Air Force News :: Letters

The CAMM2 project will never be considered the Ferrari product, (below), users dreamt of in the early 1990s, but, by today’s standards, it is a sturdy, functioning Falcon, above.

I AM responding to your article titled “Smart Service” in the November 17 edition of AIR FORCE News.

This article highlighted the completion of the rollout of CAMM2 across Army, Navy and Air Force in October 2005.

However, your article provided no basis for your readers to determine whether this particular project could be considered successful.

Success in any project should always be judged on the basis of at least three factors: time, cost and the quality of the finished product.

Time: CAMM2 commenced in 1993. Therefore, it has taken more than 12 years to complete the project.

Cost: I believe CAMM2 was originally expected to cost somewhere between $25 million and $30 million, Your article made no mention of the final cost of this particular project, but I have heard figures close to double these amounts.

Quality: Complex software systems like CAMM2 can be assessed against a number of factors – usability, maintainability, supportability, reliability, availability, etc.

My personal belief is that the quality of an application should also be measured by its ability to support/improve the practices of the users it was designed for.

Unfortunately, your article contained no comments from any of the “12,000 Defence personnel” who use CAMM2.
By my estimation, CAMM2 can hardly be considered a successful project. However, that is only my opinion, and I may be a bit biased.

What do your readers think? Is CAMM2 good enough?

By the way, the photo that was included in this article is not the c-CAMM2 (if that is the correct label for the portable CAMM2 unit).

It is a commercially available DSL data modem (made locally by a Melbourne company) which can transmit an IP-based data stream up to 8km over Donten.

Paul Pappas
CIO Group, Russell Offices

Wing Commander David Fredericks, Project Manager, Aviation Engineering and Maintenance Management Systems Project Office, responds:

Mr Pappas makes valid comments on the theory of what should constitute project success, being time, cost and quality. And his observations that CAMM2 has taken longer and cost more to deliver than first planned, and has not delivered all of the originally specified functionality are also correct.

After 11 years since project phase one commencement and with a revised major capital project budget of $62 million, he is correct in noting that both schedule and budget are greater than originally planned.

Further, following a contractual dispute in 2000-2001, he is correct in noting that the scope of functionality to be delivered is less than originally specified. By Mr Pappas’ definition, this should therefore qualify CAMM2 as not being a success.

Unfortunately, Mr Pappas fails to acknowledge some key points about CAMM2 that require elaboration.

First, the product is performing today within the ADF aviation user community. Aside from the fact that it has been rolled out to all state-owned ADF aviation units and is in use on a daily basis to directly support ADF aviation operations at home, the system is also supporting ADF operations overseas.

In January this year, the system was despatched to Bandah Aceh to support tsunami relief operations (refer to the February 2005 edition of AIR FORCE News) with favourable comments received back from Army Aviation.

The system is also deployed on operations overseas. Feedback received from the user group community is that the system is being favourably received.

Second, the project baselines of budget, schedule and requirements were subject to review in 2002 following the period of contractual dispute.

These baseline revisions not only accommodated the outcomes of the dispute resolution but also made due recognition of the complexity of the system that was expected to be delivered.

It is not incorrect to state that the original system requirements definition from the early 1990s was overly optimistic.

This situation was exacerbated by the rapid advancement in computer technology over the same period, leading to users having a greater expectation of what IT can do.

The current baselines for delivery and cost better reflect the realities of current IT project developments, with the functionality provided to users reflecting the limitations of the era in which the code for CAMM2 was being developed.

Third, significant effort has gone into turning around the CAMM2 system over recent years, following the dispute resolution.

The CAMM2 project team has demonstrated a professionalism and determination to deliver the best product possible within both contractual and technological constraints.

In recent times, a number of software releases have been delivered to improve system usability, maintainability, supportability, reliability, availability, etc.

Two additional major software releases are to be delivered in the first half of 2006 to further advance these improvements.

In addition, a recent major hardware upgrade with the centralisation of the system servers has resulted in significant performance improvements.

These activities typify the efforts of the CAMM2 project team to deliver a product to the user community that best meets its needs within the limitations of contractual and system technological constraints.

