Publication:Sea Talk Winter 2005/Letters to the Editor
SeaTalk welcomes and encourages letters to the editor. If you have a question or concern about service conditions, career progression or changes that are occurring in your area, feel free to write to The Editor, SeaTalk and we'll try to get an answer for you.
Letters should be brief (no more than 300 words), to the point and seek an answer to a concern.
Humorous events or anecdotes are also welcome, providing they arsehort and do not embarrass people in the Navy family.
Neatly typed letters will be given preference over handwritten ones. All letters will be considered'on the record' - that is for publication in a forthcoming edition of this magazine.
Correspondents may request anonymity - i.e. use of a nom de plume or pen name - but real name and contact details must be supplied with each letter.
Letters can be:
emailed to seatalk@defencenews.gov.au;
faxed to The Editor, SeaTalk, Directorate of Service Newspapers, CANBERRA on (02)6265 6690;
or mailed to The Editor, SeaTalk, R8-LG-035a, Russell Offices, CANBERRA ACT 2608. The Editor's decision on what's published is final and any letters which are abusive or defamatory will be rejected out of hand.
As my husband is currently a Leading Seaman on a Darwin based Patrol Boat I was interested to read (the ST Autumn edn article by RADM Rowan Moffitt on the Christening of NUSHIP Armidale). Even more interesting was the last line: "For the patrol boat community, the future does indeed look bright".
I find this statement hard to stomach when as a Leading Seaman or Petty Officer my husband and his sail mates have been informed several times that there are apparently no positions on the new Armidale class partol boats for these two ranks. My husband's career and the careers of so many of our friends are being dramatically changed by this ruling. I also assume that with trials currently being undertaken the crew complement may well change but for sailors whose boats decommission within the next year or two and are now pencilled in for postings interstate this may not be helpful career-wise.
What I am trying to say as a concerned wife of a sailor who loves his job on a Patrol Boat, is that I hope the Navy realises that they are going to lose a huge skill base over those two ranks. I just find it disappointing that the Navy can on one hand, give my husband a job he is so proud of and loves and on the other hand, take it away from him because he has chosen to better himself and his skills through gaining promotion.
Thank you for your time and I truly hope your return email tells me I have my facts totally wrong and Leading Seaman and Petty Officers will have places on the Armidale Class Boats.
Yours sincerely, Kerry (Moxey)
Dear Mrs Moxey,
Thank you for your enquiry through SeaTalk on the future for your husband in the Armidale Class. Clearly from your comments your husband is passionate about patrol boats and their work. This is very pleasing and an aspect of Navy life that we are keen to build upon. I understand however that crewing of the Armidale is of great concern to you and your husband.
The Armidale crew was developed to meet competency standards set by the International Maritime Organisation. This ensures that Navy meets or exceeds world's best practice for crewing and safety in this new class of ship. It also ensures that Navy maximises the advantage of the technology that is installed in the Armidale Class.
The Marine Technical crew for an Armidale comprises a Chief Petty Officer, and two Able Seamen, along with a Leading Seaman Marine Technical (Electrical). This exceeds the IMO requirement. However this manning does cause some difficulties in Navy's man management processes, and certainly affects sailors such as your husband at the Leading Seaman and Petty Officer levels. Accordingly, Navy has recently reviewed this manning and determined that provided sailors have the right competencies (a Marine Technical Charge Certificate), there is advantage in allowing some Petty Officers to serve in the Chief Petty Officer's billet.
Similarly, during the transition period from the Fremantle Class to the Armidale Class, there is some advantage in allowing junior Leading Seamen to serve in one of the Able Seaman's billet. However this will certainly be the exception.
That said, there is no doubt that some Marine Technical sailors will either not want to, or will not be able to, continue to serve in patrol boats. In the Fremantle Class this situation exists for all categories of sailor other than MTs. However, Navy's technically qualified sailors are still very valuable to Navy, as there is a considerable investment in them. Navy may therefore require that these sailors be posted to other ships of the Fleet. This is a fact of service life.
Personally I think the future for the Patrol Boat community does look very bright. However, for some, like your husband, there are hard decisions to be made. If he needs to post to another class of ship, I would certainly welcome him back as a Charge in a few years when he is qualified.
Regards,
Peter Marshall
CAPT RAN CommanderAustralian Navy Patrol Boat Group
Sir,
It's wonderful to see Reservists including LEUT Graham Connelly "... spending 'quality time' at the sharp end ..." (Navy Reserve News Vol 12 No 4) with a sortie in lumpy conditions across the Great Australian Bight and in the Indian Ocean.The fact that he could smile for the photo gives the lie to any lingering doubts about Reservists being fair-weather sailors.
And LEUT Connelly's description of the activities he was involved in is a comprehensive summary of the seagoing experience - it's busy even when the ship's alongside.
More to the point, I think his personal attitude to Reserve service either at sea or in an area of operations away from 'HMAS Homefront' outlined early in his article echoes the sentiments of many Reservists:
"For Reservists in particular, for whom the RAN is a part-time career (or, more accurately, an obsession), the motto of "For Country Not Self": rings true, never more so than when one considers the time spent away from hearth and home, as well as in lost opportunities for holidays or, even lost earnings. Clearly, Reservists are motivated by the lure of more than personal rewards to do what we do. As Winston Churchill once said, "To be a Reservist is indeed to be twice a citizen".
Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding, abolition of the Port Divisions and integration Navy Reserve with the Permanent Navy so we become 'all of one company' is a concept fostered by successive Chiefs of Navy stretching back (to my recollection) at least as far as VADM Ian MacDougall.
Considerable progress has been made in the area of conditions of service for Reservists and encouragement of employers to release Reservists to train and serve.
While all may not be exactly as we would like it - the requirement to maintain individual readiness levels of physical, medical and dental fitness at our own expense for example - things are very much better than they once were.
But I have a concern based on a rumour doing the rounds in Naval Reserve circles about coverage and compensation for Reservists.
I understand that a Reservist is usually called up for continuous full-time service - as he/she generally would be for a lengthier engagement - particularly in a sea posting or one to one of the ADF's current AOs.
However, if a Reservist is posted to sea on Reserve training days, or is posted on training days for duties to assist (for instance) with a natural disaster such as emergency work in connection with tsunami or earthquake relief, that they are covered only for the period they are 'at work' - say eight hours of the 24-hour day.
For sickness, there is probably a presumption - if a Reservist (for example) contracts malaria on a deployment - that the illness was contracted during duty hours.
But, if a person has a fall or other accident and is seriously injured or worse outside watch hours while either deployed or embarked, I have heard that they are not covered for whatever expense or compensation might result.
Perhaps someone in a position of authority in the Reserves can confirm this is not the case and scotch this ugly rumour?
- Wondering (name withheld by request)
