PMV and Travel Limits While on TD

[Nfld Sapper]

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.

For my CoC a weekend leave pass is only needed for staff if they leave the province, students on the other hand need one if the go further than Fredericton-Moncton-Saint John area.

 

[CountDC]

This is from the CPM CFTDI faq Last revised 3/19/2018, this is for members requesting to travel PMV.  Thinking this may be the part that is creating the annual leave issue as in the example used it would take some.  Can't cover 8 days with short and weekend. :

I am currently posted to Vancouver, can I take my PMV if I need to go to Borden on course even if they are 4,296 Km apart?

Maybe. You will need to sign both the CFTDTI Annex A Member Request To Use PMV Acknowledgment of Limitations for the PMV Waiver and the DGCB/DCBA cost comparison worksheet when your intent is to request use of your PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation. You will be entitled to only the first day of travel to the destination (500 kilometres) and only for the first day of return travel (500 kilometres) kilometric rate for the direct road and this would include any distance traveled by ferry. You will also be required to utilize sufficient paid leave for each additional day of travel over 500 kilometres (duty travel day). In the interest of safe driving, you are required to take 8 paid leave days each way, in addition to the one day of duty travel each way. If you
don't have sufficient annual leave remaining, the CO has no choice but to deny PMV travel, in favour of the most economical and practical method of transportation (in this case, commercial air travel). PMV is not considered the most economical and practical method of transportation, except where the CO requests the use of PMV, IAW the CFTDTI.

NOTE: The Crown accepts no responsibility or liability to the member for, the loss of or damage to a PMV on duty travel and deductible insurance payments in respect of a PMV used on duty travel. As such, a member cannot be ordered and is never obliged to use a PMV for duty travel.

and for reservist:

I am a reservist on Class A service serving in Halifax and am going on TD to Borden and wish to take my PMV in lieu of the more economical and practical mode of transportation. Am I permitted to utilize my PMV in this case?

No. Not in this scenario based on distance to the location of TD. The preferred method of travel would be commercial air travel, and you would arrive and return within a few hours to your destination, hence one day duty travel each way. As kilometric travel is more than 500 km, a member requires paid leave during the non-duty travel days. Class A members are on duty status for the duration of their tasking, and that would be covered when travelling via the most economical and practical mode of transportation. Since paid leave is not factored in the structure of Class A Reserve service, reimbursement for the use of PMV is not authorized. If a Class A member still wishes to use their PMV for travel to the duty destination, there is no requirement to request a waiver of entitlements as there is no entitlement in lieu of the approving authority’s selected mode of transportation. You are choosing to travel at personal expense.

Had one case that was kind of the reverse of starting/ending TD at an alternate point.  Class A mbr was travelling just within the limit for TD but had indicated as he was given a day off after his arrival he planned to go and visit his mother approximately 120 kms away.  The clerk didn't want to do the claim as it was now over the daily limit.  I had to step in and pointed out that what he did on his td was not our concern, it was between him and his supervisor.  If they gave him a day off after he arrived then he could go wherever he wanted. He checked in on schedule, got dismissed and went on his way.

 

[ballz]

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.

Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.

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.

The change I am proposing would not cost the taxpayer's an extra dime, so I'm not convinced it would need "negotiating."

I'll also point out that the original comment that started this was...

I sincerely hope the BS around POMVs (it's more than just the Class A stuff that's ridiculous on this issue) is near the top of this list of concerns being brought to the TB... but somehow I doubt it.

So I'm not sure why you're talking about how the CAF can't expand / change the benefits. I am simply remarking that I hope DCBA is bringing this issue up on our behalf to the TB. I am fully aware that CAF doesn't get to write its own policy.

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).

Almost all of those are issues of accountability (not policy flexibility) which the CAF is terrible at and I could start a whole other thread about that issue. But I don't see how that applies to this particular problem. There is no way to abuse the policy wording I am suggesting, it can only help the member. If the CO tried to screw someone around, the member can just withdraw their request to take their own POMV.

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).

If they don't show up to where they are supposed to be, at the time they are supposed to be there, they're AWOL. Plus they would have disobeyed a lawful command. There are remedial measures available as well. There is plenty that can be done to deal with this, this goes back to the accountability issue. Obviously this happened to you, did you recommend any of these things?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Would really prefer if we didn't turn yet another thread into a argument about whether or not a weekend leave pass is required or not. I agree with you on weekend leave passes as was clear in the thread specifically about that topic, but the reality is, it is an obstacle I would run into, and so will most other people.

The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave? 

The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel.  Any injuries, etc are not related to duty.  So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days??  If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this fuckin stupid policy basically ends up doing;  telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.

End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it. 

 

[ballz]

The more important part of my point was intended around the "can the CAF tell me how far I can drive on a normal weekend off or during Annual Leave? 

