Quicklinks
to Letters
Fire
for effect
Body of evidence
Ensuring a fare go over travel costs
Article ‘tactless’
Removal policy anomaly
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Fire
for effect
THE introduction
of the Army Combat Badge (Army, December 1) is a long overdue recognition
of the work that non-infantry personnel are doing on operations.
Now that it has been recognised that other corps are doing the same
work as our infantry brethren, I believe the next step should be a review
of the Div Fire Power Policy (DFPP). This review, in my opinion, is
required to ensure that logistic personnel posted to arms corps units
have an ammunition allocation commensurate with the war fighters they
are supporting.
As the ACB recognises the value of non-infantry pers, we should be recognising
that these support elements are required to conduct and provide self
protection of the A echelon and as such should be given the resources
to ensure that all members are well trained.
Maj Des Scheidl
5/7RAR
Robertson Barracks
TOP
Body
of evidence
I AM writing in response to the letter of Sgt Kris Amiet and the reply
by Lt-Col Ros Blakley (Army, November 17).
As a serving medical officer of 30 years’ service in both regular
and reserve units, mostly conducting an reviewing medical boards, I believe
the reply by Lt-Col Blakley is too narrow in its scope.
I believe that the reply could have been expanded to say that members
with a BMI greater than 30 may well be fit to continue to serve in the
Army. Members who pass the BFA with no physical or medical restrictions
are deemed to be fit. If their BMI is high and they pass the BFA, then
the assessing medical officer will classify the member as Class 1.
The BMI should be used as an aid to assess fitness. It is not the only
measure and members’ fitness should be assessed on an individual
basis.
The concept of the BMI was originally conceived as a statistical tool
in epidemiology and by itself does not reflect one’s overall fitness.
For example, when Mal Meninga was playing rugby league at his peak his
BMI was 35.
Lt-Col Andrew Crompton
RHPA-V
Victoria Barracks
I RETIRED from the Army in 1988 after 23 years and I endorse the comments
made in the letters in the issue of December 15 on the topic of “Fighting
fit or fighting fat”.
At 42, the year before I was discharged, I was medically downgraded from
FE to HO at my annual medical as I was 6kg overweight. I tried to explain
to the MO that I was extremely fit, I ran and cycled every day, umpired
three times a week, and had my own strict fitness regime. Most days I
also ran at lunch time with the CO of 1 Armd Regt.
The MO would not accept my fitness level as OK for the weight. Four days
later we had regimental PT tests and I happened to be running with young
officers, including the MO. After about three quarters of a kilometre,
I said to them I would have to let them go. They said they understood,
considering my age, but they misunderstood, I had to repeat that I was
letting them go because they were too slow.
I went ahead and finished that run in 18.5 minutes, and subsequently I
was reinstated back to FE! The CO appeared to have known what would happen,
his grin said it all. BMI should not be the only fitness indicator; there
must be many other stories like mine.
SSgt Norm Maraldo (retd)
Adelaide, SA
TOP
Ensuring
a fare go over travel costs
WAS taken
aback to be told that when I calculate the fares to determine funds
availability for personnel travelling via entitled means, it is different
to that when travelling by own means.
For example, if a member was to travel from Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney
to Simpson Barracks in Melbourne, I would use the Defence Travel Matrix
to get the NDL fare of $495.81 and $200 for cab charges at each end
of the journey for a total of $695.81. But if the same member were to
travel by own means for the same journey, then the comparative fare
would be the amount of the air fare only, excluding GST and other taxes
of $444.71 and no intermediate travel.
So if the latter amount is what it actually costs Defence for entitled
means, then why does my wing need funds availability for the all-inclusive
costs and not just the tax-free amount?
It seems the wing might have some extra funds for training this year
as we normally require the assistance of visiting instructors from Sydney,
if we can convince them to travel by own means.
On reflection, it does not make that much sense to me; perhaps I will
continue to use the PY 010 for cost comparisons to determine entitled
means when own means is requested.
Sgt John Montgomery
DFSS
Simpson Barracks
Bob Jones, Directorate of Service Conditions, responds:
SGT Montgomery has unfortunately been given some incorrect advice on
calculating fares.
First, there is no need to subtract anything from the NDL fare shown
on the Defence Travel Matrix (see Pacman Clause 9.1.5). The NDL fares
on the matrix already exclude GST.
