpretation of "paid leave" seems to be isolated so far. Thank God. Whoever is going down that road should get a smack.

One part that I always find amazing is how often people aim at the CAF for all these policies that are first put out by TB

The original comment I made was directly in relation to the email that stated that DCBA is addressing x,y,z, issues with the TB.

Again don't see anyone stopping you from making the choice, all of this is to protect the members as a restriction on what the chain of command can impose or expect from their members rather than have some of the stuff that happened in the past along with protecting the crown from liability.

People seem to be unable to differentiate between when the CoC tells you to take POMV / rental, and when you are asking to do. It's reasonable to put limits on the CoC for when they are forcing people to drive... it's not reasonable to put these kind of limits on someone *when they are on their own leave, driving on their own time and dime*.

Plus, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if I get in an accident in the first 100km. The Crown would still be subject to a lawsuit if I was on duty. If I wasn't on duty (i.e. annual leave), then no, they wouldn't be. My law textbook is on the other side of the country but it's basic tort law, vicarious liability.

Remember the CAF does not tell you to drive your car, you are asking permission to do it so yes the CAF and the government does have the right to put restrictions in there.

No, they don't. If permission being granted is contingent on me *using my own leave, using my own money, etc* then no, they don't. I have to ask permission for all annual leave that I take. In no circumstance does the CAF have a right to tell how many KMs a day I can drive. Even if the CFTDI they don't go as far as to tell you that. They just say "the member must take paid leave based on a formula." It doesn't even mention only driving 500km a day.

It is literally just making you forfeit compensation (yes, annual leave is compensation). No driving rules attached. It is literally the same thing as saying "the member will forfeit one day's pay per day based on the kilometres travelled / 500km."

At the end of the day, if you want to ignore policies put into place to protect everyone and choose to do something else feel free to do so. 

We don't have an option to opt-out using the leave. And there is no policy, not even the one that says you have to take annual leave based on 500km/day, that says you are limited to driving 500km/day.

Seems unreasonable to me to expect your employer to cover you though.

Okay, wtf are you even talking about? Where is anyone suggesting if we drive on our annual leave we think it ought to be covered as a service-related injury? And let's be clear, you are *not* going to be "covered" if you do choose to drive 500km day *while on annual leave.*

I would like to be able to take my annual leave and drive as far as I wish without the DND being involved... just like every other day of annual / weekend leave I take that's not attached to a claim. If I drive in circles for 20 hours on the Anthony Henday on a day of weekend leave and get in an accident I don't expect it to be a service-related injury, and I don't expect it to be on any other day of annual leave. Not a very outlandish idea.

 

[SupersonicMax]

To be fair, with young kids, 500 km can easily turn into 8+ hours...

 

[Quirky]

Just as comparisons...  On the Hornet, you can have a crew duty day of 14 hours and CO can extend to 16 hours.  Furthermore, I can fly an 8-hour combat mission (and I have on 3 occasions) and up to 10 hours a day for transits.

Yet, I can't drive for more than 5 hours on a highway?

How many of those flying hours are actually flying - HOTAS? Those heading, course and ATC switches get worked the most. I know after 6 hours of driving I’m pushing it unless the seats are extremely comfortable.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Doing CAS in theater? Lots of hands-on flying and focus on sensors/other aircraft/tanking/airspace/targets and weapons employment.  If I am using the autopilot, it's to free some of my capacity to mission tasks (and because the aircraft flies itself doesn't mean everything is done for you - the autopilot doesn't look over your formation, make sure you stay in the airspace, employ weapons, track targets or tank for you...

How much experience do you have flying a Hornet?

 

[Furniture]

I've driven across the country several times now for postings and courses, and have to see an issue being raised by my CoC for driving more than 500km in a day. Routinely I drive 8-10 hour days based on the location of towns with reasonable hotels. I`ve also never resented taking a few days of leave in exchange for the drive either, it gave me extra time at home or on location to get situated before the course/tasking began.

The main benefit of the 500km a day planning model is it encourages people to make smart driving choices. Most of us have likely done a 16+ hour driving day in the past, but they are generally unsafe and shouldn`t be encouraged as the norm when traveling. Working a 16 hour day for operational reasons isn`t the same as driving a 16 hour day because you didn`t want to use leave or spend money.

