Docstoc

66810 Defence cover

Document Sample
66810 Defence cover Powered By Docstoc
					                                              NAVY
I S S U E
            ENGINEERING
            5      BULLETIN
                S E P T E M B E R   2 0 0 3
                                                                            NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                          1




EDITORIAL BOARD
Chairman
         .
Captain P J. Law, RAN

Members
Engineering Advisory Council (EAC)

Editor
WOMT Mark Richardson

Published by
Defence Publishing Service

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this Bulletin are the personal views of
the authors, and unless otherwise stated, do not in any way
reflect Royal Australian Navy Policy

Deadline
Issue 6 March 04 Contributions by 01 Feb 04

Contributions should be sent to
The Editor
Navy Engineering Bulletin
CP4–7–131
Campbell Park ACT 2600
Telephone: (02) 6266 4212
Fax: (02) 6266 2388
E-mail: navyengineeringbulletin@defence.gov.au

Distribution
To be added to the distribution list contact the Editor.

ISSN 0642295654




                                                                       CONTENTS
Foreword – Deputy Chief of Navy                                    2   Applying Reliability Centred Maintenance to Mechanical, Electrical,
                                                                       Electronic and Structural Systems                                     37
Introduction – Chief Naval Engineer                                3
                                                                       Navy Engineering Re-union 2003                                        43
From the Editor’s Desk                                             4
                                                                       The New C3 – Cost, Capability and Commonality                         45
From the Desk of the AT Category Sponsor                          5
                                                                       MOBI - A Look at the Past: WORKSHOPS                                  49
DNOP News                                                         13
                                                                       To MTE, or not to MTE                                                 53
An Engineering Approach to Maintaining Capability                 14
                                                                       ERUS                                                                  55
Technical Mentoring in the RAN                                    17
                                                                       Optimising Engineering Watchkeeping Duties in FFGs –
From the Desk of DTA-LOG(ENG) – Advanced Technical Training for        A Systems Approach                                                    57
ET & MT                                                           19
                                                                       Retention Bonus or Reward System?                                     62
Professional Development – it’s not just a piece of paper         21
                                                                       Aircraft Battle Damage Repair and Contingency Maintenance in the
Navy Warrant Officer gains Worldwide Engineering Recognition      22   Aviation World                                                        63
Report on Merchant Ship Secondment to MV Iron Chieftain           23   Naval Technical Regulatory System (TRS) – Development and
                                                                       Implementation Project – An Update                                    67
A Risk – Is It Really?                                            28
                                                                       Engineering of Maritime Capability, a Project SEA 1442 Perspective    70
MOTU-ME: Who Are We and Where Do We Live?                         29
                                                                       Engineering or Management                                             74
OPERATION SUTTON – Apprehension of Alleged Illegal Russian
Fishing Vessel VOLGA                                              34   APESMA Management Education Course Schedule                           75
2      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




REAR ADMIRAL R.C. MOFFITT
RAN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVY
                            Foreword
                            I am very pleased to have this opportunity to welcome readers to the
                            fifth edition of the Navy Engineering Bulletin.
                            In a year that has evolved as         optimum level of availability,       theatres concurrent with an
                            another one of the most               ready to overcome the challenges     expansive program of continuous
                            operationally demanding for the       and threats presented by modern      review and improvement. It is this
                            Navy in recent times, nowhere         warfare.                             program of improvement which
                            have these demands been more                                               has been the genesis of many of
                            keenly felt than in the Engineering   In addition to the demands           the initiatives to be introduced to
                            disciplines. The criticality of       invoked by Navy’s current high       Navy Engineering in the near
                            Engineering as a key element of       operational profile, Navy            future, initiatives aimed both at
                            capability has been clearly           Engineering is also undergoing an    making Navy Engineering more
                            demonstrated as the RAN rose to       important period of change and       effective and improving the
                            the challenges presented by           review. The Navy Technical           retention rates of our Engineers
                            Operations Slipper, Bastille and      Regulatory System, currently in      and Technicians. I congratulate
                            Falconer, while concurrently          initial stages of implementation,    the Navy Engineering community
                            fulfilling vital roles in home and    will improve our certification       for the dedication and
                            regional waters. It is significant    processes, formalise and             commitment displayed by all it’s
                            that, while being pushed to           strengthen our risk management       members in meeting past
                            extremes of performance, our          systems and ensure not only that     challenges, and urge you all to
                            ships and aircraft participating in   our ships, submarines and            maintain this positive attitude
                            these escalated operations were       aircraft are materially fit for      when faced with the challenges to
                            able to meet all operational          service; but also that our people    come. In particular, I encourage
                            requirements unimpeded by             are properly trained, competent      all in the Navy Engineering
                            major defects or extended down-       and authorised to operate and        community to embrace the
                            time due to breakdown. This is        maintain them. Interfacing with,     forthcoming changes and work
                            testament to the tenacity and         and complementing the NTRS,          together to realise the full
                            professionalism of the                are a number of personnel            benefits that are their intent.
                            Engineering personnel                 initiatives aimed at accrediting
                            maintaining and supporting them,      our people more effectively. One     I hope you enjoy this edition of
                            who were often called upon to         of these is the Navy’s agreement     the Navy Engineering Bulletin. As
                            provide innovative solutions under    with the Institution of Engineers,   a key element of capability, it is
                            difficult circumstances; ensuring     Australia, which provides a          important that the Engineering
                            their units remained at the           structured, internationally          Branch has a forum to
                                                                  recognised professional              disseminate information,
                                                                  development and accreditation        exchange ideas and promote
                                                                  program for our Engineering          discussion on engineering related
                                                                  Officers and Sailors. Another is     topics. The Navy Engineering
                                                                  the introduction of new,             Bulletin fulfils this role admirably,
                                                                  competency based Marine              therefore I commend it to you
                                                                  Technical Operator qualifications,   and encourage all in the Navy
                                                                  aligning Engineering operating       Engineering community to
                                                                  practices and qualifications with    support and contribute to this
                                                                  the need to provide ‘competent,      excellent publication.
                                                                  authorised individuals, whose
                                                                  work is certified as correct’; a
                                                                  fundamental principle of the
                                                                  NTRS.

                                                                  The demands on our engineering
                                                                  people, therefore, have been very
                                                                  high and will remain so for the
                                                                  foreseeable future. The Navy         R.C. MOFFITT
                                                                  maintains an intense operational     Rear Admiral, RAN
                                                                  commitment across many varied        Deputy Chief of Navy
                                                                                  NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003       3




  CNE Introduction                                                                                       COMMODORE TIM BARTER,
                                                                                                         CHIEF NAVAL ENGINEER

  I think this bumper issue of the Engineering Bulletin shows clearly the
  many and varied ways Engineers Make it Happen. From operating and
  maintaining our ships through to the design and systems engineering of
  the future Maritime Communications and Information Management
  Architecture, engineers underpin our Maritime capability.

  Over the last year or so, our            make sure maintenance is up to
  operational tempo has been               date.
  extremely high and much of our
  engineering effort, both at sea        • Large sections of our technical
  and ashore, has been focussed            workforce have shortfalls in
  on meeting the mission. The pace         important competencies and we
  of operations, while still high, is      must get the levels of outstanding
  now reducing and we need to              PPRs reduced.
  make maximum use of this
  opportunity to reconstitute our        • Many technical sailors have not
                                           had the opportunity to take leave.
  people and systems. Most of you
  should be aware that the Chief Of
                                           We also need to ensure our
  Navy has implemented a formal
                                           management systems are
  reconstitution plan that focuses
                                           reconstituted. CSO(E) will be
  on reconstituting our systems,           checking that units in Maritime
  skills and most importantly the          Command do have the correct
  personnel impacts that a high            management focus and in
  operational tempo has incurred.          support areas ashore the focus
                                           will be on rolling out the Technical
  Reconstituting these three areas         Regulatory System to ensure risks
  is of critical importance to Navy        to Technical Integrity are being
  and Navy engineering.                    managed.

• We must take the opportunity to          Reconstitution will allow
  ensure our systems are returned          Engineers to continue to Make it
  to appropriate levels. In particular     happen
4     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




WOMT MARK (RICHO)
RICHARDSON
                          From the Editor’s Desk
                          Welcome to this, the fifth edition of the Navy Engineering Bulletin and my
                          second as editor. And they said it wouldn’t last!
                          I think there’s something for          Southern Ocean by HMAS                reasons behind the difficulties
                          everyone in this edition. The          CANBERRA. What’s that got to do       in attracting and retaining
                          contribution rate this time has        with Navy Engineering you might       Marine Technical (Electrical)
                          been nothing short of                  ask: well when you consider a         sailors; and CPOMT Glenn Pope
                          outstanding, exceeding that of all     large proportion of the boarding      (HMAS STUART) provides a
                          previous bulletins and                 party which apprehended the           tongue-in-cheek view on retention
                          representing a wide variety of         ‘Volga’ were from HMAS                initiatives that might just be worth
                          sources from both within Navy          CANBERRA’s Engineering Branch,        looking at.
                          and from outside agencies that         this article graphically portrays
                          support Navy Engineering. Dr.          the varied and unusual nature of      The downside of the exemplary
                          Alun Roberts continues the             the tasks you can find yourself       contribution rate we have
                          Reliability Centred Maintenance        involved in as an Engineering         experienced in compiling this
                          theme with an article discussing       Branch Officer or Sailor. It          edition of the bulletin is that,
                          the application of RCM to Hull         highlights that what we do is         unfortunately, we were unable to
                          Structures, Mechanical Systems         unique and unlike any other           fit all the articles we received. As
                          and Electronics. The aviation          branch of Engineering, anywhere.      you will no doubt understand, we
                          world is well represented with an      I think you’ll find it a riveting     are constrained by printing costs
                          article on Aviation Battle Damage      read.                                 which limit the size of the
                          Repair (a subject which has                                                  publication we can produce. To
                          rapidly achieved prominence            You’ll also find more information     those who contributed for this
                          given the type of operations our       on many of the changes and            edition but didn’t get a guernsey
                          aircraft have recently become          challenges facing Navy                this time, I offer my sincere
                          involved in) and a comprehensive       Engineering discussed in the last     apologies; please don’t let this
                          article from the AT Category           edition. ERUS provides further        dampen your enthusiasm for the
                          Sponsors detailing significant         information on the direction the      NEB and be assured that you are
                          issues affecting the AT Category.      changes to MT watchkeeping            definite starters for the March 04
                          We continue our humorous /             roles and practices is taking; this   edition.
                          historical theme with another          is complimented by an overview
                          excerpt from ‘MOBI’, ex WOETPSM        provided by RELeGEN of their          Enjoy this edition of the
                          Sandy Freeleagus’ book of              study into the practical              Engineering bulletin and keep up
                          anecdotes about apprentice             application of these changes in       the high level of support – it’s
                          training in the 60’s at HMAS           FFGs. CMDR Horsnell provides an       what we need to keep producing
                          NIRIMBA.                               update on the Navy Technical          an interesting, informative
                                                                 Regulatory System and how it          Bulletin.
                          Our feature article this edition (in   relates to the delegation of
                          the colour section) presents a         Engineering Authority; POMTE Jim      Till next time,
                          vivid account of the apprehension      Rankine of HMAS CERBERUS
                          of a Foreign Fishing Vessel in the     Engineering Faculty looks at the      Cheers Richo
                                                                                     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                                 5




From the Desk of                                                                                                     CAPTAIN PETER LAW, RAN


The Director, Navy
Professional Requirements
(Engineering and Logistics)
When I took over the desk at DNPR (E&L) from CAPT Craig Kerr in mid
December last year, he said that I would be in for a busy time. He was
right! The Engineering PQ and Category Sponsor teams have been very
busy tackling some long standing issues within the Branch and also
attempting to spend some time planning for the Engineering future.