The answer is no, of course, because it is non-duty travel.  Any injuries, etc are not related to duty.  So why is it different if I am travelling from Point A to Point B and using Annual Leave days??  If I am on Ann Leave I am not on duty travel, and that is what this ****** stupid policy basically ends up doing;  telling the mbr what they can do on their own time.

End of the day, its a shitty policy that has yet to be defended well to justify it.

Ah sorry then... Yes, as I said, the policy is literally trying to suck and blow at the same time. "You're on your own time and your own dime, but you must take enough of your own time, using your own dime, as would be req'd if you were on duty.... but you're free to use the leave however you want instead of driving, aren't we generous?"

The effect is that you're basically forfeiting heaps of compensation in return for "500km*mileage rate."

 

[Lumber]

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.

Groovy.  Now, explain to me how this DOESN'T apply to leave such as Annual, Special or Short.  Does the CAF not 'want to be liable" then too?  Because, if I am on Ann Leave as part of travel from my normal place of duty to TD/AP on course, etc...I'm still...on Annual Leave, let's say.  If I am on leave, I am not on duty.  if I am not on duty, how can the CAF be liable?

Let's just face it here;  it is a stupid policy that needs to be challenged and removed.

 

[ballz]

It seems stupid, but the CAF doesn't want to be liable if you get  in an accident for driving for too long a one time, and I fully understand that and reall don't have an issue with it.

And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had to worry about to begin with?

It seems stupid because it is stupid, and it's just blatantly not true. Next we'll be trying to tell members they can't travel from Fredericton to Ottawa for the long weekend without 5 days of leave because they need two days to get there and two days to get back "or else the CAF will be liable if you get in an accident on your way home." "We're not saying you need to drive it over 2 days by the way, just that you need to take a minimum of 5 days of leave for the trip. We're reasonable like that."

Now, should it be 500km per day? No, I think 800km is more reasonable.

1000km would be "reasonable" if it weren't unreasonable to treat CAF members like kids and their COs like teen-aged babysitters with no ability to actually use any kind of discretion.

 

[Lumber]

And if I am on annual leave, they are not liable. So you don't have an issue with a policy that screws the member based on a completely false idea that it somehow absolves the CAF of liability that they never had t 7o worry about to begin with?

This has nothing to do with annual slave or the annual leave policy. This is about travel policy. The CAF isn't dodging liability for each individual trip, they are dodging liability for the entire travel policy.

If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.

The only way the CAF can absolve themselves of this potential liability is they have to take away that authority from the CO. Problem is, the only way to do THAT is to take away the ability of EVERYONE to make that judgment call.

Further,  your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.

Why would the CAF either order, request, or allow the member the ability to drive an unsafe distance, when CAL is an option. The safe driving distance for every person is different, and the CAF isn't going to allow each member to "declare" THEIR safe driving stance, so a standard must be set. It's set at 500. Which is dumb.

#MakePMV800Again

 

[ballz]

If we instead had a policy that allowed CO's the discretion to order their members to travel whatever distance they wanted, you would undoubtedly, eventually, end up with numerous cases of CO's abusing their authority and order ing members to drive unreasonable distances. You'd have accidents, you'd have lawsuits.

Are we even having the same conversation? We're talking about when a member requests to use their POMV, and you're talking about when the CO selects POMV as the preferred method.

The issue you are describing is *not relevant* to the case when a member is asking to drive his POMV *during his (insert type here) leave.*

We are *not* talking about lifting the restriction placed upon the CoC when they select POMV or rental as the preferred mode if travel. I agree 800km in this case would be more reasonable than 500km, but that's not what we're even discussing.

The only way the CAF can absolve themselves of this potential liability is they have to take away that authority from the CO.

I'll say it again, the CAF is not liable for a member travelling while they are on leave.

Further,  your example of travel from Fredericton to Ottawa is flawed, or at least, it's like you're stating facts that make my argument, not your own. If ever a member was required by tasking/cftpo to be in Ottawa for the weekend, they would provide them with a method of travel appropriate to the circumstance. If for whatever reason they felt pomv was appropriate, or, If the member requested to use it, they would need to ensure he has at least 2(3?) days to make the drive.

You're really not tracking the example put forth. I'm not talking about a tasking. I'm talking about if a member wants to travel to Ottawa for, I dunno, a Senators game on Saturday night. It's a long weekend. He plans to drive on Friday, and drive on Sunday.

If the CAF can tell a member they need to take 7 leave days to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave," the next logical step is that the CAF can tell people they can't drive Fredericton to Ottawa on a long weekend without taking 5 days leave (2 days travel, 1 day leisure, 2 days travel) "or else the CAF could be liable for an accident that you get into while you are on leave." That is literally the same logic, and it's based on a BS reason.*

Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable."

*Its simply not true. The CAF is not going to be liable for a member that gets in an accident while on leave. So it would be just great if you would stop repeating that falsehood.

 

[Furniture]

Demanding that a member who is a requesting to use POMV take 7 days of leave to drive from Edmonton to Borden for a tasking is no different then demanding a member who wants to go to Ottawa for a Sens game take 5 days of leave "or else the CAF will be liable."

