On Friday morning with the event planned for Saturday morning and an automatic disciplinary if it’s not signed off by CoS on time, no doubt.
1 Like
This seems to be where the varying things come in.
On our flow diagram the VA element is “Requiring a total VA to be claimed that is more than 10 days (not per CFAV attending”
So a course with 2 or 3 staff going on it claiming a day each wouldn’t require a CACE form on VA.
We have no mention of milage claims, the point refers to to MT or Clarity transport.
However, I’ll go Re-read everything in case there’s a mismatch in the flow diagram and the other information!
1 Like
If you do a search on Bader Sharepont there’s loads of Regions doing it
Value our volunteers 
Then who is running the RAFAC, The Commandant and HQAC or the RCs? They are all on FTRS contracts, therefore subject to legal orders from the Commandant. They don’t like it, I’m sure others may do the job.
1 Like
It allows a good “have you thought about this?” From SMEs to planners.
Some people planning a multi-activity camp, may not be the ones with AT, or Shooting Quals. So the SMEs can ask them questions…and advise/support them through the process.
Hol’up, does that spreadsheet apply to everyone from now? There is a hell of a lot of activities there that it is implying we can’t even claim fuel for… Let alone VA.
The CACE Document says it starts on the 1st of April and is to be used to inform decision making.
1 Like
The CACE document also says it only applies in certain circumstances (para 6)
No VA for road marching at all by the looks of it. Or for AT if you aren’t leading…
Unless less than 10 VA days (total) for the activity?
Not how I read it - the activity efficiencies matrix says which activities attract VA etc and require a CACE form. I have only scanned it tbf so could be misunderstanding.
This is how i read it and think how its meant to be read
So para 6 in the document is nonsense then?
I think it applies if it attracts VA mileage as per the spreadsheet.
I may be wrong though but its how i read it
Also para 11, states this matrix superseds ACP300 so yeah think its saying whats eligible etc
2 Likes
I love the fact that RC SNI’s sensible comment left on the CACE powerpoint to merge it into the word document to make it easier to work with has been ignored
Also, what is this organisation’s obsession with using other documents to “supersede” others without actually updating the existing document… how am I meant to know unless I happen to stumble upon the superseding document???
5 Likes
This. Just update the policy - it (should be) the same amount of effort.
Anything that’s superseding policy should surely be subject to the same process as updating the policy.
3 Likes
A “single version of the truth” (SVOT) is a key concept in both projects and BAU operations. And actually, we used to very good at it as an organisation. Ironically, that time was when we had paper-based documents with a version control sheet at the front.
As we’ve moved into digital, something that usually makes SVOT easier to achieve as you can simply overwrite the out-of-date information, we’ve diverged from it. I really struggle to understand how that’s happened.
A prime example of the above is that almost any ACC thread about RAFAC policies not only ends up with someone asking if the other person is using the latest version, but also with a debate on what the meant-to-be-very-black-and-white rules actually mean.
2 Likes