CAMM2 will never be considered to be the Ferrari product dreamed of by the users who specified the requirements in the early 1990s.

It is by today’s standards, a sturdy, functioning Ford Falcon. It may not have all the extra features that current users expect but it is supporting the user community and is generally well received.

This is a tribute to the character and perseverance of recent CAMM2 project teams who, despite significant challenges, have endeavoured to turn around the CAMM2 system and deliver a product that the ADF should be proud of.

To conclude, CAMM2 will never be able to be categorised as an outstanding success purely against Mr Pappas’ assessment criteria, especially noting its long and protracted history. But it is definitely not a failure.

To categorise it as such undermines the significant efforts of the project team over recent years to turn the project around from what was going to be a failure never to be delivered, into one that is ably supporting the ADF’s aviation maintenance management requirements.

With respect to the incorrect photo caption, Mr Pappas is correct in the details that he has provided. This incorrect caption was an error on the part of AIR FORCE News.

Medals also awarded to Navy
The Pearce Air Show was fantastic
Don’t panic, the birds are nomadic, not migratory
Our unrecognised heroes of the FLLA in Baghdad
Remember and honour
RAAF Base East Sale remembers Draggies

I READ with interest your article “Strike Leader” about Squadron Leader Matt Hall (AIR FORCE News, December 1) and his award of the US Air Medal and while congratulating him, would like to correct a small error in the editorial footnote.

As I understand it, the US Air Medal was instituted in World War II by the then US Army Air Force for operations over enemy occupied territory. The medal is not exclusively a USAF medal as it can be awarded to all US military personnel, Navy, Army, Marine and Air Force alike.

Just as Squadron Leader Hall has the Air Medal, so do quite a few RAN aircrew going back to their operations with the US Army’s 135th Assault Helicopter Company in Vietnam from 1967 to 1972.

I CAN no longer find the link for the air show that was on November 18-19, 2005.

I just felt the need to thank all involved for the event. I hope it continues and happens again, as my three children, husband and myself thoroughly enjoyed the day on Saturday.

Our only mistake was to not get a double day entry as we didn’t get to see everything that was there. We actually come from a country town – Jerramungup – and drove a special 10-hour round trip just to attend your day.

This event was fantastic. Could you pass our congratulations and thanks on to all the relevant people.

WHILE I support the awareness that the two articles by Squadron Leader Belinda Ball has raised in regards to bird flu and the possibility of a human pandemic, I would question the accuracy of the photographs that accompanied the two articles.

Squadron Leader Ball has discussed the role of “migratory” birds in the spread of bird flu. However, the two photographs show a Pacific Black Duck (AIR FORCE News, November 17) and a Black Swan (AIR FORCE News, December 1).

Neither of these two bird species is migratory. They are nomadic within Australia and therefore could not be involved in bringing the virus into the country.

There has been a degree of hysteria raised in some media elements regarding bird flu.

This hysteria can in some measure be countered by the application of accuracy and attention to detail by media organisations when reporting on the issue.

Editor’s response: Lieutenant Colonel Coward is quite correct and is to be congratulated for his ornithological knowledge.

The photos were intended to be indicative of the issues with bird flu but I take Lieutenant Colonel Coward’s point concerning attention to detail and accuracy. The relevant sub-editor has been told to brush up on matters ornithological.

I NOTE with increasing interest the ongoing media focus in our forces deployed on operations overseas.

In particular, I recall strong images of Sydney Harbour lined with well wishers to welcome home a ship filled with white-dressed Naval men and women, flags flying on their return from dangerous deployments in support of Australia’s national interests.

Similar images are also readily available of Air Force squadrons and Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron groups on their return and the various rotations of SECDET and Al Muthanna Task Group returns to Australia after serving on operations.

These parades are an essential part of a unit’s return from operations.

The pride felt by members of these units is well justified and is representative of the good will and respect of the hundreds of Australians that come out and watch these parades with obvious patriotism.

I’d like to draw your attention to another group of ADF representatives that serve on operations and ask you to pause for a moment while reading this to consider their service and subsequent return to Australia.

