Different perspectives on photo

This letter is in response to the comments made by Sergeant Mick Jordan of 36SQN regarding the photo of Sergeant John Prosser (Letters, September 26).

SGT Jordan had singled out SGT Prosser for not wearing his military ID or hearing protection while the photo in question was taken on the flight line.

SGT Prosser was probably wearing his ID but removed it for the purposes of the photo for OPSEC reasons. While the SECMAN 4 does not provide guidance in this matter, anyone dealing with security issues would know that, by convention, it is not acceptable to photograph members in uniform with their ID passes clearly displayed.

With regard to hearing protection, one can assume that no aircraft had their engines running at the time – an assumption backed up by noting the aircrew member walking behind who is not wearing any protection either.

I’m sure SGT Prosser has a pair of foam ear-plugs in his pocket and, through his own initiative, is not wearing them for two reasons:

a. There is no aircraft noise; and
b. He can hear much better and respond quicker to any emergencies that might arise on the flight line.

As to the rest of SGT Prosser’s uniform, he is clearly well turned out and should be proud to represent the Air Force in the US.

• Flight Lieutenant Justin Porter
  Defence Intelligence Training Centre
  Canungra, Queensland

I would like to respond to your reply in regards to the letter “A dressing down for publishing photo”.
I agree wholeheartedly with Sergeant Mick Jordan’s comments. Your reply, as I understood it, was an attempt to gloss over the fact that Sergeant Prosser’s dress was incorrect.
Dress and bearing are an essential part of life in the Service and that photo would seem to encourage the flouting of dress regulations.
As you have pointed out, the Air Force and Sgt Prosser should rightly be proud of his achievements, but surely dress and bearing are an essential part of the Service image.
As Air Force News’ target audience should be military, you should ensure that these things are taken into account.

• Sergeant Terry Mand
  HQ 1 GL GP
  RAAF Base Glenbrook

We have the aviation skills

In reply to Sergeant Bishop’s letter “Combine forces” (Letters, September 13), could the same principle not be applied to ADF aviation?

Surely the Air Force has the expertise and economy of scale in regards to training, maintenance and logistical support for operating technical aircraft.

I am led to believe that the Air Force still has quite a commitment, in terms of personnel (logistics and maintenance), to supporting rotary wing operations within the Army.

Does this support show that we (the ADF) are becoming a truly tri-service organisation or that the Air Force has particular competencies which are hard (for whatever reason) to replicate within the Army system?

• Flight Sergeant Huey Baldwin
  Project Officer Fixed Wing
  Air Movements Training and Development Unit

Be flexible

IN regard to DMAN-AF’s response to the letter “Badge policy a bugbear” (Letters, September 26), the comments on the wearing of embellishments with the Air Force uniform and citing the Dress Manual as being immutable display an inability to think outside the square.

Good policy should be flexible and capable of absorbing change. The policy on wearing non-Air Force-related badges with the uniform is wrong.

The first instance was when the current policy on Service Commendations was being determined.

When I enquired as to whether the new guidelines would incorporate holders of a Certificate of Outstanding Service (COS), the answer was “no, it’s too hard and the certificates were not a commendation”. I think differently, and proudly display my certificate which was awarded by Air Officer Commanding Operational Command, a two-star officer.

I still wonder why it was too hard. Award of a COS was listed on the recipients’ PRE and a list could have been compiled from AFPEMS.

Second, several Air Force members have undertaken Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) training at either the US Naval School of Explosive Ordnance Disposal or the UK Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal School.

Successful completion of this difficult and demanding course at either establishment entitles the student to wear internationally recognised qualification badges.

Most of the recipients wear the badge when outside of Australia because it gives international recognition of the competencies and skills held by the wearer.

Yet, in Australia, the only allowance made in the current Dress Manual is a Duty Arm Band, which merely identifies the wearer as one performing an EOD operation, irrespective of his or her qualifications.

I suggest that the formation of EOD Flights within Air Force means that these personnel are conducting EOD duties and are entitled to wear the appropriate qualification badge for their skills. But then there is the policy.

• Vic Robertson
  Squadron Leader (ret’d)
  GWSSO JALO

Grounds for a new badge

I feel compelled to respond to the comments by Group Captain MacDonald in relation to Air Force personnel being permitted to wear the Infantry Combat Badge.

Should I be surprised by the GPCAPT’s comment that service by (infantry) personnel in an operational area is not connected to the core business of the Air Force?

That comment tells me three things.

First, it’s a very aircrew-centric line of thought.

Second, that GPCAPT MacDonald isn’t aware, or has overlooked, the fine work being done by Air Force dog handlers patrolling with the infantry in East Timor.

Third, that the GPCAPT has forgotten that service in an operational area (including ground combat) is the core business of 95 per cent of the Air Force.

If operational service isn’t our reason for being, what is? And as only a small percentage of the Air Force fly for a living, it makes the rest ground combatants.

I’m not suggesting the Air Force should issue the ICB. But an equivalent “ground combat badge” with similar criteria ought to be created.

How would you feel, spending six months in East Timor, going out on border patrols like everybody else in the battalion, then seeing them receive recognition in the form of an ICB while you get nothing?

• Flight Sergeant S.J. Brasher
  SNCOIC GDTS
  RAAF CSU WAGGA

More than a job

I note with considerable interest your story on 23SQN and its assistance with recruiting at the EKKA (Air Force News, September 12).

I am particularly amused by the consistent use of the word “career”. Reminds me of my days at RECSYD from 1985 to 1988 and the transition to DEFREC.

We were instructed in no uncertain terms to never, ever, use the term “career”. The best we could do was to offer “a job for an initial term and then replace them”.

I was staggered then, and still am, at how many young men and women were lost to the Air Force when we were unable to offer them a career. Oh, how the wheel turns.

• David Hadfield
  Warrant Officer (ret’d)
  North Melbourne
  

.