On the work front, we have had         We are continuing to develop the         Naval Engineer and other
a number of significant                ME and WE Officers Retention             members of the Engineering
achievements with the successful       Allowance Case and also the MT           Advisory Council to develop
completion of the ANZAC MT             and ET Pay Case. We are also             options for the continuous
Operator Trial and the                 working closely with the                 development and employment of
introduction of the new MT             Engineering Faculty at HMAS              the Branch. This is a complex
                                       CERBERUS to reinvigorate the             task and is closely related to the
Operator Qualifications. We have
                                       Initial Technical Training syllabus      other reviews currently being
developed and distributed for
                                       to better meet the requirements          undertaken within Navy to
review the ET Critical Category        of the fleet and to improve
Recovery Plan, we have spent                                                    optimise the employment and
                                       retention.                               recognition of all Navy personnel.
significant effort updating our
Engineering Policy documents,          I will now address some other
                                                                                A thank you to the Campbell Park
and we have developed and              initiatives, but firstly I should say
                                                                                Engineering team for their
updated the majority of the            that it is not all hard work. Like all
                                                                                support and efforts over the past
Category Management Plans. My          good Engineering teams we also
                                                                                six months and also my
goal is to increase the availability   make the time to enjoy ourselves
                                                                                congratulations to WOMT Steve
of up to date information by           wherever possible. To that end, we
                                       have actively participated, for the      Hazel for his attainment of
making all the relevant policy                                                  Chartered Engineering Officer
documentation, manuals and             third year in a row in the, ANZAC
                                       day service at Holbrook, NSW             status under the RAN Engineers
other articles and matters of                                                   Australia Agreement. Finally, to
                                       (ably supported by our Supply
interest available on the DNPR                                                  enable us to help you we must
                                       colleagues) and represented the
(E&L) website. I also intend                                                    know the issues and your
                                       Engineering and Supply Corps
instituting a quarterly e-mail         with vigour and (some) skill at          concerns, and to that end we will
newsletter to Officers and Senior      volleyball and cricket in the            continue to travel widely and
Sailors so that important policy       environs of Campbell Park.               meet, listen and discuss.
and employment condition
changes are available as early         With respect to the future, we are       Be safe and professional in
and as widely as possible.             continuing to work with the Chief        Engineering.                         About the author CAPT Peter Law joined
                                                                                                                     the RAN in 1977 as a Direct Entry
                                                                                                                     Weapons Electrical Engineer Officer. He has
                                                                                                                     served in HMA Ships HOBART, YARRA and
                                                                                                                     CANBERRA and has also served as the
                                                                                                                     Fleet WEEO. He spent the majority of the
                                                                                                                     1990's within the Defence Materiel
                                                                                                                     Organisation working in several positions
                                                                                                                     within the ANZAC Ship and FFG Upgrade
                                                                                                                     Projects. In 2001 he was appointed as the
                                                                                                                     inaugral FFG Systems Program Office
                                                                                                                     Director. CAPT Law lives in Canberra.
6   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         Letters to the Editor
                                                                                                    STATE OF PLAY
                        EDITOR NEB                            decision re gauges was to be
                                                              made by, in the current RAN, the      I left in 2000 and I do not know
                        Hullo,                                Systems Program Office or SPO         the state of play re this matter.
                                                              as applicable – ie do all gauges
                        My name is Bill Amor and in the       get calibrated or do the critical     TECHO's Data Base
                        past I worked as a TO3 at             gauges get calibrated and the
                        MMES1, and I'd like to comment        non critical repaired by              My original comments re this
                        re a statement made at the            replacement?                          matter are in the Techo's
                        Orange Overalls2 in particular                                              Discussion Database, under
                        WRT gauge maintenance ie in situ      Costs = number of critical gauges     Critical Machines or similar and
                        maintenance.                          = number of hoke valves =             Gauges.
                                                              number of modified lines = the
                        Whilst at MMES I investigated the     Total Costs, equipment costs see      This is my slant on this matter,
                        in place/situ/on board                next.                                 savings in time, reduction in the
                        maintenance of gauges and                                                   introduction of contaminations
                        found the following:                  Equipment                             into systems via un-plugged
                                                                                                    gauge lines, and visible
                        a.       it is cost effective after   There were two suppliers of           compliance to the requirements
                                 an A&A3 is                   calibration equipment in fact         of Class Societies could be
                                 accomplished,                FIMA4 EAST and WEST had the           accomplished by insitu
                                                              equipment in 1999/2000. The           calibration of pressure,
                        b.       there are equipment's        number of test units would be         temperature, electrical and other
                                 available to do this task                                          gauges utilising modern
                                                              determined by the Ship Class to
                                 ie on board calibration of                                         apparatus.
                                                              be A&A to take the In Place
                                 Bowden tube pressure
                                                              Calibration, whom to do the
                                 gauges, certain electronic                                         Regards
                                                              actual work ie to calibrate the
                                 gauges and temperature                                             Bill Amor
                                                              gauges – would that be FIMA,
                                 gauges, and
                                                              ships staff, sea riders (retired      1   MMES – Manager Maintenance
                                                              MT/ET types Reservists with the           Engineering Services, the functions of
                        c.       the test results are down-                                             which have subsequently been subsumed
                                                              skills and time and the nouse to
                                 loadable into a computer                                               by CME – the Centre for Maritime
                                                              do this job, which whilst not
                                 therefore the gauge                                                    Engineering. (Ed.)
                                 testing is able to be done   exciting is so critical to machine    2   Orange Overalls was an article in the
                                 to Quality Standards.        operation") etc?                          March 03 edition of the Navy Engineering
                                                                                                        Bulletin recounting LCDR Vaughan
                                                                                                        Thompsett’s experiences while seconded
                        Decisions to be Made                  Thus the number of calibration            to a Merchant Marine Bulk Carrier, the
                                                              units is determined by the                ‘Pacific Triangle. (Ed)
                        When writing a TM 180 re this         decision made reflecting the          3   A&A – Alteration and Addition (Ed.)
                        matter I had asked the Techo's        "whom" ie whom is to do the task      4   FIMA – Fleet Intermediate Maintenance
                        DataBase, Fleet and other             and how to cover a particular             Authority (Ed.)

                        agencies re classification of the     dependency in the times set by
                        gauges in use.                        the maintenance requirements          Letter to the Editor – ABMT
                                                              and the Class Society.                Conway HMAS KANIMBLA
                        Critical Gauges and Non Critical
                        gauges:                               Comments                              Hi Sir

                        I'd believed that not all the         The idea of in place calibration of   Read your article on the new
                        gauges monitoring a fluid on a        ship-borne gauges in the RAN is       watchkeeping models. They sound
                        particular system are critical, ie    not new, two FIMA's had the           like really great ideas and I hope
                        the gauges in the MCR are             required equipment, training is       that people take the time to try
                        "critical" but a gauge on the         available in gauge maintenance        and make them work. My
                        system elsewhere may not be           through the East Petersham TAFE,      question is how are these
                        critical if the system is monitored   FIME-AE sailors had done the          models, designed for the new
                        only at the MCR but the final         courses.                              technology, going to affect us?
                                                                                NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                                         7




Knowing our limitations as you       to get these practices and            clearly identifies a short fall in     For that they are prepared to pay
do, and the projected service life   qualifications in place now,          competency based training.             good money.
of this class, what will happen to   before the fully automated            Appreciating that this is a well
the techo's trained up here as far   engineering plants expected in        known fact and that there is this      Just some thoughts, I'm hoping
as the new qualifications go and     future Ships arrive.                  wonderful proposal to aid in           you may be able to see a way
their application?                                                         training personnel, I can't help       around this but the bottom line
                                     From an LPA perspective,              myself from peering into this with     remains when you see it from a
I hope the new job is treating you   technicians who have gained their     a logical perspective. I wonder        supply and demand perspective.
well                                 qualifications in LPA and             how personnel can be released
                                     subsequently move to a more           from their current workplace to        Regards,
All the Best                         automated platform will be            attend when we are struggling to       POMT(E) Mark Davis
                                     required to have their                make ends meet with personnel          I/C High Power
ABMT Emma Conway                     qualifications endorsed on their      as it is let alone release them for    Planned Maintenance
HMAS KANIMBLA                        new Ship. This is current practice    advancement courses and                Co ordinator
                                     so nothing new or unexpected          ASTC'5s?                               HS White Crew in HMAS
20/04/03                             here, however there are initiatives                                          LEEUWIN
                                     to make this transition               My personal belief is that we are
Reply to AB Conway’s Letter          considerably easier. By this I        training operators rather than         By MT Category Sponsor – PO
from MT Category Sponsor             mean the shifting of operator         maintainers and the fact is, we        Davis’ letter refers to the
                                     training from being mainly            are not taking the time to train       mentoring project established for
Dear Emma                            conducted onboard by Ship's           basic generic trade skills. The ITT6   Submarine technical sailors which
                                     Staff, to simulators and formal       trained junior sailors of today do     is the subject of an article
Good to hear from you and            courses in Ship specific trainers     18 months at HMAS CERBERUS             included in this edition.
thanks for reading our article and   like the FFG Trainer at GI and the    in category training and from
taking the time to provide           ANZAC Console simulator, (soon        there on they don't touch any          There are currently a number of
feedback.                            to relocate to Stirling). The         tools in a training environment        initiatives being examined or in
                                     operator qualification courses for    again. This was evident when I         varying stages of development,
Your query has highlighted one of    these two classes are currently       went to do my LSATT7 and               which may address many of the
the more interesting challenges      being developed, meaning MT           POATT8. I believe the ITT blokes       concerns expressed above.
facing implementation of the         sailors will soon complete most       are being fast tracked into middle     5   ASTC – Applied Skills and Technology
changes currently facing the MT      of their operator based training      management and along the way               Course (Ed)
Category. As you well know, the      ashore before joining the Ship,       they are missing the basic             6   ITT – Initial Technical Training (Ed)
LPA class has a significant          and will only be required to          knowledge that enables them to         7   LSATT – Leading Seaman Advanced
manual operator requirement in       consolidate that qualification        advise their subordinates. I have          Technical Training (Ed)
managing their engineering plant.    onboard, not learn it from            raised these concerns via              8   POATT – Petty Officer Advanced Technical
While initiatives to reduce the      scratch. This should serve to         feedback forms and a brief                 Training (Ed).

amount of personnel in the           increase the achievement rate of      roadshow that was conducted
engineering watch in LPA are         operator quals and provide a          while I was in training at Training
currently under consideration, as    simpler, more structured process      Centre East for the above courses
you will no doubt realise            for sailors to follow in obtaining    however, the feedback was well
automation of the LPA                them.                                 received but changes are not in
Engineering plant is a daunting                                            place.
prospect which would be              I hope the above answers your
extremely time consuming and         question, please don't hesitate to    I believe we may introduce
costly. There are no firm plans at   contact me again if you have any      negative results by placing our
this stage to introduce any          further queries.                      personnel in civilian workplaces
significant level of extra                                                 as there are already enough
automation to the LPA class          Cheers Richo.                         advertisements luring sailors into
Engineering plant, therefore the                                           civilian industry. There are a
immediate benefits inherent in       Letter To The Editor – POMTE          number of ex sailors working on
the new watchkeeping                 Mark Davis                            Cairns based ships as contractors
qualifications may be difficult to                                         and they all encourage juniors to
completely realise in LPA. We do     Sir,                                  pay off as the pay is better (I
not, however, wish to hold back                                            don't understand that part) and
those Ships with automated           Just a few thoughts and               conditions are great. The fact is
control and monitoring systems       questions I'd like to discuss         that our personnel do hold
simply because it's difficult to     regarding recent (to me) topics. I    valuable knowledge and skills
implement these changes to their     have just received the proposed       and the civilian industry
full extent in some of the older,    mentoring in the RAN summary          supporting our ships need our
less automated Ships. We need        and been surprised to see that it     personnel and their experience.
8     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                              From the Desk of the
                              AT Category Sponsor
WOATA JOHN SCHONBERGER        Firstly let me introduce myself – I am Warrant Officer John Schonberger
ATA AND ATV CATEGORY          and my job is Category Sponsor for the AT categories. I have been in
SPONSOR                       DNPR(E&L) since Nov 2002, having joined after a four-year stint in
DIRECTORATE OF NAVY
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS     DSCM, and to say that it has been a busy time over the last eight
(ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICS)   months, is an understatement. Our team consists of, CMDR Peter Burley
                              – Assistant Director Aviation Engineering who is the Aerospace Engineer
                              PQ sponsor, myself as the AT Category Sponsor and POATV Matt Hyam
                              as the Assistant AT Category Sponsor. We also have a CPOATV position in
                              our section, which will be filled in Nov 2003 by CPOATV Jose Bascunan.




