# Post-deployment, re-deployment



## Izzie_air (27 Nov 2016)

Couldn't find a specific post regarding my questions, so I am posting it here if anyone can help.  I am Air Force posted to a Naval Ship (well, various ships over the last few yrs). I am currently deployed on a 7 month tour. I have been told that I am getting posted again right away after to another ship. So my questions are this:

Is there an amount of time that you can be away from home within a given year? I know that you cannot be put on another deployment for however long after but if you're sailing again right after you get back for another year with an occasional (very occasional) day or two off, what's the difference? Has anyone ever seen a reference regarding this?


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

Lgtairs said:
			
		

> Couldn't find a specific post regarding my questions, so I am posting it here if anyone can help.  I am Air Force posted to a Naval Ship (well, various ships over the last few yrs). I am currently deployed on a 7 month tour. I have been told that I am getting posted again right away after to another ship. So my questions are this:
> 
> Is there an amount of time that you can be away from home within a given year? I know that you cannot be put on another deployment for however long after but if you're sailing again right after you get back for another year with an occasional (very occasional) day or two off, what's the difference? Has anyone ever seen a reference regarding this?



Unfortunately you are caught in the same cycle I was.  Unless it's real deployment (i.e. Op Reassuance) there is nothing you can do. Really the only break you are guaranteed is your PDL which on my last ship amounted to 2 weeks, after a 6 month deployment.

I am very sympathetic to your plight and it's a serious issue the RCN need to be taken to task on.


----------



## dangerboy (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am very sympathetic to your plight and it's a serious issue the RCN need to be taken to task on.



Unfortunately it is not limited to the RCN, the Army does this also.  I have been told I am posted after the next tour I am going on (so late posting date of 1 Dec) and basically told you can prep for the posting during your HLTA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Nov 2016)

Lgtairs said:
			
		

> Couldn't find a specific post regarding my questions, so I am posting it here if anyone can help.  I am Air Force posted to a Naval Ship (well, various ships over the last few yrs). I am currently deployed on a 7 month tour. I have been told that I am getting posted again right away after to another ship. So my questions are this:
> 
> Is there an amount of time that you can be away from home within a given year? I know that you cannot be put on another deployment for however long after but if you're sailing again right after you get back for another year with an occasional (very occasional) day or two off, what's the difference? Has anyone ever seen a reference regarding this?


 you sound like a Met Tech!  

If you have had a string of deployments (non named. There is a policy for time at home following named deployments) that are stretching you to the breaking point, ask to see your Div Chief/Div O and lay it out for them. good luck!


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2016)

For reference to the discussion,

Met Tech Info? 


			
				Lgtairs said:
			
		

> No, we are not on ships all the time, usually just posted to a ship for a couple of years, like any other posting.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it is not limited to the RCN, the Army does this also.  I have been told I am posted after the next tour I am going on (so late posting date of 1 Dec) and basically told you can prep for the posting during your HLTA.



You are correct; post deployment geographical postings are not limited to the RCN.  Having said this, the member is posted to another ship.  So unless he is switching coasts, which I highly doubt, then this is a non-geo posting to another HMC Ship.  
Pier-Head Jump is a term that used to used for this. 

An example of a no rest period would be HMCS Fredericton.  She returned from Op Reassurance in July, had PDL for 2 weeks, short work period in Aug then back to sea in Sept until mid Dec.  At this point the crew of that ship have spent more
days in foreign ports than home this year.  And their schedule is stretching into mid next year.  

Lastly having spent time in the Army and the Navy I can say with some degree of certainty that the RCN could learn allot from the CA when it comes to deployments and its reintegration/treatment of its people after a deployment.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> you sound like a Met Tech!



He could be a clerk, cook, sup tech, met tech, air crew, medical or firefighter, not to mention any of the peps like Com Research, Legal, Int ect.  Lots of possible RCAF DEU positions on HMC Ships.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> He could be a clerk, cook, sup tech, met tech, air crew, medical or firefighter, not to mention any of the peps like Com Research, Legal, Int ect.





			
				Lgtairs said:
			
		

> Hey! I'm a Met Tech, if anyone's got any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them...


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

Gotcha.


----------



## dimsum (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Lastly having spent time in the Army and the Navy I can say with some degree of certainty that the RCN could learn allot from the CA when it comes to deployments and its reintegration/treatment of its people after a deployment.



