Letters
to the Editor
|
|
|
Personal
Incentive Levels have been removed from the BFA as they are no longer
a formal reporting requirement. Photo by Cpl Belinda Mepham, Army
newspaper
|
Incentives
are lacking
I RECENTLY
learnt of an updated Army Training Instruction, ATI 6-1,which deals
with the BFA. This latest update is yet to be released and was drafted
in April 2003.
From what
I read, I identified a few changes from the previous ATI 6-1 which was
released in December 1999. One omission, in particular, that was interesting
to note between the December 1999 and the draft April 2003 instruction
is that the Personal Incentive Levels (PILs one and two) have been scrapped
in the draft copy.
I would
imagine the main reason for this is due to the fact that fitness is
no longer specifically reported upon, with the introduction of the Personal
Appraisal Report (PAR) which replaced the PR 66.
As the
latest edition of ATI 6-1 is still in draft format, it would seem at
this time that the end result will be a lowering of standards fitness
wise, with no incentive to aim for a higher pass, given that the PILs
are to be no more and that fitness is not reflected in our PARs.
WO2 Wally Meurant
Inspector Foodstuffs
JLU-North, Winellie NT
Maj Richard Mallet, SO2 Army Health Implementation Team, DGPP-A,
responds:
WO2 Meurant has correctly identified that the draft ATI 6-1 recommends
the removal of Personal Incentive Levels (PIL) from the Basic Fitness
Assessment (BFA) as they are no longer a formal reporting requirement.
The main
reason for removing PIL from the BFA, however, is actually related to
their continued relevance within Army's physical conditioning continuum.
Army has recognised the training gap that exists between BFA standards,
physical conditioning and task requirements of soldiers.
Army has
also recognised that a biannual assessment of fitness via the BFA does
not provide a complete overview of the physical and mental status of
soldiers. The current BFA is essentially an enabling component within
the current physical training and assessment continuum.
Therefore
PILs are not appropriate at this level of fitness. What Army does need
is a conditioning continuum that is progressive, job related and relevant
to readiness levels.
Achieving,
maintaining and evaluating the required standards of physical fitness
and conditioning will always be a high priority for Army.
The ability
of commanders to physicaly prepare soldiers for their job is a fundamental
principle that underpins Army's "duty of care" responsibilities.
Army has acknowledged that we can do better in this regard and has appointed
an Army Health Implementation Team (AHIT) to address the issue. The
AHIT has been tasked specifically to ensure Army can optimise the physical
and mental well being of Army personnel. Stories on the AHIT team will
be published in future editions of Army.
Confused
cams
TODAY I
went to the Q store to change cams and, low and behold, I have discovered
that ADI make the pants and Can't Tear 'Em make the shirts (change in
contractor).
The Q staff
were great and appoligised (trying to clear old stock) but this doesn't
help poor digger Joe whose CSM rips a new one because ASOD state that
cams are to match in colour and shade.
Over the
past years, cams have not been too impressive, with things like pockets
in the wrong spot or not at all, map pockets that could hold a spare
road wheel and had to be resewn by tailors. When are we going to get
it right?
I have
seen the trial cams at the RAInf Corps Conference and they seem practical
but are we still going to employ substandard contactors to make them?
I'm sure if they were Nike, the company would sent them back and find
a new contractor (although it's not hard to find more sweat shops in
Asia).
Capt T.J. Cook
LHQ
Victoria Barracks, Sydney NSW
Maj Nick Stanton, ACPEC, AHQ, responds:
You have raised a couple of commonly held misconceptions that need to
be addressed. Firstly, Defence has two contractors (Australian Defence
Apparel and Can't Tear Em) who manufacture the DPCU as complete sets.
To have
one company manufacture the trousers while another does the shirt is
a little too bizarre even for Defence and fortunately, does not reflect
reality.
Each manufacturer
receives the disruptive patterned material from the same source, which
is checked by JMA staff against a sealed master sample. This master
sample was established in 2001.
That being
said, it is possible that you have a uniform item that was manufactured
before 2001. Check the date of manufacture on the item's label and if
it is after 2001, then please submit a RODUM so the folks at JMA can
look into it for you.
Full marks
to your Q-Store on the other issue. ASOD is the CA's standing orders
to ensure that the standard of personal dress, appearance and grooming
is to be such as to reflect credit on the individual and on the Australian
Army. Therefore, we are not to wear mismatched DPCU in a barracks environment.
The ASOD
requirement for matched uniform is not to be regarded as a justification
to replace fully functional items at public expense or as an entitlement
to be issued additional kit. A Q-Store would be remiss in the exercise
of their financial responsibilities if they permitted this to occur.