                              THE AT CATEGORY SPONSORS: POATV MATT HYAM, CMDR PETER BURLEY AND WOATA JOHN SCHONBERGER


                              What do we do?                           required to consult and provide        • Directorate of Naval Workforce
                                                                       input into a large number of             Planning (DNWP);
                              For those that don’t know, our
                                                                       organisations, both internal and
                              instructions are contained in                                                   • Directorate of Workforce Planning
                                                                       external to the Navy program. We
                              DI(N) PERS 2-2. Category                                                          and Establishments (DWPE);
                                                                       maintain close ties with the follow-
                              Sponsors are tasked with
                                                                       ing groups, just to name a few:
                              managing the employment of                                                      • Defence Force Recruiting
                              people within the applicable          • FEG staff;                                Organisation (DFRO);
                              category to ensure that current
                                                                    • Maritime Headquarters staff;            • Naval training Authorities (in
                              and future naval capability
                              requirements are met. As this is a    • Maritime Development Desk                 particular TA-AVN, NPTC-S and
                              fairly broad responsibility, we are     Officers;                                 RAAF Wagga);
                                                                                      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   9




• NPT Accreditation Cell; and           pertaining to eligibility for CASA       managers with an easy to read
                                        CTC exams and details advanced           situation of the training proficiency
• The Category’s Recognition of
                                        standing for LAME for FSMS               requirements for their Squadron
  Prior Learning (RPL) Cell.
                                        authorised personnel.                    and also provides PPR shortfall
Category Management Plan                                                         data for individual units. We are
                                      • Category Advisory Group (CAG)
                                                                                 continuing to assist NPTC-S in the
• Category Sponsors are required        meeting
                                                                                 development of similar matrices
  to promulgate an annual
                                        In May we held the inaugural AT          for all Ships Flights and these
  Category Management Plan                                                       should be finalised within the next
                                        Category Advisory Group meeting
  (CMP). The CMP will be                                                         few months.
                                        in Nowra. The aim of the CAG is to
  incorporated into, and become an
                                        coordinate management and
  essential part of the Workforce                                              • ABR 5419 Ships Flight
                                        development of the category, as
  Planning reporting construct. The                                              Qualification Matrices
                                        well as providing a forum for the
  CMP includes information on:          exchange of knowledge and                In conjunction with the Whole
  •   the category structure,           information between agencies and         Aviation FEG position review, we
                                        category personnel. The meeting          have also reviewed all Ships’
  •   category deficiencies, with a     was well attended and a number           Flight Qualification Matrices in
      remedial plan; and                of actions from the meeting have         ABR 5419 (Ships Helicopter
  •   strategic changes and             already been completed. CAG              Operations Manual). This task is
      transition plan to reach the      meetings will be conducted twice         still continuing and is almost
      desired end state.                per annum with the next meeting          complete with some additional
                                        to be held in Nov 2003 (venue            proficiencies being included for
  The Aerospace Engineer and            TBA). A signal will be released in       S-70B-2 flights. It should be
  Aviation Technician CMPs were         September requesting agenda              noted that new proficiency
  completed in May 2003 and             items and nominations for                numbers have been created for
                      .
  forwarded to DNWP Copies of the       attendance. Remember if you              all AT authorisations. A copy of
  CMPs were distributed to all          have any issues that you want            the AT authorisations can be
  Aerospace Engineers and AT            raised at this important forum,          found on our web site. The
  Senior Sailors by e-mail in May       please ensure you attend the CAG         revised edition of ABR 5419
  03. Copies of both plans are also     or provide the agenda items to           should be on the streets within
  available on our web site on the      your Category Sponsor staff prior        the next few months.
  Defence Intranet at                   to the meeting.
  http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au                                             • AT promotion and Advancement
  /navysyscom/engineering/            • Whole of Aviation FEG Positions          policies;
  aviation/aviation.htm                 review
                                                                                 In April 2003, a number of
  Significant issues for the AT         This review commenced in Dec             changes to AT promotion and
  Category during last six months.      2002 and is almost complete. It          training failure policies were
                                        involves an examination all AVN          promulgated by general message.
  Since January 03 we have              FEG (approx 700) positions in            Copies of these messages are
  instituted a number of changes to     PMKeyS and their corresponding           available on our web site and are
  Aviation Technician promotion         Duty Statements to remedy any            summarised as follows.
  and advancement policies, held        errors or discrepancies and to
  our inaugural Category Advisory                                                Introduction of Timeframes for
                                        ensure uniformity of training
                                                                                 Aviation Technician
  Group (CAG) meeting, undertaken       requirements within all Squadrons
                                                                                 Maintenance Authorisations.
  a whole of FEG position review,       and Flights. A number of errors
  commenced a review on the             have been discovered with                Reference: DGNAVSYS
  Skills Acquisition and Retention      position Duty Statements in              WAC/W4A/HEC 232036Z APR 03.
  (SAR) program within the NAS          PMKeyS and it is essential that          Timeframes for AT sailors to
  Nowra workshops and                   supervisors and managers review          complete AT maintenance
  coordinated the Occupation            their unit duty statements on a          authorisations were introduced
  Analysis. Details of the items        regular basis. We have had               in April 2003 and promulgated
  undertaken over this period are       excellent support from DDE-N and         by general message. This was to
  detailed below.                       NPTC-S staff, which has assisted         ensure the RAN benefits from
                                        the directorate in rectifying errors     the training provided to AT
• Rewrite of D(N) PERS 40-4 –
                                        in PMKeyS. Whilst on this topic, I       sailors, by ensuring personnel
  CASA Licensed Aircraft
                                        encourage you to visit the PTAC          become qualified and authorised
  Maintenance Engineers (LAME)
                                        web site at http://npt.sor.defence.      to maintain aviation assets, to a
  Exam requirements for AT
                                        gov.au/ptac/default.html This site       level commensurate with their
  sailors
                                        details the Aviation Squadron            rank, within a realistic
  DI(N) 40-4 has been rewritten         Prerequisite Proficiency Matrix. The     timeframe. The timeframes were
  and provides new information          matrix provides Squadron                 agreed to by DNPR(E&L), DSCM,
10   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                           Authorisation      Time          Remarks
                           QM 1               6 weeks       From completion of EAC
                           QM 2               10 mths       From completion of EAC, ie 8.5 months from attaining QM 1
                           QM 3               22 mths       From completion of EAC, ie 12.5 months from attaining QM 2
                           MQI/FSI            3 mths        From promotion within or posting into Squadron/Flight as LSAT (Note 1)
                           MM                 4 mths        From promotion within or posting into Squadron/Flight as POAT (Note 1)
                           FSMS               6 mths        From promotion within or posting into Squadron/Flight CPOAT (Notes 1, 2)
                           LSCC               3 mths        From promotion within or posting into Squadron/Flight WOAT (Notes 1, 2)
                           Note 1                           If member has not completed an EAC on the applicable aircraft type prior to
                                                            promotion within, or on joining a Squadron/Flight, timeframe commences from
                                                            completion of EAC.
                           Note 2                           Maybe extended by a further 4 months to achieve MM authorisation on aircraft
                                                            type, if not already held.
                          TABLE 1 – TIMEFRAMES FOR AT MAINTENANCE AUTHORISATIONS.


                         TA-AVN, FAEO and Squadron                  separate proficiency number to           to assess the effectiveness of the
                         Aviation Engineering Officers.             their respective ATT course, they        program, subsequently a review of
                         Details of the new timeframes              are intrinsically linked to the ATT      the SAR program is currently being
                         are as follows:                            course. The MQI, MM, and AMCC            undertaken. In conjunction with
                                                                                                             the SAR review, the new Naval
                         AT Maintenance Exams and                   Part 1 exams must be passed for
                                                                                                             Aircraft Maintenance (NAM)
                         AMCC Part 2 Oral Board                     personnel to be awarded a
                                                                                                             contract is being developed by
                         Training Failure Management.               successful pass for the
                                                                                                             NASPO and a revised S70B2
                         Reference: DGNAVSYS WCB/W4A                corresponding LS, PO and CPO
                                                                                                             servicing regime is also being
                         080327Z APR 03                             ATT course. The AMCC Part 2 is
                                                                                                             trialed. Both these projects could
                                                                    also a non-discretionary
                         Changes to management of                                                            have an impact on the number of
                                                                    promotion qualification, however
                         Aviation Technician MQI, MM and                                                     MRU positions embedded in
                                                                    it is not linked to the CPOATT-AT
                         AMCC Part 1 exams were                                                              workshops. In addition to the SAR
                                                                    course. Failure of the AMCC Part
                         introduced to ensure failures are                                                   positions, the ELATS function in
                                                                    2 Oral Board is managed
                         managed in accordance with the                                                      the Avionics workshop at Nowra
                                                                    differently to a failure of the
                         Training Progress Management                                                        will be civilianised in 2004 and
                                                                    MQI/MM/AMCC Part 1 exams. To
                         (TPM) Policy in ABR 27. Failure of                                                  the 12 ELATS positions will be
                                                                    ensure TPM is conducted
                         the AMCC Part 2 (Oral Board) is                                                     relocated elsewhere within the
                                                                    efficiently after an initial exam
                         managed under a separate policy.                                                    ALBATROSS/ Squadrons.
                                                                    failure, affected personnel are to
                         Details of the policy for AT sailors                                                DNPR(E&L) are working closely
                                                                    undertake remedial training and
                         are covered on the following page                                                   with NASPO and FAEO to
                                                                    re-examination attempts in
                         and the information will be                                                         determine the appropriate number
                                                                    accordance with the following
                         included in the next revision of                                                    of workshop and DM positions
                                                                    guidelines: See Table 2.
                         ABR 10.                                                                             and where the any remaining
                                                                    Other Issues of Interest                 positions will be relocated.
                         Trainee Progress Management
                         (TPM) for Aviation Technician           • Skills Acquisition and Retention        • Rotary Wing Flying Training
                         MQI, MM and AMCC Exams.                   (SAR) Program                             Review (RWFTR)

                         MQI, MM and AMCC Part 1                    Skills Acquisition and Retention         The RWFTR is a project that is
                         qualifications are deemed non-             (SAR) positions are located in the       examining the replacement
                         discretionary in that they are tied        NAS Nowra workshops to enable            training aircraft and there are two
                         to the respective                          AT sailors to acquire and retain         options of the RWFTR project
                         LSAT/POAT/CPOAT- ATT courses,              deeper maintenance (DM) skills to        currently being considered. One
                         which are based on DSCM                    enhance their knowledge of               option will see the RAN leasing a
                         selection by a sailor’s MAT score.         aircraft systems and components.         training helicopter to replace the
                         MQI, MM and AMCC Part 1 exams              The SAR program has been in              AS350BA and the maintenance
                         remain under independent                   place since the early 1990s.             of this aircraft would be carried
                         control of the RAN Aviation                Whilst it has provided many AT           out by civilian staff in 723
                         Accreditation Board (AAB).                 sailors with the opportunity to gain     Squadron. Essentially this means
                         Although these exams have a                workshop and DM skills, it is time       that 723 Squadron maintenance
                                                                                      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   11




 MQI Exam          Re-examination attempts must be conducted within two weeks of a failure. The third and final
                   attempt at the MQI exam must be undertaken within four weeks of the initial exam failure after
                   LSATT-AT course.
 MM Exam           Re-examination attempts must be conducted within one month of a failure. The third and final
                   attempt at the MM exam must be undertaken within two months of the initial exam failure
                   after POATT-AT course.
 AMCC Part 1       Re-examination attempts must be conducted within one month of a failure. The third and final
 Exam              attempt at the AMCC Part 1 exam must be undertaken within two months of the initial exam
                   failure after CPOATT-AT course.
 AMCC Part 2       1. Failure of the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board is not managed in accordance with TPM policy in
 Oral Board           ABR 27 but as follows:
                   a. On successful completion of the CPOATT-AT course and AMCC Part 1 written exam, all POAT
                   or P/CPOAT sailors are to attempt the first available AMCC Part 2 (Oral Board) convened by
                   the FAEO. All personnel who successfully complete the CPOATT-AT course and AMCC Pt 1 will
                   be eligible to attempt the AMCC Pt 2 Oral Board, irrespective of whether they have been
                   identified for promotion to CPOAT.
                   b. If in the conduct of the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board, the FAEO determines that a satisfactory
                   outcome is unlikely due to lack of experience and currency in core skills, a recommendation
                   should be made to DSCM that the sailor be posted/loaned to a Squadron for a consolidation
                   period, not exceeding six months. The FAEO will provide a report to the sailor’s CO and DSCM,
                   advising of the course of action to be taken prior to any further attempt at the AMCC Part 2.
                   c. DSCM will review the case, and if approved, the sailor will be formally posted or loaned to a
                   squadron for consolidation training. Personnel that have been provisionally promoted to CPOAT
                   will retain their provisional status until the first available AMCC Oral Board is convened after
                   the consolidation period. Where a sailor has been selected for promotion, provisional
                   protection will be awarded until the sailor re-faces the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board. The member’s
                   training and employment is to be managed by TA-AVN / Squadron AEOs to optimise aviation
                   skills, experience and development.
                   d. Where a consolidation period is granted, personnel must re-face the first available AMCC Pt
                   2 Oral Board, after the consolidation period, and within 12 months of completion of the
                   CPOATT-AT course. Provisionally protected personnel will be reverted if they fail the AMCC Part
                   2 Oral Board after the consolidation period. Further attempts at the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board
                   will be at the discretion of the FAEO in consultation with TA-AVN.
                   e. For personnel so effected, reversion or cancellation of promotion should not be enacted
                   until a substantive fail of the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board has been delivered. Sailors who fail the
                   AMCC Part 2 and have had their promotion rescinded or are reverted in rank may be
                   authorised promotion on the next framed CPOAT promotion list. Any subsequent promotion
                   would be dependent on sailors MAT score and workforce structure vacancies and is subject to
                   the member resitting and passing the AMCC Part 2 Oral Board prior to promotion. Personnel
                   will not be permitted to achieve provisional protection for any previously failed promotion pre-
                   requisite course.
TABLE 2 – TRAINEE PROGRESS MANAGEMENT – AT MQI, MM AND AMC EXAMS.