 

[Quirky]

Doing CAS in theater? Lots of hands-on flying and focus on sensors/other aircraft/tanking/airspace/targets and weapons employment.  If I am using the autopilot, it's to free some of my capacity to mission tasks (and because the aircraft flies itself doesn't mean everything is done for you - the autopilot doesn't look over your formation, make sure you stay in the airspace, employ weapons, track targets or tank for you...

How much experience do you have flying a Hornet?

I have my 5 hour patch and I’m quite proud of it but would prefer to keep both feet on the ground. From my “vast” experience in that fish bowl I can say it does fly itself rather nicely. Doing the other things while flying is a different matter. It’s like driving 10 hours from Calgary to Winnipeg vs Calgary to Vancouver. You can pretty much zone out through the prairies while driving into the mountains requires more attention.

 

[Lumber]

1. I am an adult. I can drive as far as I want when I'm on my own time and my own dime and it's none of the DND's business.

2. You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you're going to say "members are on leave for their travel" then you can't, at the same time say "but they can only drive 500km." Well, the DND clearly can suck and blow at the same time but that's why it's a waste of $20 billion a year.

I'm number my points but they don't correspond directly to your numbers points above.

1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).

2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled."

Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions.

3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...

 

[ballz]

1. You cannot be ordered to take POMV. Period. If your chain of command wants you to take POMV, and you say no, it's up to them to find an alternative method (including rental).

I’m aware of this. I’ve went against my pedantic nature and deliberately ignored the nuance as that fact has no impact on the discussion and I am trying to respond to 100 other points right now. You are “asked” to take POMV or told to take a rental, in either case, the CoC is limited to having you drive 500km/day for the purpose of restraining the CoC from bag-driving a member.

2. This is a fine line, but it's an important distinction: if you chose to take POMV vice the preferred method of travel, then you "shall take one day’s paid leave, after the first day, for every 500 kilometres travelled."

Notice that it doesn't say "you must only drive 500km per day". Obviously, this implies that you should be driving only 500km per day, but the CAF isn't ordering you to. You're on leave, so do what you want, but the CAF is forcing you to take ample time to make safe decisions.

I’ve already pointed this out. The principle remains the same, and the principle is “you are not an adult capable of making adult decisions, and therefore we can tell you how many days you need to drive.” The fact that they do not explicitly say “you can only drive 500km a day,” IMO, indicates they were probably told by a JAG that they couldn’t, so they just re-worded it to a roundabout manner (which is probably even more irritating). In this case, you are literally being told to forfeit compensation regardless. It’s nonsensical.

3. Weekend leave is considered paid leave, so long as you are actually getting paid (sorry, Class-A reservists, in most cases, although I have found a loophole). I fought this battle all the way up to DMCA and won. Of course the way this organization works, I'm sure that next week a different analyst at DMCA will provide the exact opposite answer to someone else...

Glad you won, whether it’s a poor policy applied correctly or a poor policy applied incorrectly, it’s still a poor policy. That only softens the blow (although I believe there are still places applying the policy that poorly). Regardless, even with weekends there are still cases where you are going to end up choosing between forfeiting annual leave or a reduced quality of life on your tasking. Edmonton to Borden, 7 days of leave req’d to go one-way. In 2 RCR we had guys getting boned all the time for taskings, we supported them as best we could but the CO can only give out 2 short and that's really the only flexibility he has to try and soften the blow of what is a piss poor policy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s weigh what we’ve discussed so far…

Positive aspects of this policy
1. “You can take the extra leave days and spend them at home, getting ready for your tasking if the 2 days of special weren’t enough.” This is not a result of this this policy… you could always request to take your own annual for this purpose if you so choose. So, value added? Nil.

2. “The crown’s liability is reduced.” This is false. If you are on duty and have only travelled 100km and get in an accident, the Crown is still vicariously liable. If you are not on duty, the Crown's liability is unchanged. So, value added? Nil.

3. “It “protects” the member.” No, it doesn’t. If the member is on annual leave and gets in an accident after driving only 100km, he’s not going to be successful in a VAC claim. You are asleep at the wheel if you think otherwise. Re: The very upsetting story of Capt Kim Fawcett… if the Crown fought 3 times against her now, then you and I are hooped if we get in an accident while on annual leave. So, value added? Nil.

