Halifax Tar said:
Why do you/they need further compensation ?
Because of the reality of deployment and ops in a place that the enemy will burn you alive in a cage, make a video of it for your friends and family to watch (on that particular op)? Seems like a legit reason to me. None of us here are donating our bi-monthly pay to charity; we all expect and receive compensation.
I'll use the MFSI to support my position:
10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to
compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.
10.3.13 - Determination of Hardship and Risk Allowance Levels
10.3.13(5) (Factors – Risk Level) Before determining an RA level for a post, the Chairperson of the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee must consider all of the following:
a.
kinetic activities (e.g. threat posed by hostile forces, civil instability, and risk caused by other contingents and/or neighbouring national forces);
b.
the operational environment (e.g. geospatial hazards from: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear contamination, hazardous plants, animals, and unexploded ordnance, health and hygiene, and the physical geography and its effects on the task force);
c.
measures taken to mitigate the risk to members serving at the post; and
d. any representations made by interested commanders in accordance with instructions issued by or under the authority of the CDS concerning RA determinations.
Very simply put; the kinetic activities, operational environment considerations were considerably different between aircrew in a killbox over Iraq or Syria and anyone in the secure Kuwait locations.
I could speak to 'measures to mitigate the risk', but I won't, not here at least. There were some things that happened and decisions taken that were...irresponsible. Nuff said on that for a public site.
Despite the MFSI, details above and theatre realities....aircrew who conducted missions over Iraq and Syria received the same RA as folks who never left Kuwait and, most of those people never left the air bases they were at. They didn't even carry, let alone wear, any PPE, weapons etc.
Didn't make us better, or more important...just facing a different level of actual risk. To use SSMs words..."massively different conditions".
Does that sound reasonable in the assessment/assignment of RA? What was the
risk in that op area?
Only this I guess, if aircrew had a really bad day. That video is not a 'made up movie'; it happened to a real human being (graphic stuff starts at 18:20 or so. Don't watch it if you're not prepared to see someone die a fairly horrible death and then get smashed into the ground with a front end loader). That was the 'worst case scenario'. Even GW1, the captured aircrew didn't have to worry about being BBQd...
How many people who deployed to and never left Kuwait had the potential to suffer this fate? I'd say zero. How many had the
potential to suffer it on the aircrew side? Anyone who operated over a piece of ground with ISIS in it.
Kuwait compared to the Iraq/Syria battlespace, especially early on when ISIS had more territory south and along the ERV and TRV, etc...
significantly different.
Are we in the business of trying to create a tiered level of deployment compensation ? See Dafts post. Hes more articulate than I can be.
Trying to create? We're already in one.
- Ops FSP. Based on points and nothing else. I could be on the same Op doing the same job as the mbr next to me and making alot of Ops FSP.
- HA bonus, tied to Ops FSP. Again, I could (and do) make HA Bonus...person next to me doing the same job 3 feet away might not get any HA bonus.