positions would be used to                and would use all RAN Seaking          maintainers and Aircrew with the
harvest funding to assist with the        related positions to man both          ability to transfer skills from the
operational costs of the leased           723 and 817 Squadrons. 817             training Squadron to an
aircraft. Another option being            Squadron would consist of five         operational Squadron. DNPR
considered is for the RAN to              dedicated Flights (8 maintainers       (E&L) staff have been examining
replace both the AS350BA and              per flight) and a small number of      manning concepts for both
the Seaking with a single                 personnel for Command,                 options and have provided the
helicopter type that will undertake       Management and Flight Support          Project officers with proposed
both the training and Maritime            Cell functions. The remaining          Squadron complements. I must
Support Helicopter (MSH) roles.           Seaking related positions would        stress at this stage, that the
This option would see the Squirrel        make up 723 Squadron’s                 RWFTR is in the early stages of
maintenance positions used to             maintenance complement and             development and is subject to a
harvest funds for a new aircraft          this would provide both                rigorous evaluation process and
12   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                          requires endorsement and             Advanced Diploma (Technical), or       in the narrative of your SPAR. If
                          subsequent approval by a             Bachelor of Engineering or             your SPAR has already been
                          number of senior RAN and             Bachelor of Technology are             completed and you have
                          Defence committees. Further          eligible to join. More information     subsequently undertaken FSMS
                          updates will be provided when        on the Engineers Australia             duties, a minute from your HOD
                          more detail is known. Watch this     program and other Continuing           detailing exercising of the FSMS
                          space and listen for pipes.          Professional Development               authorisation can still be
                                                               courses and funding can be             forwarded to DSCM for placement
                        • ADF Aviation Trades
                                                               found in the article written by        on your WOPB pack. This will
                          Occupational Analysis (OA)
                                                               LSMT Simpson in this edition of        ensure that the WOPB panel has
                          By now all AT sailors (QM1 and       the Navy Engineering Bulletin.         the necessary employment
                          above) should have completed         Employment and Supplementary           information to gain the full
                          the OA surveys that were             information for SPARs                  understanding of your
                          distributed over the past few                                               employment.
                          months. Senior Sailors would         Recent discussions between the
                          have also been provided with a       Category Sponsor and DSCM              Additionally, any documents
                          second survey to gain your           have revealed that many CPOATs         noting praise, or commendations
                          responses on the Training aspects    who are being considered at the        and awards of any nature should
                          for Aviation technicians. We have    Warrant Officer Promotion Board        also be copied and forwarded to
                          been working closely with the        (WOPB) are lacking employment          DSCM to be placed on your
                          Occupational Analysis staff in       history details on their SPARs.        WOPB pack. The WOPB panel
                          Canberra to ensure the survey’s      Flight Senior Maintenance Sailor       considers all documentation on
                          success. The OA report is due to     (FSMS) authorisation and the           your pack and it possible that a
                          be distributed in Sep 03 and         exercising of the authorisation are    commendation or certificate of
                          from this may come a range of        considered at the WOPB. Whilst         appreciation may assist your
                          issues for consideration. I would    not a mandatory requirement for        overall standing at the WOPB.
                          like to express my gratitude all     promotion to WOAT, employment
                                                               as an FSMS can have a                  Conclusion
                          those involved in coordinating the
                          OA responses and also thank          considerable affect on the             Hopefully the above information
                          those personnel who took the         member’s standing at the WOPB.         has provided you with a better
                          time to complete the surveys.        It became apparent during the          understanding of what your
                          Remember, the more information       last WOPB that many CPOATs who         Category Sponsor’s functions and
                          we get from people on the hangar     had exercised the FSMS                 duties are what we have been
                          floor about how they do their job    authorisation at sea, and during       doing and are currently working
                          and which tasks are important,       shore detachments, had no              on for you and the AT category.
                          the better off we are in being       reference of such events in their      We are intending to visit all units
                          able to develop future training      SPAR or service file. This situation
                                                                                                      where AT sailors are employed
                          and employment for all AT sailors.   is occurring more frequently
                                                                                                      during the next financial year, so
                                                               particularly with the increasing
                        • Professional Development for                                                let us know if you require a visit
                                                               number of aircraft detachments
                          Technical Sailors.                                                          or presentation. Our aim is to
                                                               being conducted for short periods
                                                                                                      provide as much information on
                          The RAN has joined forces with       (often on loan from Squadrons)
                                                                                                      category issues to you, so please
                          the Institution of Engineers         during the SPAR reporting period.
                                                               In some cases it has made it           don’t hesitate to contact us, and
                          Australia (now trading as                                                   if you happen to be in Canberra,
                          Engineers Australia) to enhance      difficult for the WOPB panel to get
                                                               a true reflection of a member’s        drop in and we will whip you a
                          the development of the naval                                                brew. Our contact details are:
                                                               complete employment history as
                          engineering team and assist Navy
                                                               a CPOAT, due to the lack of any        CMDR Burley
                          in growing competent
                                                               reference to FSMS employment in        CP4-7-124        (02) 6266 2097
                          independent practitioners of
                                                               the member’s SPAR.
                          engineering, with chartered status                                          WOATA Schonberger
                          being the brand of success and       It is vital for Assessors and Senior   CP4-7-136     (02) 6266 4584
                          worldwide recognition. Joining the   Assessors to ensure that any
                          Professional Development             instances of a CPOAT exercising        CPOATV Jose Bascunan
                          Program is easy. The minimum         the FSMS authorisation (be at          CP4-7-138        (02) 6266 2483
                          requirement to join Engineers        sea or ashore) be annotated in         (Joins 3 Nov 03)
                          Australia is an Advanced Diploma     the member’s SPAR. It is equally
                                                                                                      POATV Hyam
                          in Engineering at AQF level 6 or     important for all CPOATs who
                                                                                                      CP4-7-137        (02) 6266 2570
                          equivalent. RAN personnel who        have undertaken FSMS duties to
                          currently hold or are studying the   ensure such events are included        Hope to see you round the traps.
                                                                                   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                           13




DNOP News                                          BY LCDR PHIL SCOTT RAN SOE-1 DNOP

At the time of writing this I have     be taken into consideration. The       before taking up their next             subject of selection for COs of
had six months in the chair as         first is the total number of LCDRs     posting. These excessive leave          FIMAs, the response to the last
DNOP(E) and my feet have hardly        in the RAN. At the start of the year   credits may prevent you being           round was disappointing. The
touched the ground. It has been        we were overborne LCDRs, largely       considered for your ‘dream’             Minor Command and Sea Charge
quite a challenge to come to grips     as a legacy of the phase batch         posting or could result in you          Advisory Committee (MCSCAC)
with PMKEYS, a myriad of               promotion system. The second is        taking leave when it doesn’t            selection process was delayed
personnel policies and our             the shortage of LEUTs. We are          necessarily suit. It is strongly        because of the lack of personnel
different Engineer Officer career      currently underborne LEUTs and         recommended that members take           volunteering for these jobs. The
progressions, let alone the best       we can’t keep promoting them           personal responsibility for             Command job should be viewed
part which is to begin to get to       until we run out. This is provided     keeping their leave balance within      with as much importance as
know all of you. Anyway, I thought     as general background information      normal limits and take all              ACSC. Having had Command of a
I would take this opportunity to let   designed to give a little insight      possible opportunities to use           FIMA will meet the eligibility
you in on some of the hot issues       into how the promotion targets are     their leave credits.                    criterion of “previous Command
facing us in trying to get you all     set and in no way does this mean                                               experience’ for postings to some
                                                                              Postings worthy of consideration
the posting of your dreams.            I know what the promotion targets                                              positions in ADFHQ. CNE and
                                                                              for young engineers seeking to
                                       are or will be.                                                                DNPR(E&L) are also currently
Currently there is a significant                                              raise their profile and give
                                                                                                                      investigating other positions that
shortage of WE and ME Engineers        Until recently charge selection for    themselves an edge in the
                                                                                                                      maybe considered as Command
at LEUT/LCDR level                     Engineers was based on seniority       posting/promotion stakes include
                                                                                                                      positions in the future.
(approximately 20-25%). This           and availability. From now on all      Flag Lieutenant positions or
means one in four or five              charge appointments will be            Divisional Officer at either Creswell   Recently the DNOP Defence
engineering positions across the       conducted in accordance with the       or Recruit School. These jobs offer     Intranet website has been
board will be vacant. If you           process outlined in ABR 6289.          insight into areas of the               updated and a plan for
consider shore positions only,         Charge positions will now be           organisation not normally               continuous improvement and
that translates to one in three or     appointed by a board comprising        accessed and broaden your               updating information is in place.
four being gapped at any given         DNPR(E&L) and CSO(E). Mid Aug          outlook as a Naval Officer. At          The address is
time. Should make it easy for us       will see the board appointing all      Creswell and Recruit school you         defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpedn
to post you to the job you want,       charge positions for the period        are also given the chance to leave      op. If you are able, make a habit
right? Unfortunately it doesn’t        Jun 03 to Jun 04. This process is      your mark on all the new entries        of checking it out from time to
quite work like that. Every            applicable for all MFUs,               into the RAN and make sure the          time. Signal and LOP will,
supervisor has a justifiable           Squadrons and Submarines. All          people you have come and work           however, remain the main avenue
reason why their positions should      eligible personnel will have their     for you later in life are the best      for advertising posting
not be gapped, so considerable         names presented to the board           trained personnel possible. As          opportunities including overseas
time is spent in negotiations to       with posting history, performance      these postings take time out from       positions, overseas courses, flags
try and spread this hurt equitably.    reports, location, type, timing        your primary training, they will        positions and the like.
We also have to follow a list of       preferences and volunteer status       normally only be for 12 months. If
priorities set by CN to meet the       for the board to take into             additional incentive is needed,         I encourage you to keep in
strategic requirements of Navy as      consideration. This process            volunteers will be given their          contact. Email is generally
a whole. Even where we do have         mirrors the charge selection           preference of subsequent posting,       preferable so we can keep a
the right number of personnel, as      process for Seaman officers and        within reason.                          record of your personal career
is the case with Aerospace             has been introduced to meet the                                                and location preferences/
                                                                              I would also like to take the           circumstances, but don’t be
engineers, we face mismatches in       requirements for technical
                                                                              opportunity to clarify a point on       afraid to call if things change at
the experience levels required.        regulation. Personnel in charge
                                                                              the not-so-new performance              short notice.
The result is that the process of      positions are to be appointed by
                                                                              reports (Form AC833-11)
sorting out one posting can be         a competent authority, namely                                                  Contact Details:
                                                                              regarding recommendations for
somewhat protracted.                   CNE, who has delegated this to
                                                                              Command positions. The                  Staff Officer Engineering 1
                                       CSO(E) and DNPR(E&L).
This leads me into the very                                                   “Command” box in the NOPAS              (LCDR Engineers and LEUT
emotive topic of promotions. Given     Members accumulating excessive         should not be marked “not               Engineers with CQ):
that we are short of LCDRs in all      leave credits have been causing        applicable” for LCDRs. CO FIMAs         LCDR Phil Scott on
Engineering PQs, you may be            considerable grief at all the DNOP     and Shore Command positions             02 6265 1007 or
seduced into thinking that this        desks of late. The ability to meet     are Command positions that are          (Phillip.Scott1@defence.gov.au)
would mean a large promotion list      individuals posting preferences is     available for selection of              Staff Officer Engineering 2
and beers all round the                often dictated by timing.              Engineers and, as such, eligibility     (LEUT/SBLT Engineers without CQ):
engineering fraternity come mid        Members with over 70 days leave        for selection to these will require     LEUT Chris Miller on
December. Regrettably there are a      will be posted additional to a         at least a “suitable”                   02 6265 3276 or
couple of other things that have to    shore establishment for leave          recommendation. While on the            (Christopher.Miller@defence.gov.au)
14    NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