Negative aspects of this policy

1. Members are treated as though they are not adults and can’t be allowed to decide for themselves how many days they need to drive any given distance.

2. Members choose between forfeiting compensation and proceeding on long taskings in crapholes with no vehicle (Reduced quality of life, increased expenses). In either case, the member is negatively affected.

3. Compared to civilian work, this policy results in worse compensation/expense reimbursement. Retention/morale negatively affected.

Pretty clear that the sum of all parts of this policy is a negative overall effect, given that this policy results in *no* positives and definitely some negatives, in some cases some very strong negatives.

I've driven across the country several times now for postings and courses, and have to see an issue being raised by my CoC for driving more than 500km in a day.

That’s because they can’t tell you not to drive more than 500km in a day, and yet you are forced to take the leave away. See: sucking and blowing at the same time.

I`ve also never resented taking a few days of leave in exchange for the drive either, it gave me extra time at home or on location to get situated before the course/tasking began.

That’s as great for you as it is irrelevant. You have the option of requesting annual leave prior to your 2x special without this policy. Why should everyone else be forced to take annual leave they don’t need to take?

The main benefit of the 500km a day planning model is it encourages people to make smart driving choices. Most of us have likely done a 16+ hour driving day in the past, but they are generally unsafe and shouldn`t be encouraged as the norm when traveling. Working a 16 hour day for operational reasons isn`t the same as driving a 16 hour day because you didn`t want to use leave or spend money.

Are you my mom and dad? If that’s “the main benefit,” then thank you, because that is ******* *weak.*

People going on tasks for 5-6 months at a time shouldn’t be forced to choose between forfeiting compensation or a reduced quality of life / added expenses on the other end. Thanks though, next time the troops need help deciding what should go in their bagged lunch I’ll refer them to you.

What is “safe” and “worth it” is a judgement call. Last time I checked, every member of the CAF over the age of 18 is considered a competent adult and don’t need mom and dad to determine that for them. They can vote, they can sign on for unlimited liability, they can operate fighter jets, they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."

 

[ballz]

To be fair, with young kids, 500 km can easily turn into 8+ hours...

Thank you, I forgot to address this.

Yes, 100%, it can. The CFIRP and the CFTDI are two completely different policies. We can easily accommodate both. And, even if we couldn't, we could fix it within the CFIRP on its own because we already give extra benefits / compensation / etc to people with dependents for certain things.

So yes, is it reasonable for someone with 3 young kids to need 500km/day. Absolutely. Does that mean members proceeding on a TD tasking should have to give up annual leave in exchange for taking their vehicle? I don't see how the two are related.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I have my 5 hour patch and I’m quite proud of it but would prefer to keep both feet on the ground. From my “vast” experience in that fish bowl I can say it does fly itself rather nicely. Doing the other things while flying is a different matter. It’s like driving 10 hours from Calgary to Winnipeg vs Calgary to Vancouver. You can pretty much zone out through the prairies while driving into the mountains requires more attention.

Except, in the Prairies you aren't sitting at 10,000 feet altitude.  Flying at high altitude in a pressurized cabin isn't ground level.  Sitting at 10,000 altitude has its own effect after X/XX hours.

Flying and driving don't compare 'apples to apples'. 

 

[CountDC]

No, it's not. The personal choice part has been taken out because we're trying to babysit.

Not completely - you still have a choice.  Drive your car without the approval to do so.  Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses.  I have a few members that have opted to do that.  You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want. 

But here's the rub, in practice, public servants are simply asked "what do you want to do, fly or drive?" and the approving authority picks the method requested. They don't play the nickle and dime game that we do. So the public servants don't have to have this gripe, one because they get to choose and two because they don't get sent to isolated crapholes for months at a time.

NJC does state they are restricted to 500kms a day.

That interpretation of "paid leave" seems to be isolated so far. Thank God. Whoever is going down that road should get a smack.

DCBA around 2014/2015 I believe it was.

People seem to be unable to differentiate between when the CoC tells you to take POMV / rental, and when you are asking to do. [/b][/i]

Telling you to take POMV is not an option.  They can ask and if you agree leave is not required.  Rental car they can tell but again leave is not required.  Both options would have them covering all your travel expenses including meals, hotels, mileage/rental cost.