It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe. 

 

[ballz]

It is different though, if you decide that after driving from Gagetown to Quebec city that you are too tired to continue to Ottawa for the game it's not the CAF's problem. Get back to work on time on Monday, and the CAF couldn't care less about whether or not you saw the Sens lose live or on TV. If you fail to arrive on time for a tasking or course because you failed to plan properly and take enough time it is the CAF's problem. Either the work you were required to do isn't getting done, or the course training billet is wasted on a late/no show student. Therefore it's in the CAF's interest to ensure you have enough time to make the journey in a safe timeframe.

You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit...

So no, it is absolutely not different.

 

[Furniture]

You can make the exact same argument for getting back from the Sens game for work at 0800 on Monday morning... and your tasks on Monday morning could be to fly a plane, command a combat team in a live fire level 5 range, or be a Course O / staff / candidate on any number of in-house courses run at your unit or another local unit...

So no, it is absolutely not different.

It is different, because the CAF didn't tell you you need to be in Ottawa at 1900 Saturday and back in Gagetown at 0800 Monday morning. When you ask permission to not travel commercial to attend a course/task the CAF is still telling you to be somewhere at a specific time. That makes it the CAF's business how you manage to accomplish that travel (itinerary), and it makes it their business to make sure you have enough time to do it.

Should the distance be longer than 500km? I think so. Should it be a free for all with people driving across the continent in three days? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to let me know why it's not only possible but safe and cost effective...

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is different, because the CAF didn't tell you you need to be in Ottawa at 1900 Saturday and back in Gagetown at 0800 Monday morning. When you ask permission to not travel commercial to attend a course/task the CAF is still telling you to be somewhere at a specific time. That makes it the CAF's business how you manage to accomplish that travel (itinerary), and it makes it their business to make sure you have enough time to do it.

Should the distance be longer than 500km? I think so. Should it be a free for all with people driving across the continent in three days? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to let me know why it's not only possible but safe and cost effective...

We have COs.  They are selected to be in those positions.  They are generally pretty smart.  Let them decide for their people.

 

[Furniture]

That works until two COs on the same base decide their members need to take different amounts of leave to go to the same place. Lets pretend I'm back on WIN and my buddy is on CAL, we are both headed to Winnipeg for course. My CO decides I can make the drive safely in three days so I get a day of short, my buddy's CO decides that five days are needed because of unpredictable mountain weather. Now one member has to take annual to make the same drive the other member doesn't need annual for. Are both COs being reasonable? It could be argued that they both are, but now one member is at a disadvantage compared to the other.

Edit to Add: I'm not for the 500km limit, it's too short in my opinion. I just don't see the CAF abandoning the maximum distance idea, maybe extending it to 800km or more but not getting rid of it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I Believe you would find that, first of all, no CO in Esquimalt would let you do that journey in 3 days. I suspect four would be the minimum, because you have a ferry crossing and the mountains. If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision.

P.S.: I suspect you would find that, for something like that, the number of days accorded would be pretty similar from one CO to the other in the fleet. You would be amazed at the various types of "problems" we CO's discuss among ourselves to try and arrive at similar solutions and a unified approach in the fleet instead of each making our own guesses.

P.P.S.: Ships are NOT on a Base - they don't belong to CFB Esquimalt. Just a small nuance, though your example would work with various lodger units.  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

I wonder what the CAF administration would do if they looked back into the records at the short leave I granted to members of the squadron to take their PMC on TD...naughty CO...I'll feel 'sorta bad' about it tonight while I have a wee dram after dinner.

OGBD, I fully agree with you here:

If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision.

:nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

The problem is that dodges like short leave work for full time members, but not so much for part time members.

 

[Furniture]

I Believe you would find that, first of all, no CO in Esquimalt would let you do that journey in 3 days. I suspect four would be the minimum, because you have a ferry crossing and the mountains. If, however, you had two different CO's requiring a different number of days of travel, and both were reasonable based on the factors each consider of importance, then that would be life, and not a "disadvantage" to one or the other member so affected. After all, they elected to travel by PMC instead of CAF provided transportation, so they have to live with the consequences of their own decision.

P.S.: I suspect you would find that, for something like that, the number of days accorded would be pretty similar from one CO to the other in the fleet. You would be amazed at the various types of "problems" we CO's discuss among ourselves to try and arrive at similar solutions and a unified approach in the fleet instead of each making our own guesses.

P.P.S.: Ships are NOT on a Base - they don't belong to CFB Esquimalt. Just a small nuance, though your example would work with various lodger units.  ;D

Agreed on all points, it was simply a scenario to point out that even a system at CO's discretion would lead to complaints and "unfairness" and a whole thread on army.ca to sort out a better way.

 

[Good2Golf]

The problem is that dodges like short leave work for full time members, but not so much for part time members.

...until component alignment occurs...  :waiting: