|
| |
|
| |
Pushing a safe option
 |
|
| |
 |
| Seeing red: Comparison of the large open-blade propeller danger area to the reduced ring propeller danger area. |
|
I NOTE the concerns of Sgt Patrick Kidd (Letters, Army, June 14) regarding the introduction of the ring propeller for Army watercraft.
Army Marine, Amphibious and Afloat Support SPO is the logistic manager for marine platforms and systems operated by Army and is responsible for the current policy on ring propellers.
Army Marine is happy to respond to the concerns raised by Sgt Kidd’s letter; however the ADF does have a dedicated, simple, and highly effective system for reporting equipment issues – the RODUM. Defects resulting from technical, manufacturing or design faults and performance issues should be promptly reported via RODUM so that remedial action can be taken to repair, modify or replace defective or unsatisfactory materiel.
It is important to clarify the history behind the implementation of the ring propellers. After a number of significant propeller strike-related injuries (and in one occurrence, a fatality) OHS and Comcare investigations found that in using open-bladed propellers “ADF-Army is not taking all reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of its employees … and failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety and absence of risk to health”. Comcare recommended that propeller cages were to be installed at all times to protect personnel operating on and around Army watercraft.
The implementation of the propeller cages, however, was opposed at unit level because of reduced efficiency. Studies subsequently found that the propeller cages reduced performance by at least 21 per cent with some heavy-duty designs reducing performance by almost 48 per cent.
Army Marine launched a full Safety Case Study (SCS) in 2005. Among many other safety issues the SCS investigated eight different outboard motor propulsion systems, including open-bladed propellers, propeller cages and ring propellers. These were all assessed for safety as well as fitness for purpose. It was determined that the current Australian Army Modified Ringed Propeller provided the best balance between safety and performance.
The ring propellers were then fitted to Army small watercraft (up to 55hp). While it is noted that ring propellers reduce the performance of the outboard motors by about 14 per cent over the open-blade propeller, this is a significant improvement in performance from the 21-48 per cent reductions caused by propeller cages, therefore the new safety solution provides an increased performance profile.
It was noted by Army Marine in the SCS that in some limited scenarios the reduced operating capacity of a ring propeller may not be operationally suitable. As such, EMEI Marine O 029-1 was written to give direction to commanders on the correct selection of propeller types for various missions. The EMEI states: “Small craft OBM operations should be conducted utilising a ringed propeller, where possible or practical to do so.” While it is mandatory to use ring propellers for parachute operations and when operating with divers or swimmers in the water, in other situations scope is given to utilise open-blade propellers. Given the inherent risks involved with open-blade propellers the CO must first conduct a safety risk assessment detailing why open-blade propellers are used, against all mitigating criteria as outlined in the EMEI.
As well as increasing the safety of Army watercraft users, the ring propellers provide good value for money for Defence.
The previous propeller guard system cost more than $450 to install per outboard motor, whereas the ring propeller system can be installed at a fraction more than the cost of the existing open-blade propellers. The value of the ring propeller is further improved as it lasts three times longer than the open-blade propeller.
I would like to thank Sgt Kidd for his feedback on Army Marine equipment and encourage all Marine operators to raise a RODUM for investigation and action by Army Marine for any perceived unsatisfactory performance of Army Marine equipment.
Lt Graeme Brown
SO3 Engineer, Army Marine
Defence Plaza, Sydney |
| |
Retention bonus caution
WHILE wholeheartedly supporting the introduction of the Army Expansion Rank Retention and Critical Employment Category Retention bonuses, I would caution those who receive Government benefits, family assistance, child care benefits etc, to be cautious when applying for a bonus, particularly at the end of the financial year.
Army has encouraged those considering applying for a bonus to seek financial advice and while the fact that bonuses are tax deductible has been mentioned, nowhere have I seen reference to the negative impact on Government family benefits.
Those who accept a bonus at the end of the financial year, too late to submit a revised estimate of annual salary, may find themselves having to repay a significant amount of money when they submit their tax return.
Lt-Col Nick Read
Deputy Head of Corps RAADC
Victoria Barracks, Brisbane
Editor’s note: Director Military Personnel Administration-Army Col Ash Gunder refers to this issue in an article on here. |
| |
Army Journal widely read
CPL Justin Porthouse (Letters, Army, June 14) incorrectly asserts that the Australian Army Journal (AAJ) “comes out quarterly” and is read by “only the select few”.
In fact, the AAJ has been published twice each year, although pursuant to guidance from CA we are currently moving to three editions per year.
Every available indicator suggests that the AAJ is widely read and highly regarded within Army as well as overseas. The AAJ is the primary vehicle for the development and promotion of Army’s intellectual capability and professional debate – its history stretches back to 1948.
Cpl Porthouse’s assertion that only the upper echelons are interested in the Journal is debunked by the number of articles from soldiers and NCOs that have been published and continue to arrive unsolicited at the AAJ.
We do not discriminate on the basis of seniority, as a glance at the table of contents for the recent (Autumn 2007) edition confirms.