Plus, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if I get in an accident in the first 100km. The Crown would still be subject to a lawsuit if I was on duty. If I wasn't on duty (i.e. annual leave), then no, they wouldn't be. My law textbook is on the other side of the country but it's basic tort law, vicarious liability.

had to look back and yes I could have worded that better.  The point was if they didn't have the 500km limit for your travel day which you are on duty for and you decided to drive 1000km. 

We don't have an option to opt-out using the leave.

We do have an option.  Travel by other means such as CA and forfeit travel expenses are both other options.

Okay, wtf are you even talking about? Where is anyone suggesting if we drive on our annual leave we think it ought to be covered.

Perhaps you missed this part or took it to mean I only see things in this board:  As for other things I see.

"they can decide for themselves what is "safe" enough or what is "worth it."

Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.

 

[ballz]

Not completely - you still have a choice.  Drive your car without the approval to do so.  Nothing stopping you from doing that other than if you want to be claim your travel expenses.  I have a few members that have opted to do that.  You can also choice to take the required leave and drive as long as you want.

Uh huh. And that is sadly what many are resorting to. What an excellent mentality, just great leadership. Great "look after your people" instincts. Instead of fixing a shitty policy, just tell people to pick the lesser of the available evils and suck it up. And the lesser evil is "no support" option. Pretty sad when the "no support" option is better than the support currently offered under the policy. Why waste time writing a policy that doesn't frig the member we are about to send on a 5-6 month tasking.

NJC does state they are restricted to 500kms a day.

In practice, their supervisor asks them what they want to do, and selects that as the preferred method.

The point was if they didn't have the 500km limit for your travel day which you are on duty for and you decided to drive 1000km. 

I'm not debating the travel day. If I'm on duty, I'll only drive 200km if the CoC decides to be that silly. No skin off my back.

Yet despite all these regulations, policies and chains of command telling us all this we still have people getting injured in ways that shouldn't happen, equipment broken and kit lost because they decided they knew better what was safe and worth it.

I spent five years in 2 RCR with more people driving back and forth to Petawawa/Meaford/others than I could possibly count. I had to have been there for literally over 1000 people going to Petawawa and back. I do no recall a single accident, certainly no grievous injuries. The CAF is a huge organization, will they happen? For sure they will. But are you really going to advocate treating everyone like a damn infant to avoid a risk that is essentially negligible. That's a babysitting mentality, full stop.

I can't help but think some people in this thread have clearly spent so long in the institution they're not capable of objectively criticizing it, and instead naturally revert to defending it.

 

[SupersonicMax]

How about this to circumvent the problem:

-Sgt X has a TD to Y
-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.

 

[Lumber]

How about this to circumvent the problem:

-Sgt X has a TD to Y
-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.

Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.

POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.

Supersonic Max, cases that I don't think this would work, however, would be for extremely long distances.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden for a 3 months course, and they didn't want to take annual leave, but said to me that between Friday night when they finish work, and Sunday morning, they will have travelled by POMV 2800km of the 3300km distance, and therefore would then be within 500km, I just can't see it as a safe decision to sign off on that plan. I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket.  :2c:

 

[ballz]

How about this to circumvent the problem:

-Sgt X has a TD to Y
-Sgt will be on leave (weekend leave) within 500 km of Y the Sunday preceding
-Sgt X claims the one day he is entitled through a cost comparison.

In practice: Sgt X drives to within 500 km of Y to he there sometimes on the Sunday and keeps driving to Y.

In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?

If the policy is such that we need to circumvent it to come to some form of rational answer, it's a bad policy. If people are choosing "no support" over the support offered, that's probably some pretty shitty support.

Yea that would work, this is one of the ways that the Class-A members get around the policy.

POMV travel from my unit to Halifax requires 4 days of travel. But, we can't tell a Class-A member what they can and can't do when they aren't on contract. So, if the Class-A tell sme that personal circumstance will result in them being in Fredericton the day before their course, and they would like us to arrange travel from there to Halifax(using POMV), who am I to argue? I don't ask why you're in Fredericton or what you're doing ther, but it's within 1 day's travel, so fill your boots.

Supersonic Max, cases that I don't think this would work, however, would be for extremely long distances.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden for a 3 months course, and they didn't want to take annual leave, but said to me that between Friday night when they finish work, and Sunday morning, they will have travelled by POMV 2800km of the 3300km distance, and therefore would then be within 500km, I just can't see it as a safe decision to sign off on that plan. I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket.  :2c:

That would require allowing the Chain of Command to use its discretion. Not only does the policy babysit everyone, it also points to a severe lack of trust in the judgement of COs.