The RCAF isn't much better; lots of time away esp with LRP, MH and Transport folks.  At least the MH and Transport folks are doing the same (or similar) jobs on standard ops as their currency requirements; for the LRP folks, OP IMPACT isn't ASW (obviously) so folks return from PDL and get put into sims/flights for something they haven't done in over half a year, with the expected loss in currency/skills.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The RCAF isn't much better; lots of time away esp with LRP, MH and Transport folks.  At least the MH and Transport folks are doing the same (or similar) jobs on standard ops as their currency requirements; for the LRP folks, OP IMPACT isn't ASW (obviously) so folks return from PDL and get put into sims/flights for something they haven't done in over half a year, with the expected loss in currency/skills.



No doubt.  Anyone in the CAF who is spending 250+ plus days away from home a year deserves more compensation, be it financial or time off.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No doubt.  Anyone in the CAF who is spending 250+ plus days away from home a year deserves more compensation, be it financial or time off.



There are already provisions on that: CF Leave Policy Manual, Chapter 5.10 specifically para 5.10.01 (last part) and Table 2 of that chapter.  Members can, at the discretion of the CO, get 3 days for taskings longer than 14 days and 4 for taskings longer than 31 days.


----------



## dimsum (27 Nov 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are already provisions on that: CF Leave Policy Manual, Chapter 5.10 specifically para 5.10.01 (last part) and Table 2 of that chapter.  Members can, at the discretion of the CO, get 3 days for taskings longer than 14 days and 4 for taskings longer than 31 days.



There are, but when you're bouncing from one tasking/course to another every few weeks, you find that you may not be able to take all of that time off since you still have to go into work for random admin, etc.  It's easy to say "well then take it off since you're entitled to it", but it's a bit harder when you become one of the few folks around able to be put on standby, or even have to go into work to do admin/supply/etc.

This isn't a hypothetical situation - if I wasn't grounded for a few weeks in the fall, I would have had about 2.5 months total at home, all broken up into a few weeks' blocks, from FY 15-16.  I'm actually not going home to my NOK for pre-deployment leave as I'll still have work stuff to take care of here, and same with most of the deploying crew.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2016)

I understand what you are saying and we, the FF, are exposed to the same issues.  Nonetheless, the provisions are still there.  The one thing that would make it better would be making it mandatory or paid out leave.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are already provisions on that: CF Leave Policy Manual, Chapter 5.10 specifically para 5.10.01 (last part) and Table 2 of that chapter.  Members can, at the discretion of the CO, get 3 days for taskings longer than 14 days and 4 for taskings longer than 31 days.



Going to sea as a member of a ships coy is not a tasking as the CFLPM is using it for compensatory time off.  It the primary function of sailors.  And I truly believe few in the CAF spend as many days away from home as a ships coy on a high readiness ship.  The army builds the PDLs into the op sked, the Navy say well maybe if we can fit it in.  I also truly believe that the RCN poorly manages the work/life ratio of its people and this a huge factor on the severe lack of manning. 

Anecdotal, I bought a brand spanking new VW golf in 2004.  When I gave it to my now wife in 2011 it's had 60K KMs on it.  I was at sea during these years. And that 60K includes twice a year round trips from Halifax to Kingston and back. 

I can tell you we dread posting people away from the RCN as they get exposed to another side of the CAF and often they avoid coming back at all costs.  

Back on point there really isn't much out there.  If you have a good command triad they will be liberal with what leave the can give, if not it can mean a long couple of years.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No doubt.  Anyone in the CAF who is spending 250+ plus days away from home a year deserves more compensation, be it financial or time off.



Sea Duty Allowance?

Time off definitely needs to be put out there though. CA goes 365 DAG red if you're deploying over a certain timeframe, and I've heard waivers being constantly declined in the later years of Afg to manage pers tempo.


----------



## Loachman (27 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Back on point there really isn't much out there.  If you have a good command triad they will be liberal with what leave the can give, if not it can mean a long couple of years.



Well, rum was never a punishment, sodomy is now legal (if not yet encouraged), and the lash no longer is, so what else can "they" do to demoralize you?


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Nov 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sea Duty Allowance?
> 
> Time off definitely needs to be put out there though. CA goes 365 DAG red if you're deploying over a certain timeframe, and I've heard waivers being constantly declined in the later years of Afg to manage pers tempo.



SDA isnt enough anymore.  I think, and don't claim to represent all sailors of the RCN, our pay is fine.  People are leaving and burning out from the impact on home life.  The problem is with less than two months home from a 6 month deployment crews are going back out the door for months on end.  

Freddy = Deployed Jan - July, SWP Aug, At Sea Sep - Dec, Home mid Dec to Mid Jan, At Sea again Jan - ???? 