BY LCDR ANDREW
GOLDSWORTHY RAN
                          An Engineering Approach
                          to Maintaining Capability
                          INTRODUCTION
                          In the first, relaunched edition of the Engineering Bulletin (Jun 01), LCDR
                          Mark Warren postulated that the Naval Engineer would become extinct
                          due to the benefits derived from advancing technology and cost
                          pressures to reduce crew numbers. CDRE Ken Joseph continued this
                          theme of smaller crews on warships, but suggested a greater
                          prominence for engineers within the Navy in Issue 2 of the Engineering
                          Bulletin (Feb 02). I find these two articles interesting in that whilst I
                          believe that smaller crews are a future reality, I would like to suggest that
                          the balance should be exactly the opposite. Fundamentally, I would like
                          to suggest that as technology advances, will we need fewer and fewer
                          ‘operators’ but similar numbers of maintainers lead by highly competent
                          and adaptive engineers.
                          OVERVIEW                             possible. The car on the other        house that can translate
                                                               hand, is a relatively simple          operating and maintenance
                          Firstly, I would like to address
                                                               system with far fewer                 experience of ships into contract
                          some of the main points made in
                                                               permutations and maintenance          requirements for the next build
                          LCDR Warren’s article from the
                                                               requirements. Also, the car has       program. As a result, we rely
                          perspective of having recently
                                                               not been subjected to the             increasingly on the design
                          served on one of the newer
                                                               revolutionary design changes that     experience of the ship builder,
                          technology ships currently in the
                                                               have been seen in ships. Whilst,      which, in Australia, is extremely
                          fleet, the ANZAC Class Frigate
                                                               the car has undergone significant     limited both in scope and
                          HMAS ARUNTA. Then I would like
                                                               improvements in design,               duration. The consequence of this
                          to discuss what our warships
                                                               particularly in the area of           is that there is not the same
                          should be capable of, and
                                                               passenger safety, the impact has      design refinement and
                          consequently propose the current
                                                               been nothing like the impact of       improvement for warships as
                          and future value of engineers at
                                                               changing from sail to steam to        there is for the humble old car.
                          sea. Finally, I would like to
                                                               gas turbines/diesels to fully
                          propose an alternative manning                                             So, given the pace of design
                                                               electric propulsion that is
                          structure for warships to the one                                          change and the experience of the
                                                               occurring to ships. Additionally,
                          presented by LCDR Warren.                                                  Australian shipbuilding industry, it
                                                               the operator requirement for car
                                                                                                     seems unlikely that we will ever
                          MATURITY OF DESIGN                   drivers has changed very little
                                                                                                     reach the maturity of design that
                                                               over the years whilst an operator
                          The first point that LCDR Warren                                           exists in cars. Furthermore, even if
                                                               on a warship will experience a
                          makes in his article is that there                                         the same level of design maturity
                                                               significant number of changes,
                          is a reduced benefit from                                                  could be achieved, the level of
                                                               both in technology and
                          engineers at sea due to the                                                complexity of a warship design
                                                               procedures, even within the life of
                          maturity of design, and compares                                           would necessitate routine
                                                               a ship build program.
                          the design maturity of a warship                                           engineering input.
                          to that of a car. I believe this     To further complicate different
                                                                                                     COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS
                          comparison does not accurately       design environments, recent
                          reflect the relative complexities    trends in contracting strategies      LCDR Warren then goes on to say
                          between both designs. A warship      have meant that the experience        that increasing levels of computer
                          has a very large number of           of one generation of ship is not      control makes operation of the
                          systems having various levels of     incorporated into the next. We        platform much easier. Now,
                          integration with each other and      have moved away from                  providing all the software, sensors
                          with different configurations        maintaining expertise within          and control hardware are all
                                                                                   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   15




  working correctly, I would agree.     have increased the demands            because the level of technological
  There is today very little            placed on our machinery               sophistication is similar, that
  difference in operator involvement    operators and calls more on the       warships could be manned in a
  whether you are on an FFG, an         skills of an engineer.                similar way. The most significant
  ANZAC, a MHC or HS ship.                                                    reason that this comparison is
                                        BENEFIT OF AN ENGINEER
  Despite different technologies                                              not valid is based on the time
  used and different operator           LCDR Warren looks at what the         available to each platform to
  positions, control is based on a      Navy gets for the cost of training    rectify problems when they occur.
  set speed that computers              a charge qualified engineer and       An aircraft has very little time
  translate into propulsion settings.   then suggests that using this         available and even less access to
  The problem with this is that the     expertise in the design role, in      equipment to be able to identify
  systems do not always work            line with IE Aust definitions of an   and overcome problems that
  correctly, especially when Sea        engineer, would be more               occur during flight. Basically,
  Training Group are embarked.          beneficial. As I have shown           when an aircraft stops flying it
                                        already, the role of an engineer at   has either returned to an airfield
  My experience of the ANZAC
                                        sea is a lot more involved and        or we never use it again. On the
  propulsion control system
                                        demanding than simply being the       other hand, when a ship breaks
  certainly suggests that an
                                        “wine caterer and TV tuner”1, even    down, there is time and access to
  increased reliance on software
                                        on a technologically advanced         rectify or at least engineer an
  does not decrease the
                                        ship. I certainly found the           alternative to get the ship
  involvement of machinery
                                        management of an engineering          operating again. This becomes
  operators or the engineer in
                                        department on an ANZAC ship           especially relevant in a wartime
  managing the machinery. In fact,
                                        more complex than what I can          context, where even with the
  in my opinion, the difference
                                        remember of the job on an old         destructive power of today’s
  technology has made is that
                                        River Class DE. I shall look at the   weapons, there may still be an
  when something does go wrong it
                                        value an engineer can provide,        opportunity to save the ship after
  is actually more difficult to work
                                        and in respect to IE Aust             it has been hit.
  out why and then determine a
  way of overcoming the problem.        competencies, in more detail          Rather than comparing a ship to
  Software has added an extra level     shortly. However, I do agree with     a FA18, we could perhaps
  of complication to the job of the     LCDR Warren and CDRE Joseph           compare a ship to a Seahawk. A
  machinery operator because not        that uniformed engineers should       Seahawk flight attached to a ship
  only do they need to understand       have a greater involvement in the     have operators that fly the
  the plant and the various ways in     design process of warships.           aircraft, maintainers who conduct
  which it can be controlled, they      Although, the reason a uniformed      the maintenance and assist in
  also need to understand what the      engineer is useful in this role is    flightdeck operations, and is
  software is doing. Problems arise     because they have experienced         under the operational control of
  in three main ways:                   the operation and maintenance         the ships CO, whilst the
                                        of a warship at sea. Without this     engineering support to the aircraft
• firstly as an actual mechanical       experience, engineers will            is provided in a separate location
  failure,                              become less relevant in the Navy      ashore. This is similar to the
• secondly due to incorrect inputs      because the designs that they         arrangement being suggested by
  as a result of sensor failures, and   influence will be less attuned to     LCDR Warren for ships, the
                                        the needs of those at sea.            operators run the ship, fixers
• thirdly, software induced either
                                                                              keep it going, and it is under the
  through independent actions or        COMPARISON TO AVIATION
                                                                              operational control of MC Aust,
  by presenting information to the
                                        After having compared a warship       whilst engineering support is
  operator in such a way that they
                                        to a car, LCDR Warren goes on to      provided from ashore. So, what is
  take inappropriate action.
                                        compare the operation of a ship       the experience of the Seahawk?
  Consequently, advancing               to the operation of an aircraft.      How many times have we seen a
  technology and greater control of     LCDR Warren, in making this           helo unavailable to undertake an
  systems by software appear to         comparison, suggests that             operational tasking because a
16       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




problem outside the normal              Bulletin makes a more detailed        with particularly complex               possible next century to operate
scope of planned maintenance            discussion on the role of             problems.                               the warfare side of a ship via
has to be referred ashore for an        engineers in support of Maritime                                              satellite from MHQ. Therefore, I
                                                                              LCDR Warren suggests that
answer. The exchange of                 Doctrine. To ensure that these                                                believe that technology will allow
                                                                              advances in technology will result
information and questions               characteristics of maritime power                                             us to reduce the number of
                                                                              in a corresponding reduction in
between the embarked flight and         remain available in future                                                    operators in a crew, but for the
                                                                              the requirement for engineering
the ashore support can take an          warships, some form of tactical                                               reasons stated above, will still
                                                                              skills in these areas. The
extended period of time due to          level engineering is vital.                                                   need engineers and maintainers
                                                                              assertion that advancing                onboard. Imagine an operations
the nature of communications
                                        Another aspect of our Navy that       technology leads to greater             room with only the captain, a
with ships at sea and results in
                                        distinguishes us particularly from    reliability does not seem to be         PWO and a system manager; a
the aircraft being unserviceable
for long periods. Is this what we       the USN, is the value of each         supported by experience. Without        bridge with only an OOW; and a
want for our ships? Interestingly,      ship within our order of battle.      having analysed any data, I do          host of maintainers ready to alter
in 2001 the aviation world trialed      Each ship within our Fleet is a       not believe that anyone would           the ship’s systems to meet the
sending an engineer to sea with         significant element of our            suggest that ANZAC Class ships          changing operational demands
the embarked flight in an attempt       capability to defend Australia. The   are any more reliable than the          and limitations imposed by
to overcome this problem and            RAN is far less able to absorb the    FFGs. In fact, my experiences in        damage. We may well only need
also to give the engineer first         loss of even one ship than larger     early 2001, would tend to               one or two engineers in this
hand experience of a flight at sea.     navies such as the USN or the         indicate that they are less             scheme rather than the five or six
                                        RN. Consequently, the effort we       reliable. However, even if this is      we have currently, but the
AUSTRALIAN WARSHIPS                     put into sustaining a ship within     the case, new technology has led        ultimate ability of a ship to fight
Before looking at the value of an       an operational area needs to be       to greater flexibility for both plant   and win at sea can only be
engineer at sea, we must                greater than these larger navies. A   operating modes and plant               achieved with engineers at sea.
understand what we want our             larger navy has greater scope to      control. This greater flexibility       1LCDR Mark Warrens article from
ship to be able to do and the           withdraw a damaged ship from          offers command more choices in          Engineering Bulletin Jun 01.
importance of each ship within          the area of operation and             terms of matching the plant to
our Fleet. A comprehensive              allocate another. For the RAN, it     the current operational tasking.        About the Author LCDR Goldsworthy joined
answer to the question of the           is far more important for us to       Engineering operations                  the RAN in Jan 1986 at ADFA where he
                                        engineer a way to keep a              competencies then become even           completed a Mechanical Engineering
roles that can be given to                                                                                            Degree in Dec 1990. On completion of
warships by government is               damaged ship operating to             more important in helping               junior officer training at HMAS CRESWELL
contained in the Australian             achieve its tasking.                  Command manage the plant to             he joined HMAS DERWENT as an AMEO.
Maritime Doctrine. Chapter 6 lists                                            maximise operational                    Whilst an AMEO he also spent some time
                                        VALUE OF AN ENGINEER                                                          on HMAS TORRENS and HMNZS WAIKATO
the characteristics of maritime                                               performance and minimise plant
                                                                                                                      before being awarded an MEOCC. In mid
power, of which the following are       So, what does an engineer have        stresses. As we look forward to         1993 he took over as one of the Ship
relevant to the current discussion:     to offer? LCDR Warren points to       revolutionary engineering plants,       Managers at FIMA Sydney, primarily looking
                                        the IEAust to provide an              such as the fully electric              after IMAV work for FFGs. In late 1995 he
resilience, poise and persistence,                                                                                    posted onto HMAS CANBERRA to take up
reach, adaptability and flexibility.    understanding of what an              propulsion, the degree of system        the role of DMEO. Once awarded a MEOCQ,
The engineer plays an important         engineer does, and proposes that      complexity and flexibility is only      he was posted to Canberra where he
                                        engineers are primarily involved in   going to increase, resulting in an      fulfilled a number of roles working with
role in each of these                                                                                                 minor projects and the initial development
characteristics. An engineer            design through improving systems      equivalent increase in importance       of Certification. In Apr 2000 he assumed
contributes to the resilience of a      or maintenance. But if we look at     of having an engineer to manage         the role of MEO of HMAS ARUNTA before
                                        the competencies for registration     the plant.                              returning once again to Canberra where he
ship through the management of
                                                                                                                      is now working in the Logisitics Section of
redundancy within systems and           as a Chartered Professional                                                   the FFG Upgrade Project."
                                                                              AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE
through the assessment and              Engineer, we can see that an
repair of damage. The ability of a      engineer can have a much greater      So, having established why an
ship to remain in the area of           role within an organisation.          engineer is important on a ship
operations without recourse to          Although there is a heavy             and what an engineer has to
shore services relies heavily on        emphasis on design, there are         offer, how might our future
the skills of an engineer. Similarly,   also competencies related to the      warships be manned. Although I
to achieve the normal reach of a        management of engineering             have disagreed with the
warship is dependent upon the           within the business (ie, for          suggestion that technology makes
ability of an engineer to sustain       business we can use the ship),        systems easier to support, I do
the operation of the ship for long      management of engineering             believe that it makes them easier
periods and at extended                 operations, and investigation and     to operate. Consequently, we now
distances from home base.               reporting of problems. A              need less operators to control
Adaptability and flexibility will       professional engineer therefore       and adjust the ships systems and
also provide many challenges to         has a much more expansive role        machinery, and as technology
an engineer, especially in unusual      than merely design, they are the      develops we could see an even
tasks that may arise at short           manager of a large and skilled        greater reduction in the number
notice. CAPT Paul Field in the          technical workforce to assess         of operators required to fight the
Feb 02 edition of the Engineering       reports properly and to assist        ship as a whole. In fact, it may be
                                                                               NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                   17