Supporting the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO) task elements is a Joint Headquarters (JTF 633) and a Joint Force Level Logistic Asset (FLLA). The FLLA is based in both a Middle Eastern country and Baghdad and is one of the few true tri-Service organisations in the MEAO.

I read with interest the ongoing honours and awards lists and cannot help but feel there are many people that serve in this organisation that are probably somewhat anonymous.

Like Lance Corporal Fraser Couts, the last of a brave group of loggies, and his compadres, Leading Aircraftman Van Hoof (Footy) and Corporal Maclachlan (Macca), repairing the essential services of “The Flats” following the vehicle-borne improvised explosive device attack.

Sergeant Carmen Costello, who worked 18 hour days, seven days a week for six weeks straight to demonstrate an improvement in the JOD report and Private Jak Evans who spent 13 days out of the 17 leading up to the elections in bunkers, facing rocket and mortar attacks at Logistic Base Seitz securing fresh water and rations (albeit chicken) for deployed forces under frequent rocket and mortar attack.

Flight Sergeant Allana Mackenzie who regularly coordinated the response to such threats, thrust deep into the practicalities of a land-based insurgent battle and assigned the responsibility of FLLA-B operations and defence, as did Lieutenant AJ Willet, RAN, who, probably more at home at the helm of a ship than in command of a motley crew of loggies in Baghdad, some distance from the shore.

Such experiences are not unusual and are common to all FLLA (and some HQ JTF 633) members. Successive Padres JTF 633 have made comment on the quite unassuming professionalism of members of the FLLA, regardless of corps, gender or Service as they went about their business.

Evidence can be found on the wall in the bunker at the FLLA-B of the rate at which these members take shelter from indirect (and direct) attack both at their normal place or work and forward, with their supported units.

Given these experiences, certainly no less unique than those of other task elements, it is a shame that these members, all changed (in part) by their experiences, most deeply empowered, should return to Australia in the same anonymous manner in which they deployed.

Not in a formed body, but as ones, twos and small groups. Not formed up in carefully prepared dress uniforms and paraded in front of assembled crowds of onlookers and invited dignitaries.

In fact, most are met at the airport by loved ones or a cabbie and whisked off home for a well earned rest.
A by-product of having such a rotation plan is the personnel administration processes required to support members who are constantly rotating in and out of the FLLA (and HQ JTF 633).

In a formed body, all of the Return To Australia (RTA) administration is smoother, the booking of RTA medicals, Post-Operational Psychological Support (POPS) and the ongoing admin support for honours and awards is conducted by a parent unit, therefore much easier to control.

I am aware of significant delays previously in the awards of AASM and other honours, some of which have been addressed and rectified. Recently I have been made aware that several nominations for service awards have been made which have run into difficulties.

I understand that Air Force, in particular, won’t issue CAF awards for personnel deployed with a joint unit on a joint operation who are nominated for an ADF award.

Meanwhile ADF awards pass through Joint Operations Command for approval first.

The end-state is the nominating authority needs to take their chances, if a nomination for a CAF award is rejected it can’t go ‘down’ to a lower authority so the member gets nothing, however if a nomination for an ADF award is not supported it can still go down to a JOC award or even a JTF award so there is a good chance of recognition.

That considered, it may be these delays that secure my belief that a number of those that are on the list of honours, are those that by virtue of rank or appointment found themselves in the limelight, rather than those that demonstrate the quiet unassuming professionalism of members of the FLLA.

Notwithstanding this, I do not understand the inability of the RAAF to accept and process a CAF award from within a joint organisation. Are we not joint?

Apart from such difficulties in providing recognition for individuals, the psycho social rituals involved in RTA of members should be considered for future ad hoc reinforcement cycles.

Lest we stand to learn the same lessons of psychological damage caused by similar programs in the past. I read recently further reminders to Command at all levels to ensure the POPS attendance of members that have returned to Australia.

I am aware there is a national database maintained by 1 Psych Battalion which ensures that members do not fall through the gaps. That said, the recent correspondence from Land Command places more responsibility on the member to seek out and attend POPS.

In doing so, Land Command is placing more faith that members that may fall into a higher risk category would have the motivation to seek out and attend a POPS of their own volition.