The sea pay is nice but the ops tempo is burning people out.


----------



## Izzie_air (28 Nov 2016)

Yeah that's what it's looking like in my case as well. Feeling somewhat burnt out. 434 days away in the last two years is taking it's toll.  It doesn't make me look forward to coming home from a 7 month deployment just to sail for another year.  

So it looks like there is no specific reference regarding how much time a member is allowed to be away from home in a given timeframe? There is only the fact that if one is deployed they cannot be re-deployed on another operation for a period of one year (unless there is trade pressure to sign a waiver and go on another deployment, which I've seen happen many times  :-\).  

SDA doesn't seem to be enough to cover my costs to be away from home either. I need to pay for a taxi to take me to the ship with all my kit on sailing days (as I am single), pay for someone to watch my home as well as pet care while away. I definitely don't make any money being posted to a ship and there is little to no support for deployed single personnel, posted far away from any family and with all my friends sailing as well. 

This may be something that I would like propose to the command staff for future operations (if I'm going to whine about it, may as well do something about it too).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying and we, the FF, are exposed to the same issues.  Nonetheless, the provisions are still there.  The one thing that would make it better would be making it mandatory or paid out leave.



But some of us are not even able to take our annual leave and accumulate each year.  Because of that, the people working the hardest and away the most don't get short leave over Christmas because they have to burn annual.   Adding more leave fixes one issue and creates another in some cases.

I will have been away every month this year except 2 of them.   3 out of every 4 weekends I have been home I was on standby.  I can't use my annual leave let alone enjoy some of my accumulated from the past several years.


----------



## Pusser (28 Nov 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sea Duty Allowance?
> 
> Time off definitely needs to be put out there though. CA goes 365 DAG red if you're deploying over a certain timeframe, and I've heard waivers being constantly declined in the later years of Afg to manage pers tempo.



The trouble with SDA is that you don't actually have to go to sea in order to get it.  As long as you're posted to a ship, you draw SDA, even if you're landed.  Even more inequitable is the case of personnel posted to standard readiness ships compared to high readiness.  The ship's company of a very busy ship receives the same SDA as one that spend most of its time alongside.  The poor sap who really gets screwed is the one who keeps getting pierhead jumped from ship to another and spends 300+ days away per year, but he would receive the same SDA as the guy posted to a ship that is broken down and alongside for nine out of 12 months.

Years ago, I actually wrote a paper recommending that SDA should be paid out in the same manner as Field Operations Allowance (FOA) was (i.e. only paid for actual days at sea).  In this way, it would have been a true incentive for sea duty (which is what it's supposed to be) as the only way to get it would be to go to sea.  Those who went to sea a lot, would get a lot and those who didn't, wouldn't.  One of the criticisms of my idea was that keeping track of sea-days would be overly difficult.  At the time, I pointed out that if we could track every hour that aircrew spend flying, surely we could keep track of every day a person spent at sea without too much difficulty?  Ironically, we now have to do that anyway in order to award the Sea Service Insignia (SSI).  in another twist of fate, FOA disappeared and was replaced with LDA, with which we are having similar problems to those already identified with SDA...


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The trouble with SDA is that you don't actually have to go to sea in order to get it.  As long as you're posted to a ship, you draw SDA, even if you're landed.  Even more inequitable is the case of personnel posted to standard readiness ships compared to high readiness.  The ship's company of a very busy ship receives the same SDA as one that spend most of its time alongside.  The poor sap who really gets screwed is the one who keeps getting pierhead jumped from ship to another and spends 300+ days away per year, but he would receive the same SDA as the guy posted to a ship that is broken down and alongside for nine out of 12 months.



That sounds more like a pers management issue than an allowance issue. If the same guys are always going to sea, and there's people hiding/not getting a chance, its time for some non-geo postings to sort it out.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The ship's company of a very busy ship receives the same SDA as one that spend most of its time alongside.  The poor sap who really gets screwed is the one who keeps getting pierhead jumped from ship to another and spends 300+ days away per year, but he would receive the same SDA as the guy posted to a ship that is broken down and alongside for nine out of 12 months.



This is 100% not the issue.  No one bemoans a low readiness ship for getting the same levels of sea pay as a high readiness ship because it usually runs and in a cycle, we all have up times and down times.  

The only time I would say take sea pay away from someone posted to a sea going billet is if they become unfit sea.  If you cant sail you shouldn't get sea pay. 