Technical Mentoring                                                                                              BY CMDR BRONKO OGRIZEK
                                                                                                                 FMEO

in the RAN
Situation
People are capability. In today’s Navy, job roles are changing at an ever-
increasing rate. The Navy needs to have the right people with the right
training, skills and experience to operate and maintain the platforms to
undertake complex military operations using sophisticated equipment.
Traditionally, technical sailors undertook their trade training - apprentice
and phase training – at HMAS NIRIMBA, with practical experience gained
through time and on-the-job training. Formal training programs provided
the core methodology of preparing a person for the workplace. This is
consistent with today’s Navy training system, where learning and
subsequent assessment is required at the workplace. However,
significant differences exist between assessment of competency and
achievement of mastery, mastery being considered the highest level of
competence. Under the current training system, sailors are being
assessed competent and are unable to achieve mastery through
circumstances outside their control; circumstances driven by minimum
manned vessels, contractor support programs, multi-skilling still required
for submarine technical sailors, and maintenance philosophies that limit
crews to Organisational Level Maintenance (OLM) only.
In many instances, sailors have       otherwise, requires mastery            accords of Government policy of
been unable to have their             through mentoring.                     closer industry relationships to
taskbooks signed until they                                                  develop shared career structures.
                                      Added to the learning/
achieve mastery. Competency           consolidation concerns                 Mentoring allows formal and
Based Training principally targets    mentioned, community and               spontaneous learning to occur in
the training required to perform      Defence concerns indicate that a       a semi-controlled manner, by
to a standard in the workplace.       major contributor to de-skilling       skills transfer from trained
The role of mastery and informal /    and low morale within the              experienced personnel to less
accidental learning in the            Defence workforce is the impact        experienced within a practical
workplace should not become a         of outsourcing support functions       working environment. It is
casualty of innovation – this, to     for Defence. A predominantly           proposed that mentoring, by
some extent, is a flaw in CBT.        large amount of interesting and        outplacement of personnel within
There will always be elements of      demanding technical work is            a Defence related industry, will
any job that require interpretation   contracted to industry, resulting in   increase an individual’s
and integration of knowledge and      a dissatisfied, involuntarily semi-    development, enhance their
skills. These are considered to be    skilled uniformed workforce.           competency standards within
‘intangible competencies’. The                                               their chosen profession, increase
current concept and operation of      Mentoring – The Concept                organisational capability, and
minimum manned platforms,             Mentoring is an initiative aimed       possibly increase retention
together with the resultant change    at providing practical and             prospects for skilled personnel.
in maintenance philosophies, has      meaningful work experience             Gaps in formal training can be
resulted in maintainers lacking       ashore, using commercial               overcome, where the learner has
mastery of intangible                 Defence contractors, whilst            the opportunity to ask questions,
competencies. It is considered        developing Defence staff skills,       receive advice, and work without
that the ability to integrate         and consequently enhancing             the constraints of a formal
competencies, tangible or             Defence capability within the          training environment.
18      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




The opportunity for Defence to        endorsement. DSCM will post         and industrial, legal and OH&S
tap into industry for skills and      nominated personnel to the STSC     issues would have to be identified
experience would not only             at HMAS STIRLING, to be             and resolved. Additionally,
complement the RAN’s capability       coordinated and managed during      balancing the cost of outsourcing
in developing and sustaining the      the outplacement. The benefits to   a person for up to six months
skills on fitted equipment, but       mentor, mentee and                  against loss of that person clearly
also give RAN personnel               organisations (Defence and          indicates that the outsourcing
meaningful employment ashore.         industry) could be profound,        and retention benefits outweigh
                                                                          the cost of salary and benefits for
It is proposed to outplace                                                that period. The ability to fix or

selected uniformed personnel                                              overcome a deficiency
                                                                          experienced at sea during an
into Defence-related service                                              operational deployment would far
                                                                          outweigh the measurable costs of
industry/organisations for                                                the program.

periods of two to six months,                                             Discussions with submarine

to work alongside contractors                                             support and commercial
                                                                          organisations indicate strong
to develop a range of skills                                              willingness to participate in and
                                                                          enhance this program. It is
consolidation.                                                            viewed as a ‘win-win’ for the
                                                                          companies, strengthening ties
Proposal                              breaking down the existing          between themselves and
                                      ‘contractor client’ paradigm,       Defence. Anecdotal evidence
It is proposed to outplace            enhancing Navy’s capability and     suggests that organisations do        About the Author Bronko Ogrizek was born
selected uniformed personnel          hopefully increasing personnel
                                                                          not view this as an internal          and educated in Sydney prior to joining the
into Defence-related service          and skills retention.                                                     Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1984. As a
                                                                          recruiting mechanism, but a
industry/organisations for periods                                                                              junior officer, he undertook training at
                                                                          venture to enhance ties within        various shore establishments and at sea in
of two to six months, to work         For the scheme to be successful,
alongside contractors to develop      it needs total support from top     Defence. The process is also seen     HMA Ship TORRENS, VAMPIRE, OVENS,
                                                                                                                relieving as the Marine Engineer Officer
a range of skills consolidation. It   management within Defence,          as an initiative to enhance the       (MEO) in HMAS OVENS in August 1986.
is recommended that personnel         Government and industry.            professional development of           CMDR OGRIZEK has served as Marine
                                                                          sailors, increase the capability of   Engineer Officer in HMA Ships OVENS
be identified for outplacement at     Industry would not only have to                                           (twice), OTWAY, HOBART, WALLER, and
the Leading Seaman and Petty          be willing participants, but the    the RAN, and assist in the            ADELAIDE. He has consequently served in
Officer level by analysis of          profile and environment of          retention of sailors by providing     positions ashore in Maintenance, Logistics
performance reports with FEG          selected companies would have       meaningful, challenging               and Training, and is currently the Fleet
                                                                                                                Marine Engineer Officer within AUSFLTCSG.
recommendation and                    to be conducive to mentoring,       employment ashore.
                                                                           NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                        19




                              From the Desk of
                              DTA Log (ENG) – Advanced
                              Technical Training for
                              ET & MT
BY CMDR STEVE BASLEY,         I have decided that for this issue of the Navy Engineering Bulletin I’ll
DEPUTY TRAINING AUTHORITY –   write about Advanced Technical Training. While Initial Category Training
LOGISTICS (ENGINEERING)       represents the foundation for our technical workforce, ATT, for a number
                              of reasons is equally important.
                              The aim of ATT is to develop our        courses are the same, the award     the training to HMAS Penguin,
                              competent, experienced trade-           of proficiency numbers results in   where TA LOG currently conducts
                              level sailors into senior               different competency sets being     a range of other courses.
                              technicians able to cope with the       loaded into PMKeys.                 Similarly to Leeuwin Barracks,
                              technical and professional                                                  HMAS Penguin is favoured due to
                              requirements of the next rank. I’m      Locations                           the military environment and the
                              sure that some of you who have                                              non-academic facilities which are
                              undertaken ATT in recent times          The LS and PO ATT courses are       available in a military
                              will be a bit cynical about the         currently delivered by Contract     establishment. It is currently
                              value and importance of ATT and         staff at the Navy Technical         anticipated that NTTU-E will
                              I’ll speak about some of the            Training Units East and West.       gradually relocate, with
                              problems with ATT a little further      These are located at the Email      completion expected by early
                              on. Firstly though, I will talk a bit   Training Centre and at Leeuwin      ’04.
                              about what is ATT, where it is          Barracks in Fremantle WA. NTTU-
                              delivered and what it achieves.         W relocated to Leeuwin Barracks     In addition to East and West, TA
                                                                      from the CCI Training Centre in     LOG has recently decided to
                              Courses                                 Kwinana WA. This happened for       conduct a number of LS and PO
                                                                      a number of reasons, but the        ATT courses in Cairns and Darwin.
                              There are currently five separate       main thrust of the move was to      It has become obvious from the
                              courses delivered to ET & MT            deliver the training at a well-     feedback provided by members
                              sailors. They are:                      equipped venue and in a             from these locations (particularly
                                                                      military environment which          those with dependants) that
                              • LSET ATT                              provides access to the sorts of     travelling interstate for training
                              101558, 20014               37 days     facilities (eg medical, sporting,   represents a considerable
                                                                      catering) that we enjoy as          inconvenience to families. Most
                              • LSMT ATT                              Defence Force members. It is not    ATT candidates from Northern
                              101557, 200015              59 days     known at his stage how long         Australia are posted from busy
                              200020                                  NTTU-W will remain at Leeuwin,      operational units and time ashore
                                                                      although I am hopeful that any      is obviously precious. The first ATT
                              • POMT ATT                              future move will be to a location   courses in NA will commence Feb
                              20013, 101581               24 days     which provides the same level of    ’04 and will be administered from
                              200021                                  support to both staff and           NTTU-W. We expect those courses
                                                                      trainees.                           to be well-subscribed so get your
                              • POET ATT                                                                  nominations in early!
                              101580                      14 days     The Email Training Centre (NTTU-
                                                                      East) is located at Waterloo NSW,   As most readers will be aware,
                              • CPOATT                                behind what used to be the          completion of competencies
                              101220                      30 days     Naval Stores Centre (Zetland).      associated with ATT leads to the
                                                                      This venue is currently scheduled   award of qualifications registered
                              Note: The different numbers relate      for demolition and plans are        under the Australian
                              to different streams. While the         currently underway to relocate      Qualifications Framework. These
20   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         qualifications are Certificate IV     sailors employed in jobs for which      may prefer to release a member
                         (Higher Engineering Trade) for        they have not received the correct      for one day per week for three
                         Leading Seaman and Diploma in         training. That we can sustain this      months during a major upgrade
                         Engineering for Petty Officer.        situation means that either the         period. Modules will be self-
                         Rather than being based only on       training doesn’t fit the job too        paced and learning will be
                         the formal underpinning               well or that some tasks are being       facilitated by mentors rather than
                         components of the ATT courses,        pushed up the line to those who         by class instructors. Experiences
                         these qualifications represent the    should spend more time                  with these sorts of options in the
                         cumulative training received and      managing rather than doing.             past have not been good but they
                         competencies awarded (including       Either way, I think that every effort   can be made to work. Their
                         ITT).                                 needs to be made to identify            success depends on careful
                                                               training opportunities so that the      management by both the training
                         CPOATT                                provisional backlog is reduced. TA      provider and the unit training
                                                               LOG staff are in the process of         coordinator. I expect it may take
                         The Chiefs’ ATT is conducted at       identifying all individuals who         some getting used to but in the
                         Engineering Faculty HMAS              carry provisional PPRs and, with        end it’s about providing access to
                         Cerberus. As any graduate of the      assistance from training                the training when it’s most
                         course will testify, this is a very   coordinators, getting those             convenient to the ship and to the
                         intense programme requiring           individuals trained.                    sailor.
                         regular late-night group sessions.
                         It is for this reason that the        Future of Advanced Technical            Conclusion
                         CPOATT has remained at                Training
                         Cerberus. The feedback received                                               Advanced Technical Training
                         from most courses is that the         A considerable amount of ITT/ATT        represents a huge commitment
                         workload is only achievable while     development work is currently           from sailors who undertake the
                         course members live in as a           taking place under the oversight        courses, from ships who release
                         group.                                of TA LOG and DNPR(E&L). One            them and from TA LOG who
                                                               likely outcome of the                   provides the resources. It’s fair to
                         The CPOATT course currently           development is that the POATT           say that the courses aren’t quite
                         leads to the qualification of         and LSATT will be combined. The         right yet. The competencies and
                         Diploma of Frontline                  effect of this will be to reduce        qualifications are appropriate,
                         Management. This qualification is     duplication and ease the burden         however the formal training part
                         now removed from the AQF              on units for releasing personnel.       doesn’t quite hit the mark. I hope
                         register. The AQF rules allow         This can be achieved without any        that in the future trainees
                         training providers 12 months to       reduction in the qualifications         complete ATT with a realisation
                         migrate to the new qualification      that are issued and without any         that the course has made them
                         and associated competencies.          reduction in the level of job           better able to perform their jobs
                         Early next year I expect that         performance our sailors achieve.        and has provided them with a
                         development will be complete                                                  valuable professional
                         and graduates will be awarded         The delivery methods of ATT also        qualification. Good Luck with your
                         the Diploma of Business               need some attention. The                ATT course!
                         (Frontline Management) on             requirement to remove sailors for
                         completion of CPOATT                  training during busy periods may        Points of Contact
                         competencies.                         be unsustainable. In the case of
                                                               some of the smaller platforms,          NTTU – East
                         Current Issues                        rigid crewing cycles may make           Mr Graeme Levy
                                                               access to the longer courses            ph: 02 9690 7519
                         The biggest challenge we face in      almost impossible.                      email:
                         regard to the development of our                                              Graeme.Levy@defence.gov.au
                         sailors through the ATT courses is    The answer has to be flexible
                         getting members released for          delivery of ATT and I expect this       NTTU – West
                         training prior to promotion. The      to commence very shortly for            LCDR Clare Payne
                         number of sailors being promoted      some modules. While there may           ph 08 9311 2440
                         provisionally is increasing,          always be a need for formal full-       email:
                         primarily due to the current          time courses, I envisage that ATT       Clare.Payne@defence.gov.au
                         operational tempo and shortages       in the future will be as flexible as
                         of trained personnel (particularly    it needs to be. For example, it
                         ETs) across all ranks.                may suit one unit to train sailors
                                                               in three two-week blocks
                         What this represents is a             separated by four-week
                         significant number of technical       operational periods. Another ship
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                          21