Several RAAF Logistics staff have been interviewed regarding their personal experiences upon return to Australia.

All interviewees were met by their family at the airport with no fanfare, however this was their preference. They were able to go home and spend time with their loved ones without having to worry about formalities.

You will also find that many commanders do commit staff to meet members at the airport upon their return to Australia. No fanfare, but the knowledge that their unit does respect and value them and is happy to have them home safe and well.

Although “Welcome Home” parades can be a valuable part of a member’s return, they are not always possible. It is the very nature of our current operational tempo, staggered rotations and operational security requirements that individual members, rather than larger formed bodies, continue to be attached to various units and task element groups to contribute to our commitment in the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO).

This was also the case with other operations, such as those in East Timor. These staff need not “miss out” on participating in parades.

Those who would like the honour of marching with their units could consider marching as a formed body on Anzac Day with the unit they deployed with.

We expect many more members to deploy to the MEAO, and events such as Anzac Day enable us to acknowledge all serving members in any capacity.

Regarding the issue of awards, any Air Force members, formally assigned for duty within the MEAO (or any other AO for that matter) are done so by Headquarters Joint Operational Command (HQJOC) and therefore fall under the command and control, ultimately of Chief of Joint Operations (CJOPS).

In accordance with Defence Instructions, CJOPS is the reviewing and awarding authority for all nominations for honours and awards against ADF personnel serving in joint operations positions.

Nominations for operational commendations are processed through HQJOC with Deputy Chief of Joint Operations (DCJOPS) being the first link in the chain. DCJOPS, CJOPS and Chief of Defence Force commendations are typically awarded to personnel on operations.

Air Force will not normally issue CAF awards for personnel deployed in a joint unit, as it is considered most appropriate that such recognition come from the command chain within which the actions to be recognised have taken place. Commanders operating in a joint environment are always encouraged to recognised the efforts of their personnel.

The Mental Health support which is provided to members is outlined in Health Bulletin 11/2003, and states that Return to Australia Psychological Support (RTAPS) should be conducted in the AO.

The Post-Operational Psychological Support (POPS) are conducted six months after the deployment and is administered by the member’s servicing psychology element.

However, as the psychology support is the responsibility of Defence psychology elements, it does state in the aforementioned Health Bulletin that “it is mandatory that all commanders ensure that personnel who have been on deployments complete both RTAPS and POPS”.

This makes it a command responsibility, and does not place faith in members attending of their own volition. If left to their own devices many people would either forget or not bother (they are home, they feel good, so why worry).

I understand that JTF633 (of which Force Level Log Agency is a Task Element) has the following in-theatre farewell arrangements on return to Australia:

CJTF633 presents a certificate of appreciation to all personnel prior to departure; and Australian Active Service Medals (AASMs) are presented to individuals in theatre.

I WAS interested to read of the plaque recently unveiled in Canberra in honour of those from No. 10 Squadron who gave their lives in World War II.

The first RAAF air crew casualties, Flight Lieutenant John Bell and Flight Sergeant Charles Harris, are particularly remembered.

Readers may be interested that John Bell and his two brothers, from Farina, South Australia, all served their country in that conflict.

Only the youngest brother, Bruce, survived the war.

He is alive and still active at 81.

Alfred was killed at Shaggy Ridge with the 2/10 Battalion [in Papua New Guinea].

We do well to remember, and honour, the sacrifices by families such as the Bells.

THE story on the HS748 in Sudan and Squadron Ruth Elsley’s photograph, published in AIR FORCE on November 17, page 8, created a lot of interest at East Sale.

I have repeated part of your story in AIR FORCE News in a fortnightly column I write for the Base which appears in the Gippsland Times.

Many people at East Sale and in the local community will always have fond memories of the HS748, which was such a big part of the history of this base since 1968. There are many people in Sale and the area who grew up to the sound of the HS748 overhead.

I am told that there are four or five of our HS748s still flying, which is gratifying to former crew and maintainers, and helps to balance the fact that two or three were cut up for various reasons.

Wing Commander Keith MillerRAAF Base East Sale