Indeed, we are open to constructive criticism and suggestions, as Cpl Porthouse would have found had he submitted his letter to us first (army.journal@defence.gov.au). We would have published it.
As to his concerns that the AAJ is a waste of paper, we now have an online version (http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/Publications/journal/journal.htm) and have reduced our print run by 3000 copies.
Lt-Col Malcolm McGregor
Publisher
Australian Army Journal |
| |
Training task deserves best
I READ with alarm the article “Instructors awarded”, which may be perceived as insignificant by some, shoved as it was in the corner of page 9 of the March 8 edition.
Having spent some time as an instructor at Rifleman Wing, School of Infantry (SOI), I was shocked to discover the attitude of several instructors. Undoubtedly few people join the Army with a view of becoming an instructor at a training establishment, but surely the short-sightedness of some people who receive a “posting order” to a TCA establishment is sad to say the least.
In a previous life I worked at the Infantry Training Centre Catterick, the British Army’s Singleton. While there were many similarities, the vast and instantly recognisable difference was the pride and passion I’d seen on the faces of the instructors at the ITC was sadly missing from the instructors at the SOI.
Singleton, I was often reminded, is the “home of the Infantry Corps”. It makes sense for the battalions to send their best men to train their next crop of soldiers.
Why then do unit COs insist on either sending the 2nd XV there or capitulate to the rants and raves of people of all ranks that baulk at the idea of a posting order to a training establishment? Why on earth do we have to bribe or cajole these people to “accept” a posting to a training establishment? And why do we have to invent another Americanesque badge, patch, gong or flag to show that someone’s done a job they’ve been told to do? One, incidentally they should be proud to do.
By the way – will those on a training team overseas receive an Infantry/Army/Military (delete as appropriate) Combat Instructors’ Badge?
Capt Garrath Williams
Adjt 25/49RQR
Gallipoli Barracks
Maj Geoffrey Young, A/SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
THE Military Instructor Bonus and the Recruit Instructor Bonus have been introduced to attract members back to our prestigious training facilities.
Army recognises that the workload within our training establishments is often demanding on members, their partners and families.
The staff in SCMA have a stringent set of criteria to abide by when considering suitable candidates for an instructional position, one of which requires a soldier to be reporting in the top percentile within their trade. It is not the CO who sends members to instructional positions. The CO in consultation with the CO SCMA determine postings in accordance with the selection criteria.
The Army is committed to a large number of soldiers on overseas deployments, while at the same time being asked to grow. This does place a burden on all members.
Without suitable personnel to conduct training, Army cannot grow. If an award or bonus assists us to recognise our training staff in maintaining our manning of training establishments and retention of soldiers, it is a positive step and should be embraced by Army.
The TC-A Instructor Patch and MI Badge is awarded to eligible assistant instructors, instructors, assessors and training supervisors to acknowledge and recognise the critical role they play in the development of trainees.
To be eligible, instructors must adhere to the Instructor and Assessor Development Program (I&ADP) dated March 5 and be posted to designated instructional or assessment positions on establishment in TC-A.
There is no intention at this point to increase the size of the group by adding those members undertaking training roles overseas. |
| |
What about the diggers?
 |
|
Vigilant: Pte Sean O’Loughlin and other 1RAR soldiers conduct vehicle checks around the streets of Dili. A letter writer believes more incentive should be offered to all diggers.
Photo by
PO Damian Pawlenko
|
|
I THINK it is a very good idea establishing the $10,000 incentive to retain NCOs and above, providing they’ve seen time in rank for two or more years.
But, as with probably all diggers in the forces, it seems that the powers-that-be are only really looking out for them, and not so much us.
What about an incentive for the diggers? What about trying to retain the soldier first?
I have heard so many times that it’s the soldier that keeps the Army going, with the guidance of their superiors, but without the soldier who’s going to do the work?
There needs to be something seriously done about the retention of soldiers. Not all soldiers want to work their way up the chain and take on rank. They want to come to work and feel like they are part of large family, a large organisation that gives a hoot about them.
However, with this new bargaining tool for NCOs and above, the lonely soldier at the bottom doesn’t feel needed anymore.
Why don’t the powers-that-be think about doing the same for us soldiers? Obviously it would have to be for soldiers who have completed their initial employment time plus two years, as per the incentive of the NCOs and above.
I know if the $10,000 was offered to me, I wouldn’t hesitate to re-sign for another four years. And I know of many others that would consider the same.
Pte Andrew Vancsa
2 Cav Regt
Robertson Barracks
Maj Geoffrey Young, A/SO1 Retention, DGPers-A, responds:
THE current rank retention bonus is a short term solution to retain experienced and trained members at the ranks of corporal, sergeant, captain and major.
Late last year Defence went forward with a list of bonuses we knew would assist us retain our experienced soldiers, at the same time my staff in DGPers-A were in the process of making changes to the OR pay structure.
Because the soldier base pay review had not been presented to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal we could not announce this at the same time. This is now under way and we believe to be the best way to reward the ORs.
DGPers-A staff will continue to look at other sign on initiatives. |
|