Lastly,
you will be happy to know that the new DPCU is in its final design acceptance
stage and should be in production by our two very competent Defence
contractors toward the latter half of the year.
Core
comparisons
I NOTE
with interest the number of letters placed into Army newspaper about
the current situation in RAAOC.
A number
of key points were touched on as to why our pay case was not accepted,
but these points were not fully answered.
Some of
the reasons our case was not won was because, a, we have no competency
log books to reflect our qualifications, and b, the justification was
made on Army storeman/clerks versus RAAF and RAN storeman/ clerks.
I note
that competency logbooks were introduced in the early '90s and again
after the RAAOC '97 review.
For some
unknown reason, these have gone by the wayside when our Directorate
of Corps Committee was disbanded after the RAAOC '97 review.
Now with
the re-raising of the Directorate of Corps Committee, (after they have
found that our corps is critical) they have all of a sudden realised
that we need these competency log books again, to justify a pay increase
and also to validate our skills.
Why did
we not just keep the logbooks to start with?
As per
my second point why are we justifying our requested pay increase against
our fellow members in the RAAF and RAN.
Why aren't
we justifying our requested pay increase against other corps who hold
similar qualifications but are on a higher pay level, such as RACT,
RAE, RAInf, RAPhysc, etc?
It is not
a wonder that RAAOC is in such critical state when our pay issues have
been left for so long and are now only just coming to light.
It is evident
that a person with the amount of qualifications that most people in
RAAOC hold, could take discharge and take up a civilian job with quite
a considerable amount of extra income.
Cpl Scott Lobegeiger
CQMS Trg Spt Coy
ARTC-RTW, Kapooka NSW
Editor's Note: more letters on the crisis in the Opsup trade in RAOOC
will be published in the next edition of Army
Skill
at arms slipping under AIRN
I AM a
firm supporter of the principle that all soldiers and officers should
be ready to deploy at short notice. As such I strongly support the intent
behind the revised AIRN requirements featured in Army, February 12.
However,
having examined the AIRN individual weapons proficiency requirement,
I am disturbed that the policy makers within Army do not consider that
actually having the capacity to apply some skill in shooting is a prerequisite
for operational deployment.
There is
now no requirement to achieve any standard in the AIRN Grouping Practice.
To be considered ready to deploy, one has only to pass TOETs and then
press the trigger 23 times on a simulator.
As there
are no standards applicable, talk of "strongly encouraging"
and "minimum grouping requirements" is totally irrelevant.
Members are now only tested on the process of firing the weapon, not
on the outcome. I would argue that being able to group and effectively
apply fire are outcomes that deployable members should be required to
meet.
The policy
states that "All Army personnel must be confident and competent
in the use of the Steyr in order to be deployable and to reduce the
likelihood of non-battle casualties". Doesn't "competent"
mean that the soldier should be able to shoot the weapon, not just perform
drills on it?
I do agree
that it is vital that we reduce the likelihood of UDs and "non-battle
casualties". I'd argue though that we would be better served by
applying weapon proficiency standards that increase the likelihood of
inflicting battle casualties on the enemy at the same time. Or are we
now saying that deployability does not encompass a degree of skill at
arms?
WO1 K. Haggerty
ALTC
Bandiana, NSW
Lt-Col Paul Kenny, SO1 Preparedness, AHQ, responds:
First, AHQ has been pleased with the overwhelmingly positive responses
received with regard to the revised AIRN Policy. Despite this outcome,
AHQ will take any opportunity to improve the policy and values your
comments.
The Individual
Weapon Proficiency element of AIRN addresses the requirement to safely
handle, operate and fire the weapon. Marksmanship proficiency standards
to be achieved and maintained for deployment are determined by the mounting
authority and differ depending on the type of operation and the roles
and tasks of the unit or individual.
Reinforcing
this requirement the fact that many of our individual deployments in
the past four years involved personnel on unarmed missions, such as
UNTSO in Israel or personnel required to carry foreign weapons, such
as Op Husky in Sierra Leone.
Notwithstanding
it was determined the Individual Weapon Proficiency element of AIRN
was appropriate.
Readers
should note the AIRN Individual Weapon Proficiency assessment consists
of two elements; passing the Steyr Weapon Training Test (WTT); and firing
the Steyr Grouping Practice at 100m from the prone unsupported position.
The Grouping
practice has been selected as the AIRN practice to assess the member's
ability to safely handle, operate and fire the weapon system. It also
maximizes the training opportunity, by providing commanders with measurable
marksmanship standards within the unit and provides personnel with an
accurate measure of their current individual marksmanship proficiency.
