Air Force News :: Letters

These words, along with the Morse code SOS, are used because they are very distinctive and almost unmistakable when heard on radio.

‘Possible Assistance Needed”, along with “Save Our Souls”, were words invented to fit the terms, as assistance would automatically be provided if a PAN-PAN were declared.

PAN is more correctly defined by the Macquarie Dictionary as a “Precautionary Advisory Notice”.

The use of these terms, and UTC, are, of course, a consolation to le Frogs for adopting English as the international language for aviation. Had it been the other way around, we would, of course, be saying “help me, help me, help me” in times of distress.

I REFER to the missive published in your estimable newspaper (September 8 edition), regarding the uses, terminology, antecedents and, one must assume, definitions of the radio communications emergency term “PAN”.

I note your request for follow-on comment regarding the above aspects. Consequently, I am compelled to take keyboard and mouse in hand to shed perhaps a mere measure of enlightenment on what is indubitably a vexatious matter for the pedant, pedagogue, dialectician and, less likely, the practitioner.

Might I suggest that in fact both parties in this matter are correct?

While I am somewhat bemused that Mr Ewell, having correctly implied the Franco-Gaelic origins of the term, did not sally forth to his local library where, armed with the latest version of the French-English Dictionary, he could have provided a definitive translation rather than mere guesswork. Nevertheless and that point aside, he is correct.

PAN, MAYDAY and the lesser SECURITE are all based on (or, in the case of SECURITE, is) French terms; the lingua franca of distress communications, as it were.

PAN is, of course, as you so rightly point out, “panne”, a breakdown – I am in difficulties and may need assistance but my situation is not life-threatening, yet.

However, the concept of PAN as a three-letter acronym, to wit, “Possible Assistance Needed” is also correct. It was used and indeed may well be still so at the Navy Communications School, HMAS CERBERUS and on radio communications courses presented by the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and other radio communications courses as an aide memoir to radio/communications operators, specifically to reaffirm the important difference between MAYDAY and PAN emergency communications.

I trust this may shed, as indicated, some small measure of light upon this undoubtedly vexatious question.

However, may I also offer comment, predicated upon personal experience and observations that, while this question may be of import to certain possibly more academic arenas of the community, it is from all practical points of view, largely irrelevant.

For the mariner, air traffic controller, person employed in emergency response or similar arenas, the word has but one clearly understood, defined meaning and indeed spelling.

Done by the book

By Flight Lieutenant Martin James

Air Power Development Centre

IF YOU ask a group of Air Force members to describe doctrine you are sure to get a range of responses, some of which may actually be correct. Most likely you will also get some vague looks and potentially even some yawning.

So at the risk of losing at least half the readers at this point, let’s take a closer look at doctrine – a review of some key facets of doctrine may serve to clarify its importance to the Air Force and, more importantly, to you.

The first facet of doctrine to consider is the connection between planning, preparation and performance. An organisation with well-developed doctrine will have considered what it does and why it does it. Publishing that doctrine provides a set of guidelines – the fundamental principles for the members of the organisation to follow. This establishes doctrine as a common starting point for the planning that enhances our preparedness. Sound planning and preparedness facilitates our performance on operations.

In his classic work On War, Carl Von Clausewitz wrote: “Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has seen war”.

Clausewitz is relating to the complex challenges and infinite variations that confront the individual involved in the practice of war. Modern doctrine was developed to mitigate the effect of those accumulating difficulties, a role it continues to perform today. Anticipating what we are expected to do before we deploy enables us to plan and prepare accordingly. This is a core principle of doctrine. The aim is to mitigate the difficult while maximising the simple.

The next facet is education. There are sound philosophical reasons why the Air Force is an independent force within the ADF. In fact, the rationale for much of the Air Force as we know it today is based on the inalienable characteristics and roles of air power.

The primary vehicle used to communicate the “what” and the “why” of the Air Force and the tasks all of us perform within the organisation is our doctrine. In stating and clarifying the basis of the Air Force, we enhance our understanding of the roles and functions of the force as a whole. This is an important concept – doctrine educates the individual on the discrete functions of the whole.

The third facet of doctrine to consider is its relationship with training. We all participate in some form of military exercises, from base ground defence exercises to large multinational exercises spanning northern Australia. These exercises are the opportunity to take air power doctrine and train to apply it.

Doctrine aims to simplify the complex aspects of war fighting.

Photo illustration by PTE John Wellfare

Realistically, every day at work we are training to apply our doctrine for the real thing. To be most effective, any training we plan must be grounded in our doctrine to ensure the skill sets we develop are congruent with our operating intent.

The practical application of doctrine-based training is demonstrated when we deploy an Air Combat Group squadron overseas or respond to a natural disaster, such as the tsunami. Doctrine helps planning become intuitive and enhances cohesion between disparate units.

In essence, doctrine-based planning, education and training directly contributes to our professional mastery and unity of effort. We work out what we want to do, educate ourselves in the nature of what we want to do, then train and exercise at doing what we plan to employ in the real theatre of operations. Doctrine is the fulcrum around which all this pivots.

To ensure that the Air Force’s doctrine remains relevant for today’s environment, the Air Power Development Centre is reviewing the AAP1000 Fundamentals of Australian Aerospace Power (The Air Power Manual). This review is considering more than just our roles and characteristics.

Concurrent studies are developing enhanced frameworks for doctrine development and management, including establishing measures of effectiveness and providing the basis for improving air power education while maximizing the relevance and applicability of our doctrine across the Air Force.

Flight Lieutenant Martin James is undertaking a Chief of Air Force Fellowship at the Air Power Development Centre.