HEDP,
I infer from your last post that you have been involved in organizing either this exercise or others like it?
If so, may I ask why the Puma detachment were placed in on-base type accommodation rather than under canvas like the rest of the exercise participants? I suspect that the decision would've been made for flight safety reasons, and not simply to give the hard-worked Puma force an early Christmas present. Once this decision is made it is churlish to expect them to happily give up any expense entitlements associated with their situation just because others are in more uncomfortable conditions.
To draw a parallel, when you went to the area for exercise planning you would have stayed on-base or in a hotel (rather than in a tent) because that was appropriate for your job at the time. I would be very surprised if you refused to claim your receipt-based expenses and IE on the basis that you were simply grateful for staying in better conditions than other colleagues may have been experiencing at the time.
Pumaengineer has queried the lack of entitlement to IE, and although he knows that others have had it better (and worse) he simply wants to improve his own lot. I find his attitude a marked contrast to that often found within the services that prefers to complain about or deride those that have better conditions, rather than seeking to improve their own.
It would be very disappointing if the organizers of this exercise had decided to manipulate the regulations to block IE being paid as a response to the Puma personnel being grudgingly accommodated in conditions commensurate with sound flight safety practices.
As a final point, if field conditions apply and pumaengineer and his colleagues are not eligible for IE then surely there should be a welfare package in place. Simply declaring that they should be grateful for their comparatively better conditions and suggesting that those who seek their correct entitlements should be removed and placed in tents is not a very impressive argument.