Professional Development –
It’s not just a piece of paper                                                                                        BY LSMT RACHEL SIMPSON
                                                                                                                      DNPR (E&L)


The Royal Australian Navy has joined forces with the Institution of Engineers Australia (now trading
as Engineers Australia) to enhance the development of the naval engineering team and assist
navy in growing competent independent practitioners of engineering with chartered status being
the brand of success and worldwide recognition.
Joining the Professional              Competencies and Chartered            from that offered to those whilst    It’s easy to get funding. Courses
Development Program is easy.          Status. The competencies are          on the professional development      and conferences relevant to the
The minimum requirement to            designed to be obtainable in the      program. All members who are         Engineers Australia program and
join Engineers Australia is an        day to day running of a technical     registered on the Navy/Engineers     Continuing Professional
Advanced Diploma in                   department or workshop and            Australia PDP have an the added      Development are funded to the
Engineering at AQF level 6 or         there is no problem in tackling       advantage of assistance from         value of $400/course or
equivalent. Naval personnel who       the elements of each competency       Engineers Australia Accredited       conference but if you need
currently hold or are studying        individually. During or after the     Assessors via CER writing            greater funds than advertised
                                      competency log progression the        workshops and the continuous
the Advanced Diploma, or                                                                                         here and can justify the excess
                                      member is required to submit a        assessment and feedback
Bachelor of Engineering or                                                                                       the sponsor may approve the
                                      career episode report. The reports    mechanism provided when
Bachelor of Technology are                                                                                       extra expenditure. Send an email
                                      are submitted in a continuous         submitting CERs. The workshops
eligible to join.                     fashion (addressing elements of                                            or minute detailing the costs and
                                                                            are designed to assist               the value to justify extra funding if
                                      competency as they have been          participants on the program in
If the applicant is studying for      achieved), that way it’s not a                                             required. The nomination forms
their formal undergraduate                                                  writing their reports in their       should be filled out as much as
                                      huge drain on personal time and       locality. To organise a workshop
qualification they can be enrolled    can be completed in small parts                                            possible by you (your details and
as a student member of                                                      you just need a small group
                                      rather than it being a huge report                                         conference/course required) then
                                                                            maximum fifteen individuals to
Engineers Australia. Once the         to write and submit all at once.                                           faxed to DNPR(E&L). A SA405 is
                                                                            get together and to invite an
individual has achieved their         Completion of your comptency                                               filled out and the expenditure is
                                                                            Engineers Australia Accredited
qualification, they need only         logs ensure that you receive your                                          approved/not approved. You are
                                                                            Assessor to deliver the workshop
forward a certified true copy of      educational qualification (your                                            notified immediately if not
                                                                            at your unit.
their certificate of achievement to   piece of paper), attaining                                                 approved. The nomination form is
DNPR(E&L) who will forward the        Chartered Status ensures that                                              then faxed to the institution with
                                                                            To maximise your professional
application to Engineers Australia    you are recognised as a                                                    the payment from us and you are
                                                                            development it is really important
to upgrade the member to              competent practitioner of                                                  also sent a courtesy copy to
                                      engineering (be more do more).        that all participants acquire a
graduate status.                                                            suitable mentor. The matter of       confirm payment and nomination.
                                                                            establishing a mentor may not be     Allow at least a weeks notice
The Navy pays all associated          One senior sailor who has just
                                                                            easy but is essential for guidance   before a conference or course to
costs for program participants        completed and submitted his
                                                                            and assistance in the preparation    allow for potential unavailability
                                      entire Engineering Practice Report
and in return requires the sailors                                          of reports describing career         of the finance gurus.
                                      (the compilation of Career
involved to progress the                                                    experience and claimed
                                      Episode Reports) and has
competencies to charted status                                              competencies. A Mentor can be        Further information and a
                                      successfully completed a
and participate in a minimum of       Professional Interview to achieved    considered in the context of the     joining pack can be obtained
150 weighted hours of Continuing      Charted Status is WOMT Hazell.        total Navy career ie as a Naval      from LS Rachel Simpson at
Professional Development over         Congratulations to WO Hazell          Officer and a Professional           CP4-7-132, Campbell Park
three years. Continuing               OMIEAust CEngO. WO Hazell’s           Engineer. The importance of          Offices, ACT 2600, Fax 02 6266
Professional Development is the       efforts are even more outstanding     obtaining professional advice        2388,
key to keeping you up to date         when you consider he has              from someone who has a wealth
and current in your field of          completed the assessment              of engineering experience cannot     Phone 02 6266 4071 or e-mail
expertise.                            process with very little assistance   be over emphasised.                  rachel.simpson@defence.gov.au
22      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




Navy Warrant Officer gains
worldwide engineering recognition
Warrant Officer Stephen Hazell, currently based at Garden Island Perth, is the first member of the
Royal Australian Navy to achieve Chartered Engineering Officer (CengO) status under the RAN
February 2002 agreement with Engineers Australia – giving external national and international
recognition to relevant experience and qualifications gained in the navy.

The RAN has joined forces with        maintenance is to be done by              to day maintenance and                      Electrical Fitter/Mechanic;
the Institute of Engineers            competent personnel. This                 operation of the engineering                Diploma of Engineering in
Australia (now trading as             program bases the measurement             plant. This includes the main               Electrical Systems; Managing
Engineers Australia) to enhance       of competence against the                 propulsion Gas turbines,                    Health & Safety in the workplace
the development of the Naval          IEAUST competency standards, so           electronic control systems, power           OH & S; Diploma of Front Line
engineering team and assist Navy      for Navy to do its job, we need           transmission, high power                    management; Singer TSD
in promoting competent                officers and technicians who have         distribution systems and auxiliary          mainframe course; Helicopter
independent practitioners of          been assessed against these               systems in different                        Under Water Escape Training and
engineering.                          standards” said the Commodore.            configurations.                             Marine Technical Charge
                                                                                                                            Certificate.
WO Hazell has gained this highly      Steve submitted his entire                Furthermore, WO Hazell guides
regarded ranking after 22 years       Engineering Practice Report (the          and supervises technical sailors            For further information please
experience of Naval training. He      compilation of Career Episode             in the identification and                   contact Annie Casey, Navy
was assisted in this process by       Reports) and successfully                 rectification of complex faults at          Personnel & Training, Public
the Professional Development          completed a Professional                  a system or inter system level.             Affairs Officer (02) 9359 6286 or
Program administered by the           Interview by Engineers Australia                                                      0411 440 583
                                                                                Steve is a senior Marine Technical
Directorate of Navy Professional      to achieve the Chartered status.
                                                                                Electrical sailor who has fulfilled
Requirements (Engineering &
                                      As the Senior Marine Technician           a range of functions and roles in
Logistics) DNPR (E&L) within
                                      onboard an FFG Steve is required          the Navy while simultaneously
Naval Systems Command.
                                      to be a Marine engineering                acquiring various qualifications.
Hazell said “By achieving             specialist responsible for the day        These include: Trade certificate,
Chartered status it’s recognisable
proof that when measured
against civilian benchmarking, we
are at least as good as
engineering practitioners in the
outside industry. In turn, that
boosts self-esteem and pride in
what we do on a day to day basis
in our jobs.”
CDRE Barter, Chief Naval
Engineer, presented Steve with a
certificate marking the
achievement, he remarked “I
would like to thank WO Hazell for
setting this example. I think it’s
tremendous that a WO is the first
person to achieve formal
recognition because I hope it will
embarrass a few engineering
officers to get off their butts
including myself.”
“One of the four core principles of
the Technical Regulatory System       WARRANT OFFICER HAZELL BEING PRESENTED WITH HIS CHARTER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CANBERRA DIVISION OF ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA,
                                      MR MIKE EVANS FIEAUST CPENG, WATCHED BY THE CHIEF NAVAL ENGINEER, COMMODORE TIM BARTER, AND THE CEO OF ENGINEERS
is that design, construction and      AUSTRALIA, MR JOHN BOSHIER FIEAUST CPENG.
                                                                                    NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   23




Introduction to Report by
POMT Melody
Merchant Ship Secondment
– MV Iron Chieftain
A number of years ago as a LEUT engineer working at the Amphibious
and Afloat Support Systems Program Office, I was given the opportunity
to spend several weeks on secondment to a BHP operated merchant
ship. I found it a very worthwhile experience in that it allowed me to
observe some different ways of operating and maintaining a ship in a
minimum manned environment. After that attachment I wrote a report
about my experiences which was forwarded to the then category sponsor
DEP-N. I also presented a shortened version to the MEAG in 2000. Since
that time I have also arranged similar secondments for two other ME
officers.
Now I find myself as the MEO of      (and hopefully others later) the         b. encourage him to consider
HMAS TOBRUK, a ship that has         same opportunity I had to be                how we in the HMAS TOBRUK
much in common with the type of      exposed to other ways of doing              might apply certain aspects of
main and cargo machinery found       business.                                   merchant practice to improve
on a MV. As I write this                                                         our performance and
                                     When I selected POMT Melody for
introduction, the RAN ME                                                         efficiency in maintenance and
                                     the secondment, the purpose was
community is about to implement                                                  operation of plant.
                                     to:
some revised watch keeping
                                                                              PO Melody’s report follows which I
qualifications and routines that     a. provide him with a unique
                                                                              hope you will agree provides
aim to release more manpower            opportunity to further develop
                                                                              some tangible evidence of the
resources for maintenance by            his own professional and
                                                                              benefits that can be gained by the
better utilising existing C&M           technical competence in
                                                                              RAN by continuing this program.
technology on our ships. As a           Marine Engineering by
preliminary to this, I could see        observing and participating in        R.A. ARTHUR
some benefits being gained by           some different ways of doing          LCDR, RAN
giving one of my senior sailors         business, and                         EO HMAS TOBRUK


