Post-deployment
discontent
THE efforts applied to personnel welfare support to members and
their families who deployed with a formed unit has received considerable
praise and acknowledgment over the last 18 months.
However, I have observed that for members who have deployed from
disparate units to fill positions in HQs, as liaison staff or
within joint logistics units and the like, the post-operation
support and administration has been inconsistent and, in many
cases, inadequate.
It is commonplace that members have not received post-deployment
psych debriefs, while post-deployment medical support and screenings
and a range of other administration has not occurred in a timely
manner.
Most concerning is the attitude of some workplaces which expect
the member “to fit in” as if they have been away for a long-weekend,
with fellow uniformed members considering that the returned member
has been on a deployment simply to get “cashed up”, oblivious
to the challenges they faced on deployment and the difficulties
they now face to readjust.
I would suggest the fault appears to be a combination of a lack
of awareness, apathy and weak procedures at the supervisor/commander
level.
Whatever the cause, in an operationally- focused Air Force which
apparently places people as a No. 1 priority, the outcomes are
unacceptable.
On the whole, the deployed members have availed themselves of
challenging deployments at short notice, and hence deserve rigorous
and genuine support on their return to ensure a successful re-integration
into their work and family lives.
FLTLT
Mark Krueger
OTS
RAAF Base Williams
Official
response
OFFICIAL
RESPONSE THE concerns raised by FLTLT Krueger serve as a timely
reminder of the potential difficulties for members deploying as
individuals, rather than as part of a formed unit, and their parent
units.
Parent units of these individuals need to educate other unit members
about the need for sensitivity and understanding about the considerable
adjustments that may be necessary by a member returning from a
war zone to the routine of unit tasking. Units that release members
for deployment on an irregular basis are faced with a steeper
learning curve than units supporting ongoing, and regular, rotations.
Nonetheless, it is vital that these units learn from their experiences
and those of their members. Appropriate support systems, revised
procedures and attitudinal change are all areas that need to be
addressed to ensure that those who deploy in future do so in the
knowledge that all aspects of their personal and professional
wellbeing will be looked after.
Air
Force Headquarters.
Medal
surprise
I
WAS recently surprised to find that Defence members who have completed
15 years’ service still have to apply to receive their DFSM.
In this modern Air Force, where individual readiness is policed
on a monthly basis, it seems pretty poor that in a people-first
organisation you have to go “cap in hand” asking for recognition
of completed service and subsequent clasps.
PMKeyS should be able to flag this to the appropriate department,
which can send out a form email recognising that the member has
reached this important career milestone, congratulating and thanking
them, and that a medal will be forwarded in due course.
FLTLT
Jim Rouse
SRG
RAAF Base Edinburgh
Flight mix-up
I
REFER to the article in the history section by David Wilson, entitled
“Tense time in Timor” (August 26).
There is an error in the article with respect to the crewing of
the two Hercules that conducted evacuations from Bacau. The tasking
that was carried out by FLTLT Tony Rae and myself are in fact
vice-versa. FLTLT Lawler (myself) flew the aircraft that had
128 personnel, including Bishop Belo on board, while FLTLT Turley
was doing the processing.
FLTLT Rae did in fact carry out the evacuation of the final 60
people. The descriptions of the tasks are correct, just not attributed
to the correct crews!
FLTLT
David Lawler
AAnTC
Oakey Army Airfield
Extra surveillance
AS
an ex-air defence supervisor with 20 years’ experience, I would
like to make some further points regarding the article “Keeping
track of training” (September 9).
No. 1 Control and Reporting Unit, at RAAF Base Brookvale, was
the first operational and radar training unit, post World War
II.
From June 1955, until April, 1968, this unit was the only air
defence radar on the east coast of Australia. No. 114 Mobile Control
and Reporting Unit returned to Amberley from RAAF Butterworth,
Malaysia, in April 1968, and was re-equipped with the “hubcap
system”.
No. 3 Control and Reporting Unit was formed at RAAF Base Williamtown
on November 1, 1967, (not 1964 as per your article.)
The unit did not become partially operational until October 5,
1971, and not fully operational until March 12, 1973. Meanwhile,
1CRU carried the dual roles of operational surveillance and training
until it was closed by the government in October 1973.
No. 2 Control and Reporting Unit at Lee Point, RAAF Base Darwin,
became operational in 1961 and a number of aircraft plotter courses
were held over the next few years, including the training of Royal
Malaysian Air Force and Singaporean Air Force radar operators.
The equipment used at 2CRU initially included an A/N FPS 20A search
radar, later upgraded to an A/N FPS 66 search radar. Much of this
information may be found in Units of the RAAF, a Concise History,
Volume 5 Radar Units, though even in this publication there are
errors and omissions.
Howie
Campbell
Springfield, NSW