If a soldier of mine was going from Edmonton to Borden and reporting on Monday, I'd probably support them getting a short day or two so they have adequate time after the 2x special to do the drive... 3 days is plenty of time to go 3300km. If not short, then annual... but I wouldn't demand they take 5 annual as the policy does (1 travel, 1 weekend, 5 annual) because that's just ridiculous. We may disagree slightly on use of short, etc, but that's a judgement call for a CO to make.... not TB / DCBA.

There is no reason the Crown can't allow for this and also "here's the $500 it costs to fly you there as well, since we would have had to pay that anyway."

 

[SupersonicMax]

Agreed on all points Ballz.

t also points to a severe lack of trust in the judgement of COs.

This is true in many aspect of our policies and is a broader problem.  Policies need some vagueness to them to allow COs to cater to different situations.

In the PMV case, it'd be a CoC's call to ensure their members' plan is safe and sound, and apply the policy with some discretions.  I really dislike policies that not only tell you what to do but also how to do it...

 

[CountDC]

Understand  things look really different from the various view points.  I have seen it where a little reserve group of about 20 felt that all the regulations coming out were aimed specifically at them.  One thing some don't realize is that TB is not writing policy for the CAF.  It is writing for every federal government employee in every department.  No idea what current figures are but at one point it was around 200 departments and over 400k employees.  CAF does not have the right to expand or give benefits to its members, if it does want to give something it must negotiate with TB and give up something that of course someone else would complain about so we mostly follow the NJC.

As for CofC and flexibility although I often wish there was more I am sure there are enough on here that can testify to various abuses over the years from those CofC that did have the flexibility.  Off the top, CO's (LCols) ordering their staff to book them first/business class when they were not entitled to it and advised of it, FTUC staff  at reserve units issued outlandish work schedules, refusing leave all year and then telling the members as they had not used it they lost it as leave is a privilege not an entitlement, do it or I will have you fired from your class b (doesn't work too well when the person is actually reg f), you will drive 700 kms to deliver this, return the next day for the parade night and no we don't care that there is snow in the mountains.  Some of these I have seen within the last 4 years (yeah, after the CFTDI was released and they were briefed a few times on the mileage restriction). 

The rules are tighter but not totally unworkable.  Yes I miss the days of "hypothetical trip" claims and wish we could still do them as it was a lot easier than the cost comparison/leave crap but as it is my job to play within (or at least on the edge) of the rules I do it while complaining.  There are some thing's that I wish more would complain about to the right people and even redress but so far haven't seen it happen in my area despite my attempts.  Instead all I see is people complaining to and blaming the clerks as if they are the policy writer.  Personally don't know any clerks that like these changes as it just made the job harder.  Like a clerk would write a policy that all travel must be approved by the CO prior to travel.  I for one was quite happy to approve it rather than bothering the CO that should have more important things to deal with.  Sure the odd exceptional case but most claims are standard.

Lumbar:  " I would tell them no, CAL is the selected method, Sunday is your duty travel day, and you will report to Edmonton Airport for your flight; here's your ticket."

Of course if they decided to drive anyway there really isn't anything anyone could do other than not give them their mileage and meals on the claim.  I did give them flack for not cancelling the flight prior so that we were reimbursed instead of getting a credit that may not get used (they were linked to the name at the time).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In theory, this "works." In practice, is the Commanding Officer of every unit going to start doing this? Is Pte / Cpl / MCpl etc going to have the conversation we are now having, and appeal for reason, etc. I'm a Captain and while I intend to go this route soon, I already know I'll be hitting obstacles because people don't understand policy / don't think outside the box / apparently might agree with the babysitting aspect. (I'm also sure I'll run into the "well, I won't approve your weekend leave pass to be outside the local area."). How many lower ranks are going to have that fight?

What leave pass for normal weekend leave?  My entire Wing...they're not used because the CFLPM states they are not required.  Can/does the CAF tell me I am only allowed to travel 500km/day on a normal Saturday off?  Or, if I put in for 2 wknd/1 ann leave day to travel "A to B and rtn", no one even considers how far I am driving because it is non-duty travel.