 |
Remarkable
pilot-poet:
Like H. J. Grant (Letters, December 19), I am disappointed
that the name of Pilot Officer John Gillespie Magee does not appear
below the two lines from his immortal poem, High Flight, quoted
on the spectacular black granite addition to the Air Force Memorial
on Anzac Parade, Canberra.
It is also disappointing that no information about Magee is given.
A visitor might well assume he was Australian.
While the RAAF Memorial Redevelopment Committee does acknowledge
the poem’s title and author on a plaque at the far side of
the Memorial, dedicated on November 1, 2002, the fact is that not
all visitors will see this feature because of its size (50cm by
50cm) and position.
Just 19 when killed accidentally in 1941 – his Spitfire collided
with another aircraft – Magee, who joined the Royal Canadian
Air Force in 1940, was one of the courageous young Americans who
came to Britain’s aid in her darkest hour, well before their
country entered World War II.
For the record, American volunteers who enlisted in the Royal Air
Force formed three Eagle Squadrons – numbers 71, 121 and 133.
These were transferred to the US Army Air Forces in September 1942
to fly as US fighter squadrons over Europe.
With RCAF colleagues, Magee is buried at Scopwick village, near
RAF Digby, where each year, on Remembrance Sunday, RAF personnel
join villagers in the local church to honour Magee and other airmen
who died far from home.
Since High Flight will continue to inspire generations, it would
be fitting to add, beneath the lines quoted on the Air Force Memorial,
something like “High Flight, John Gillespie Magee, RCAF, American-born
Spitfire pilot, World War II” for all visitors to see.
There is ample space on the wall to credit such a remarkable pilot-poet
who, still a teenager, crossed The Pond to fight and die for freedom.
- Michael
Armit
Curtin, ACT.
Support agency at fault
IN the November 21 edition of Air Force News I submitted a letter
regarding the late receipt of payments made by Defence to the Child
Support Agency.
I would like to thank Mr Matthew Radisich for his assistance and
hope that this letter clarifies the issue to all Air Force members
who make payments by allotment to the Child Support Agency.
Mr Radisich provided details of how the ADF pays the Child Support
Agency. Payments are made by Defence each pay Thursday to a Reserve
Bank Account held by the Child Support Agency. An allotment variation
schedule is also forwarded to the Child Support Agency and reaches
the agency three days before the relevant pay day.
On receipt of this information, I wrote a letter to the Minister
for Family and Community Services. The Child Support Agency has
now responded on behalf of the Minister and confirmed that Defence
actually forwards payments to the agency as advised by Mr Radisich.
The agency apologised for the incorrect information provided by
CSA Case Officers to Defence members (with regards to Defence being
late in making payments) and intends to take corrective action on
the matter.
The agency also advised that employer accounts are only reconciled
on a monthly basis regardless of the frequency of remittance by
individual employers.
To cut a long story short, Defence is not at fault in any way with
this issue. The fault lies with the Child Support Agency.
I would be happy to forward a copy of the letter I received to any
member who has experienced similar problems with payments made to
the Child Support Agency.
- Wing
Commander Peter Davis
Director Personnel Reserves
- Air Force.
Correcting
a case of colour blindness
Reading the (as usual excellent) December 19 issue of Air Force
News I was drawn to the photo of the Colour Party accompanying the
article on RAAFSTT’s 50th anniversary celebrations.
The caption states (in part): “The Royal Australian Air Force
School of Technical Training’s ... Queen’s Colours are
unveiled.”
The word “Colours” to me indicates plural i.e a set of
colours a la battalions of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps,
which each possess both a Queen’s and a Regimental Colour.
The RAAF does not follow this practice, thus the ceremonial item
being carried at the order position by the Colour Ensign in the
photograph is NOT “Queen’s Colours” but rather the
“Queen’s Colour” (of RAAFSTT).
For those of you who don’t believe me, take a look at AAP 5135.002,
Chapter 12.
- Graham
Wilson
Russell Offices.
A
questionable benefit
I have a query regarding the Retention Benefit. As an Armament Fitter
2, I received a compulsory remuster to become an Avionics Technician
in 1992 as part of the Technical Trades Restructure (TTR). This
meant that instead of competing for promotion against X number of
personnel within my base trade, I was suddenly competing against
four times X as we were combined with personnel from the Electrical,
Instruments and Radio Fitter trades.
I was promulgated in April 2002 for promotion in 2003 and given
acting rank of sergeant (WEF October 28, 2002), made provisional
on January 1, 2003. As of January 6 I have served 17 years in the
Air Force.
By applying for the Retention Benefit I am only entitled to receive
only three years (or 60 per cent) of a year’s salary before
I reach the 20-year mark. I feel that the Air Force has let me down
in that Aircraft Technicians are listed as a specified category,
therefore corporals with 15 years’ service can apply for the
Retention Benefit, yet only two trades were amalgamated (Airframe
Fitters and Engine Fitters).
One of the provisions of the Retention Benefit states that “members
with reduced promotion prospects as a result of transferring employment
category because of service requirements, may be declared eligible
inter employment category members”.
According to the Directorate of Entitlements, “members were
not actually remustered but basically renamed. Members kept their
seniority and therefore come under the standard eligibility criteria
for the Retention Benefit”. This may be so but as soon as the
“renaming “occurred, I started to compete against three
other trades for promotion and my position on the graduation list
dropped.
Is anybody able to clarify this for me before I have to submit my
Retention Benefit Application?
Sergeant Patrick Lee
- 10SQN
Avionics
RAAF Base Edinburgh.
Official
response:
SGT Lee’s letter questions the application of the “specified
categories” provision relating to the MSBS Retention Benefit.
Specified categories are designed to recognise members who have
obtained the minimum qualifying service (15 years) but who, within
that period, have failed to achieve the minimum rank of sergeant
to qualify for payment of the benefit. The ADF Pay and Conditions
Manual, at paragraph G2.32, defines eligibility criteria for specified
categories as follows:
l “due to a hierarchical structure, members do not have the
same opportunity for promotion to the required rank of Major (E)
or Sergeant (E), by the 15-year point when compared to the average
for their service;
l “members would normally have been promoted to Major (E) or
Sergeant (E), if the category structure allowed; and
l “members possess skills and training which are critical to
the Defence function.”
Payment of the benefit is not intended for situations where promotion
simply becomes more competitive but, rather, where the structure
of the mustering precludes advancement. What then makes a mustering
a candidate for declaration as a specified category?
Each year, the service career managers (in this case DPA) assess
promotions in the latest promotion series. If the average length
of service for those promoted to sergeant is more than 15 years,
the mustering is a candidate for declaration as a specified category.
If not, promotion to the requisite rank is still achievable on a
competitive basis and there are no grounds for such a declaration.
This is the criteria which differentiates ATECHs from AVTECHs.
The “inter-employment category” rules are as described
by SGT Lee. They relate to an individual member’s transfer,
to meet a service requirement, as distinct from general restructures
of employment categories.
I can understand the concern among members who perceive their promotion
prospects to have been diminished, notwithstanding that promotion
is still achievable in competition. But, as a matter of policy intent,
the arrangements for “specified categories” are designed
only for those members whose promotion prospects have been impeded
by mustering structures alone, rather than a failure to be promoted
in competition.
There remains the perception that it is inequitable for the benefit
to be withheld from members who do not achieve the requisite sergeant
rank - even though they may be sound performers, but fail in stronger
competition for promotion.
However, such perceptions reflect a misunderstanding of the quite
deliberate scheme design in setting the minimum sergeant rank eligibility
criterion. If it were intended otherwise, a minimum rank achievement
would not have been prescribed.
|
