BEagle, I checked the DCI today & had the Gp policy guys see if (despite its +4 years shelf-life) it was indeed still current. Much to my surprise, it has not been superceded. However, there my good news ends, as your recollection would appear to be flawed.
As your stated (and quite correct) reason for not quoting from it was owing to its RESTRICTED classification I will assume that you have (or can get) a copy. I refer you to para 11 where in relation to the carriage of Sevice personnel it uses the word
'unrestricted'. The subsequent 'feasible alternatives' passage that you have latched on to only applies to 'administrative moves'. Having talked with the policy boys I found that this was based on a risk management decision (before that became a buzzword) to achive a military capability with existing assets within a public budget and hence the passage that lays down different rules for civvies.
Taking the same definition that appears in the DCI, I then got someone to search all 2 Gp/DTMA tasked flights since Aug 99 to see if there had been any admin moves and got 2 'hits' (a year apart and something for which I doubt you were involved in), but when I then examined the circumstances of those flights, I found that the only other possible Service solution would have been buses that could not have met the timelines laid down. The only 'feasible' military option was therefore the C-130. For reasons that I cannot go in to here, a civilian charter option would not have been feasible. Therefore, I was unable to find a single occaision in the past 2+ years where 2 Gp/DTMA have contravened the DCI.
I take it that your apology to
...the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.
will be as public as your accusation.
