Letters

Smooth operators
Recognition being paid
Thanks due to many
Rank deserves respect

Smooth operators

PLEASE allow me to respond to Capt Wade Morris’ letter in the April 19 edition entitled “Opportunity for Operators”.

As the previous OIC of Civil Squadron at the Construction Wing of SME – the sole advisers to the Training Authority for ECN 270 Plant Operators, both ARA and Reserve – the key aspect I must stress to Capt Morris is that a civil-code is only a licence to state that the holder is safe to operate that machine and that licences issued by civilian training institutions are assessed at a lower standard and across a smaller range of aspects than a military plant licence.

A military licence certifies that the operator is not only safe to operate that type of machine, it certifies that the holder is familiar with the particular machine, class (generally the size), make and model and is also able to conduct minor maintenance, which is normally carried out by a service contractor in a majority of civil industries.

Even with the additional training and assessment provided in the course of an Army Plant Course, whether it be a full ARA course or Reserve single-code course (which are far more prevalent in the Reserve than the ARA), once the licence is issued, the operator is still not necessarily a competent operator; he or she has merely been assessed as safe according to Army standards.

I have commanded a range of both Army and civilian-trained operators and have utmost respect for the abilities of some civilian-trained operators, just as I have little regard for the abilities of some Army-trained operators, but this is just further illustration of the difference between a safe operator and a competent operator.

The ECN 270 trade is presently under review to make plant operator training competency focused where the issue of a licence is only the start of the process for training a fully qualified Army Plant Operator.

Finally, despite operators having thousands of hours operating in a range of extremely hazardous operational environments from Timor-Leste, RAMSI, Banda Aceh, Iraq and Afghanistan since the last revision of SOVO volume 3 in 1997, we have not had a single plant-related fatality, a record we are proud of.

When you compromise on recruitment standards, you may get lower standard soldiers. When you compromise safety standards, you will get dead soldiers. Critical trade or not, there is no justification for that.
Capt Saul West
Engineer Works Cell
Australian Defence Staff PNG

Recognition being paid

CPL Joliffe’s letter (Army, April 19) correctly identifies that there are many exceptional soldiers and officers at Training Command establishments who work long hours to provide an outstanding service to Army.

However, I take issue with Cpl Joliffe’s assertion that it is “too much hard work” for the chain of command to nominate soldiers for awards and commendations. His observation that he has not seen a “bronze, silver or gold commendation given out in recent times” ignores some compelling facts.

The Direct Fire Support Weapons Team at the School of Inf (Cpl Joliffe’s previous unit in 2006) was in fact honoured to receive a Bronze Commander TC-A Commendation last year.

This included a total of eight personnel, all SNCOs. An additional five personnel were nominated for commendations, of which three were approved: the unit padre, a lieutenant and a corporal. These 10 personnel were awarded their commendations on unit parades.

This doesn’t take into account the numerous Soldiers’ Medallions, Commandant CATC and CO School of Inf Medallions, one OAM, and two CSMs (one to a corporal) that were also awarded to School of Inf staff. It’s not “too much hard work” to recognise our people for the great job they do. The recognition of the School’s people in 2006 is an example of this.
Lt-Col Dean Franklin
CO/CI School of Inf
Singleton
Thanks due to many
I AM writing in response to the article entitled “VCDF true to his word” (Army, April 5).

The article praised the VCDF for his work in getting new vehicles for the Combined Task Force operating in the Solomon Islands.
I would also like to highlight the large amount of work and the number of people from different organisations involved in providing these vehicles to Op Anode, as I think they rightly deserve recognition in achieving the outcome directed by the VCDF.

Thanks and acknowledgement should be extended to the following staff and organisations for their role in the provision of the vehicles to support operations in the Solomon Islands: JLG Op Anode Desk Officer, HQ JOC Regional Operations staff, Land HQ staff, JLU(SQ), JLU(NQ), DMO Land Systems Division fleet management staff and operations staff, members of other LC units that provided vehicles at short notice, PDL, the civilian contractor that moved the majority of the vehicles and 1JMOVGP.
Capt Carney Elias
Directorate of Supply Chain Operations
Joint Logistics Group (Melbourne)
Rank deserves respect
HAVING read the responses (Army, April 5 and May 3) to the letter “What about WOs” (Army, March 8) I am saddened to witness what would appear, in print, to be an apparent lowering of the high esteem and pride that the rank of warrant officer attracted among all ranks while I was serving.

The rank of warrant officer is not that of an NCO but exactly what it infers, an officer by warrant, as opposed to an officer by commission.

I proudly wore the rank for 10 years and would proudly wear it again, given the chance. As a warrant officer I saw it as my duty to support my staff and, during my 25-year career, allowed several of my NCOs the opportunity to serve overseas in positions I could have taken myself.

Leadership is an individual discipline represented at all levels and ranks; it is therefore not appropriate in this case to have aspersions cast on an individual rank.
WO2 Michael Johansen (rtd)
Hobartville
Sydney, NSW