What needs to be monitored is the days our ships are spending at sea and the distribution of those days over the entirety of the fleet pers.  Motivate or release the unfit/unwilling and rest those who have been overburdened at all possible times.


----------



## Izzie_air (29 Nov 2016)

Okay, so I've been digging around and found a NAVGEN that was released on the 21st of Nov. titled "RCN PERSONNEL TEMPO". It's not online yet but as soon as it is, I will post it here.  It is aimed directly at the point of this post.


----------



## Izzie_air (3 Dec 2016)

Well, here it is. It came out on the 21st of Nov.  Not really sure what to do with it though. I wonder if it will be implemented in the near future or if it's just words on paper for now. I guess we'll see...

*"NDHQ C NAVY OTTAWA
NAVGEN 035/16
UNCLAS RCN 045/16
SIC WAC
SUBJ: RCN PERSONNEL TEMPO
1. UNDERSTANDING THE TEMPO OF OUR PERSONNEL IS CRITICAL TO OUR
COLLECTIVE SUCCESS AS THE NATION S FIRST RESPONDERS TO ENSURE THAT
WE ARE IN ALL RESPECTS READY AYE READY TO EXECUTE MISSIONS ASSIGNED
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. TO THIS END, LEADERSHIP WILL NOW
IDENTIFY THOSE PERSONNEL IN SEA GOING POSITIONS WHO ARE NOT
ACHIEVING 90 DAYS AT SEA IN A TWELVE MONTH PERIOD AND IDENTIFY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR SKILLS. AT THE OTHER END OF
THE SPECTRUM, LEADERSHIP WILL ALSO TRACK THE NUMBER OF DAYS OUR
PERSONNEL ARE AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES. FOR THOSE PERSONNEL WHO WILL
DEPLOY FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS OVER A TWELVE MONTH PERIOD, FLAG
OFFICER OVERSIGHT WILL BE REQUIRED
2. PERSONNEL TEMPO IS NOT ONLY ABOUT DAYS DEPLOYED AWAY FROM HOME,
IT IS ALSO ABOUT OUR SAILOR S CONFIDENCE IN THE CERTAINTY OF THEIR
SHIP S PROGRAM. HAVING CONFIDENCE IN THE PROGRAM ALLOWS OUR SAILORS
AND THEIR LOVED ONES TO MAKE FAMILY PLANS. THE LEADERSHIP HAVE
THEREFORE RANGED OUT IN PLANNING THE OPERATIONAL SCHEDULE AND
DE-CLASSIFIED IT TO BETTER ENABLE FAMILIES TO PLAN
3. THE PERSONNEL COORDINATION CENTERS (PCC) WILL ALSO TRACK ATTACH
POSTINGS OR QUOTE PIER HEAD JUMPS UNQUOTE. THIS INITIATIVE WILL
ENSURE LEADERSHIP HAVE AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF PERSONNEL WHO
ARE BEING DEPLOYED AT SHORT NOTICE AND/OR REPEATEDLY. IT IS
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ATTACH POSTINGS. THOSE THAT
FACILITATE TRAINING AND PERSONNEL KEEN TO DEPLOY AND THOSE WHERE
SAILORS ARE DEPLOYED AT SHORT NOTICE OR AGAINST THEIR PREFERENCE.
THE GOAL WILL BE TO REDUCE ATTACHED POSTINGS WHERE SAILORS ARE
DEPLOYED AT SHORT NOTICE OR AGAINST THEIR PREFERENCE
4. THE RCN IS ALSO LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL INITIATIVES, WHICH WILL
REDUCE PIER HEAD JUMPS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CREWING MODELS FOR ORCAS
AND MCDVS WILL BE OPTIMIZED WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE THE ATTACH POSTING
REQUIREMENTS. THE TRAINING SYSTEM IS ALSO OPTIMIZING CAREER COURSING
TO ENSURE THAT A SAILOR S TIME AWAY FROM THEIR SHIP AND FAMILY IS
MINIMIZED, FURTHER REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR ATTACH POSTINGS
5. THESE INITIATIVES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL
MONTHS AND CONTINUOUSLY AMENDED AND MONITORED OVER THE NEXT YEARS.
IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT AS WE GAIN BETTER INSIGHTS INTO THEIR SECOND
AND THIRD ORDER EFFECTS, WE WILL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO ENSURE THAT
THAT THEY CONTINUE TO REFLECT LEADERSHIP S COMMITMENT TO QUOTE
PEOPLE FIRST, MISSION ALWAYS UNQUOTE"*


----------