Pacman Clause 9.1.9 (as at February 8) also says that “travel on
leave, temporary duty or posting is door-to-door and includes the reasonable
cost of transport to and from airports, railway stations and coach terminals”.
Note that the rules for Remote Locality Leave Travel are different –
see Pacman Ch 9 Pt 4 Div 4.
In the journey Sgt Montgomery describes, assuming the $200 figure is
a reasonable estimate for cab charges to and from the airport, the correct
cost comparison would be:
- NDL
Air Fare: $495.81
- Cab
charges: $200
- Total
fare for own means cost comparison: $695.81
Note
that “reasonable cost of transport to and from airports” does
not automatically mean cab charge: bus, rail or even hire car may be
preferable. Units will need to decide what means is justified for each
journey.
To sum up: when you do a cost comparison for own means travel, include
all the costs that would be included in the entitled means. This includes
transport to and from the airport, and the full amount of the air fare
in the NDL column of the Defence Travel Matrix for the entitled class
of travel.
Pacman is available on the Defweb (http://intranet.defence.gov.au/pac)
and the Internet (http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac).
TOP
Article
‘tactless’
I HOPE
that the juxtaposition of the title of the article “Slow down and
think” (Army, December 15) and the first paragraph which relates
the tragedy of the loss of Lt Stewart Smith and Cfn Anthony Hansen to
motorcycle accidents in November was incidental.
I would hate for the inference to be made that these two members were
speeding and careless at the time of their accidents.
While I do not know the circumstances of each, I think that the way
the article is presented is tactless and lacks compassion.
Maj K.J. Sullivan
LHQ
Victoria Barracks
Col Stephan Rudzki, Director OH&S-A, responds:
THE premature death of any soldier is a tragedy, and motor vehicle accidents
are by far the single largest cause of death among our soldiers.
The names of the two deceased soldiers were deliberately used to put
a human reality to statistics that often mean nothing to people.
It is confronting and distressing to deal with death and the issues
that surround it, which is why it is a key objective of Army SAFE to
prevent deaths from motor vehicle accidents by increasing awareness
of the hazards and ways of managing the risk.
There was no intention to assign any responsibility or blame to the
two deceased soldiers.
The blunt advice was based on the Defence Safety Management Agency analysis
of the causes of the 59 deaths seen in Army between 1996 and 2001.
This analysis identified speed, fatigue and alcohol as key factors.
These subjects were discussed with the intention of reaching soldiers;
a group who are often resistant to bland messages. Soldiers appreciate
straight talking that goes to the point, and that is what the article
sought to achieve.
I am sorry if it caused any distress, because that was certainly not
the intent.
On a positive note , there were no motor accident deaths in regular
Army soldiers over the holiday period. Hopefully there will be no more
tragic statistics this year.
TOP
Removal
policy anomaly
I HAVE
recently separated from my wife of 11 years. On checking my entitlements
for removal and relocation from the Married Quarter, I was surprised
to find out there were none.
To move out of my Married Quarter, which was too big to maintain for
one person, I had to conduct a full removal at my own expense, including
a complete clean of the residence. My wife, however, received a full
removal at Defence expense to a nominated location.
With all due respect, I am the serving Defence member and have given
16 years of loyal service. I am disappointed that through an extremely
tough period, I have received no assistance from Defence on this matter.
I agree my wife should be entitled to the assistance that she received,
but what about the member?
Surely an entitlement should exist for a member to be assisted by Defence
to be resettled following the traumatic process of a marriage break-up,
of which Defence life is all too often a contributing factor.
Sgt Jason Sofield
ALTC
Bandiana
Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, responds:
IT IS acknowledged that the current policy of providing a removal for
the non-service spouse, but not for the serving member, on breakdown
of marriage is an anomaly which needs to be addressed.
This policy is currently subject to detailed investigation with a view
to presenting a better solution for all concerned.
TOP
|
|
HOW
TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED
Preference is given to letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be
rejected if they are too long, abusive or can be answered by the author's
unit.
They will be published only when they include the author's name, unit,
location and contact number.
Send letters to: The Editor, Army newspaper, R8-LG-037, Russell Offices,
Canberra, ACT 2600; or email: armynews@defencenews.gov.au
|