WO1 Haggerty
identifies that being able to group and apply fire are outcomes that
deployable members should be required to meet. As indicated, this requirement
should be set by the mounting authority. However, the AIRN policy does
not preclude commanders from articulating higher weapon proficiency
standards, including marksmanship standards, relating directly to preparedness
objectives allocated to their units. It is not the intention of the
AIRN Policy to provide guidance on these different requirements.
The Army
Small Arms Shooting Policy, currently being drafted, will provide guidance
to commanders for shooting training in Army and the standard of marksmanship
for deployable units. This guidance is based on unit readiness, roles
and tasks.
As you
are aware, the maintenance of high levels of shooting skills requires
continuous practice. High readiness combat units can achieve this, but
it is extremely difficult to maintain at the other end of the spectrum
within Training Command Units and in our various Headquarters. The Individual
Weapon Proficiency element of AIRN allows personnel posted to Headquarters
and Training Command (less trainees) to maintain, at the minimum, the
ability to safely handle, operate and fire the Steyr.
Mr
Whippys in Vietnam
I WAS amused
to see Craig Vinall's cartoon in the March 11 edition of Army. It depicts
an NCO's concern that his patrol is buying ice cream from a Mr Whippy
van and it brought back a memory.
In May
1968, the Australian Task Force HQ was based at the US Fire Base Bearcat
just prior to our commitment to Fire Base Coral.
One hot,
dry, and dusty afternoon we heard the familiar strains of Greensleeves
and sure enough, driving slowly through the fire base, was a Mr Whippy
van.
When it
came closer we could see that it was the genuine article even down to
its NSW number plates! It caused much amusement and interest, made us
a bit homesick for Oz, and the Vietnamese driver did a roaring trade
selling his ice cream. Just as is depicted in the cartoon.
Lt-Col Noel Sproles (rtd)
DSTO Senior Research Fellow
University of SA
Adelaide SA
Courageous
corporal
I READ
with pride the story in Army, issue 1092 [March 12] regarding the brave
conduct of Cpl Sean Clements who risked his life to save his colleague
during Ex Tandem Thrust in 2001.
Congratulations
to you, Cpl Clements, on your well deserved award of the Star of Courage
for bravery, you are indeed courageous.
WO2 Carol Bowen
2HSB
Gallipoli
Barracks
Enoggera Qld
Snail
mail to Timor
THE reason
I'm writing this letter is to find out why personal mail takes up to
four weeks to get to me here in FOB Moleana, Timor Leste.
The Army
has free post available for members overseas on deployment. This free
post is great for morale but if the mail getting sent takes four weeks
then I begin to question the system.
Australia
Post is able to deliver anywhere in Australia within three days. I don't
believe the hold-up is the Australia Post but within the Army mail system.
Before
deploying to East Timor we went through the briefs and one of these
was for mail.
The brief
stated that mail should take between seven to nine days. With this in
mind you could add, say, a couple of days due to bad weather, but an
extra two weeks is just too much.
With the
draw-down of the UN presence in East Timor the Battalion Group is the
smallest it's been. With this in mind, you would think the mail system
would move a bit smoother. It doesn't seem to be the case.
Tpr Damian Allen
APC Section
6RAR Bn Gp
FOB Moleana
Whingeing
is healthy
IN RESPONSE
to the letter published February 12, "Stop your whingeing,"
I agree that there are some letters published every issue about menial
problems which should basically be put under the blanket answer of "military
service." I also believe, however, that as a member, the Army newspaper
is a good chance to air your gripes.
There is
the chance it may help someone else in a similar situation, or may express
a thought that many others may be having, with the chance of a reply.
It's human
nature to whinge, it's no different just because we are in the ADF.
A person will only whinge as long as they think it will help though.
It's when they stop whingeing that the problems start.
Lt Luke Brandley
Army Helicopter School
Oakey
Qld
Ask
the Chief
Would you
like to ask CA Lt-Gen Peter Leahy a question? It could be about acquisitions
or uniform, operational tempo or a general welfare issue.
As part
of hearing soldiers' views, CA has agreed to start Ask the Chief
in Army newspaper.
He wants
to know your questions so he can answer them in a future edition as
part of his look back at what the Army has achieved and been part of
in 2003.
As with
Letters to the Editor, it is the right of all soldiers to ask CA a question
through Ask the Chief in Army without using the chain of command.
Submit
your questions in e-mail form to armynews@defencenews.gov.au
with "ask the chief" in the subject line.
|