             MERCHANT SHIP SECONDMENT REPORT
            – MV IRON CHIEFTAIN 22MAR – 31MAR03
Sir,                                 I worked mainly with the                 greater knowledge on engineering
                                     engineering crew onboard both            practices and look forwarded to
It gives me great pleasure to
                                     observing and contributing in            implementing them in the way I
submit this report on completion
of 10 days onboard MV Iron           ships evolutions and onboard             do business on board TOBRUK.
Chieftain. The 10 days involved      maintenance. I found the whole
                                                                              The Vessel:
the ship loading iron ore in         crew to be very accommodating
Whyalla sailing to Sydney for        with little to no effort in fitting in   The Iron Chieftain has a
bunkering (refueling) down to Port   with them and the ships routine. I       displacement of 62,757-tonne, it
Kembla for discharge of the iron     thoroughly enjoyed the trip and          is a self-discharging built carrier,
ore, once discharged, load coal to   recommend it to anyone within            with five cargo holds and
sail back to Whyalla to discharge    the technical branch onboard. I          conveyor belt discharge
the coal and reload iron ore.        believe I have come away with a          machinery.
24   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         The hold discharge equipment on        commence F/U at 4 HNFS and            The 1st Eng mainly looks after
                         board is unique to the Iron            follows a set F/U routine IAW         the main propulsion and it’s
                         Chieftain.                             their flash up orders (4 HRS          systems, but also coordinates
                                                                down to underway) The main            work for the 2nd, 3rd Eng and an
                         The main propulsion unit is a
                                                                differences is that the ship uses     IR that is assigned to the engine-
                         Hyundai MAN B&W, five cylinder,
                                                                HFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) so the FO        room on a weekly basis to
                         two stroke, single acting,
                                                                temperature must be maintained        conduct minor jobs like cleaning
                         crosshead, direct reversible,
                                                                at approx 117 – 135 degC              and greasing.
                         exhaust turbocharged type marine
                                                                depending on the viscosity of the
                         diesel engine, model – 5S60MC.                                               The 2nd Eng is mainly
                                                                HFO. This is achieved by using
                                                                                                      responsible for the generators
                         Output 11, 530 BHP                     steam from an onboard 7 bar
                                                                                                      and electrical supplies
                                8, 478 KW at 101 rpm.           operating pressure boiler. The
                                                                steam is also used as warm thru       And the 3rd Eng is responsible
                         Organisation crew structure in                                               for the aux including, purifiers, air
                                                                for the main engine and D/A’s.
                         order of ranking + their                                                     compressors and boilers.
                                                                Warm thru will commence at the
                         subordinates:
                                                                4 HNFS mark.
                                                                                                      The Chief Eng’s job mainly
                         Master - First Mate – Second                                                 concentrates around admin type
                                                                The other differences include only
                         mate – Third mate                                                            jobs however depending on the
                                                                one-person conducts the F/U and
                         Chief Engineer – First Engineer –      S/D, usually the duty Eng officer     CE borne they also involve
                         Second Engineer - Third Engineer       that also includes him to be          themselves with a lot of the day
                                                                down the engine-room during           to day maintenance and or defect
                         Chief Steward – Chief Cook –                                                 repairs as the other three
                                                                standby (SSD) whilst the Chief
                         Catering Assistance                                                          engineers are pretty much flat out
                                                                Eng is on the bridge were the
                         Chief Integrated Rating –              engine is controlled by.              each day with their own area of
                         Integrated Ratings                                                           responsibilities.
                                                                During S/D the ship has a shut
                         I observed the following aspects       down procedure document that is       Utilisation, engagement and
                         whilst onboard.                        followed, as TOBRUK does not          control of maintenance
                                                                with EOOW going off experience        contractors onboard:
                         Operation of main and auxiliary
                                                                for each S/D.                         Contractors are used but not to
                         plant under UMS regime:
                                                                Conduct of “standbys” on a            the extent and as often as we in
                         Operations of the onboard                                                    the NAVY use them. As mentioned
                                                                minimum manned ship (SSD):
                         machinery using the UMS regime                                               above, the engineers carry out
                         basically are set and forget. There    Standby’s is the terminology used     most of the work onboard.
                         are a number of alarm panels           which is equivalent to our Special    However, at times when the
                         through out the ship that              Sea Duty man (SSD). This state is     workload exceeds the already
                         indicates which engineer is on         closed up during maneuvering          heavy schedules of the four
                         duty for that day and that an          alongside or proceeding from a        engineers they then utilize
                         alarm has activated. The duty          berth or anchorage.                   preferred contractors both in Port
                         engineer then must attend the                                                Kembla/Sydney and Whyalla. This
                                                                This procedure consists of the
                         control room to further investigate                                          is arranged by the CE in the form
                                                                Master, Chief Eng and duty IR + a
                         the cause of the alarm with help                                             of a work requisition, which is
                                                                cadet (if borne) on the bridge, the
                         from the machinery monitoring                                                signed for approval by the Master
                                                                duty Eng Officer in the engine-
                         display panels.                                                              and then faxed off to the
                                                                room. On the deck you have the
                         A fire alarm panel situated on the     3rd Mate, Chief IR with two IR’s      company. E-mail is also used with
                         bridge detects heat and smoke in       FWD and the 2nd Mate with three       correspondence with some
                         zones around the ship. If an alarm     IR’s AFT. All other IR’s and cadets   contractors.
                         is activated in the machinery          spread out between FWD and AFT        In some cases for specialised
                         space a pipe is made and an            on the deck as spare hands.           equipment an OEM maybe
                         investigation of the zone will take                                          contracted to conduct some
                                                                Management of maintenance
                         place. If after 50 sec the alarm has                                         maintenance.
                                                                workload with only four
                         not been isolated at the zone the
                                                                engineers borne:                      Features of the computerised
                         CO2 and or dry chemical powder
                                                                                                      planned maintenance system
                         drench system will activate.           The four engineers borne carry
                                                                                                      used and how maintenance is
                                                                out most if not all of the
                         Flash up and shut down of main                                               managed:
                                                                maintenance including planned,
                         and Aux machinery:
                                                                preventive and breakdown              A Microplan Database is the
                         Flash up and shut down routines        maintenance, this also involves       computerised planned
                         are similar to TOBRUK’S routine.       major overhauls and equipment         maintenance system used. The
                         The duty Eng officer will              refurbishment.                        CE will print out all PM’s due on a
                                                                                      NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   25




monthly basis and the 1st Eng         cargo discharge equipment so as            k. Organisation
will coordinate the PM’s with the     to have it in good working order           l. Quality, Safety &
2nd and 3rd Eng’s. Once the           for when they get to the next port.           Environment Protection
engineers have completed a task                                                     Management
                                      Features and operation of the
they will return the PM schedule                                                 m. Pollution Prevention
                                      quality management systems
to the CE who will then complete                                                 n. Ship Safety
                                      (SOPS) under the: International
it on the database adding any                                                    o. Personnel
                                      Ship Management code:
comments about the tasks and                                                     p. Regulations and Laws
any stores used. The CE also has      All BHP/TEEKAY shipping must               q. Purchasing and Sub
the rights within the database to     follow the strict international rules         Contracting
make changes to the schedules if      and regulations set by the
                                                                                 r. Administration
he believes more information is       Australian Maritime Shipping
required, stores update if required                                              s. Documentation
                                      Authority (AMSA). All crew
or any other information that may                                                t. Safety and Quality Audits
                                      members must make themselves
help the maintainer the next time                                                   (Shore and Ship)
                                      aware of these strict guidelines
the job is due.                                                                  u. Acquisition of Ships, and
                                      and adhered to them at all times.
                                                                                 v. Emergency/Contingency
The features of this system           The ship has several sets of                  Planning.
includes:                             manuals outlying these
   a.   Call up of all PM’s due       procedures and guidelines that          Features of safety system and
        on a monthly basis            are easily accessible by all            conduct of drills:
   b.   Ordering of spares            crewmembers.                            The ship has a Safety committee
   c.   Update of running hours                                               meeting onboard that sits on a
                                      The manuals held on board are
   d.   Document change                                                       monthly basis. The ships crew
                                      as followed:
        requirement, and                                                      performs a Safety Audit Work
   e.   AD-HOC tasking (Defect        Vessels Operational Management          Around each month with defects
        log)                          Manual                  (VOMM)          found rectified straight away. Any
A PM print out sheet consist of                                               major defects found which cannot
                                      Common Vessel Procedure
the following information:                                                    be rectified straight away are
                                      Manual            (VOMM-CVP)
                                                                              noted and are up for discussion
   a.   Maintenance task              Occupational Health & Safety            during the next Safety Committee
   b.   History Summary               Training Manual         (OH&S)          meeting.
   c.   Full Details of Equipment
   d.   Instructions                  Incident Management Plan- Ship          The safety committee team
   e.   Spares, and                   born Emerg Man       (IMP-SEM)          comprises of the following:
   f.   Condition Report
                                      Iron Chieftain Operational                 Master
Influence of the classification       Procedure Manual        (CHI-OPS)          3rd Mate
society on the ships                                                             3rd Engineer, and
                                      Iron Chieftain Work instructions           Integrated Rating
maintenance and operation
                                                                 (CHI-WI)
As the prime function of the ship                                             The scope of the team discuss
                                      These form part of the hierarchy        matters such as:
is to satisfy its customers by
                                      of manuals that make up the
importing and exporting cargo
                                      Quality, Safety & Environment              a.     Critique of last safety
from one place to the other, if any
                                      Protection Management (QASEP)                     committee meeting
down time occurs due to some
                                      Management System.                         b.     Any Priority matters
sort of malfunction or breakdown
                                                                                 c.     Non conforming Incidents
of the ship or it’s cargo discharge   The features of these manuals                     with a review of
equipment means loss of               cover topics such as:                             corrective actions
earnings for both the supplier
                                         a.   Navigation                         d.     Reports raised since last
and customer, which could run
                                         b.   Cargo Operations                          meeting
into the thousands of dollars in
                                         c.   Additional Cargo                   e.     Review of overall
earnings lost. The engineer’s
                                              Requirements                              shipboard safety
priority is to maintain the ship
                                                                                 f.     Review of enhanced
and it’s equipment to a high             d.   Deck operations
                                                                                        safety training drills/
standard. Their time alongside is        e.   Engine Room Operations
                                                                                        statutory drills/direction
taken up with carrying out of            f.   Maintenance                               of future drills
preventive maintenance to the            g.   Additional Maintenance             g.     Review of worksite
main and aux machinery; this is               requirements                              inspections
also carried out at sea.                 h.   Oil/Chemical Transfer              h.     New health and safety
Whilst at sea they then can              i.   Waste Management.                         matters, and
conduct maintenance on the               j.   Safety of Personnel                i.     Action plan
26   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         Training for the ships crew is run      Availability of complete              cargo, he is also responsible for
                         periodically however not as often       maintenance history/records           the trim and stability of the ship
                         as we are used to in the RAN.           and other documentation such          at all times.
                         Below is a list of the drills carried   as technical manuals/
                                                                                                       Before and after loading or
                         out and there periodic:                 drawings:
                                                                                                       discharging of cargo the 1st Mate
                         DRILL                                   All maintenance history and           will present the Master with a
                                                                 records are managed within the        load/unload plan including
                         Boat Drill           Monthly                                                  measures to ballast the ship as
                                                                 ships computerised PM database
                         Fire Drill           Monthly            and are all readily available on      cargo is moved around, approx
                         Emerg. Steering                         request from the CE.                  load times and amount of cargo
                         Drill                Three monthly                                            embarked.
                                                                 All technical manuals and
                         Life raft Drill      Six Monthly        drawings are also readily             If a problem arises during loading
                         Enhanced safety                         available from the ships office       or unloading the 1st Mate is to
                         Drill                Monthly –          and the CE’s office with a master     be contacted immediately.
                                              Different topic    copy kept by the CE in his cabin.     The 1st Mate uses Mariner 1993
                                              each month         Features of the qualifications        version B3.40 computerised
                         Rocket Drill         Six Monthly,       and statutory training regime for     management tool to help manage
                         and                                     the engineers in merchant ships:      the trim and stability of the ship.
                         Damage Control                          Chief Engineer has an Advanced        Bridge operations in a minimum
                         Drill                Six Monthly        Diploma in Marine Engineering –       manned ships and any special
                                                                 Unlimited                             features observed:
                         Management by the engineers
                         of their machinery spares and           1st Engineer has an Advanced          At sea the bridge operates during
                         how they obtain these and               Diploma in Marine Engineering –       the day with one OOW only.
                         consumables:                            Unlimited                             During the night it consists of one
                         The CE controls his own budget          2nd Engineer has a Diploma in         OOW and the Duty IR as lookout.
                         for the ordering of all spares,         Marine Engineering – Unlimited        The OOW’s are in a three-watch
                         consumables and contractor
                                                                 3rd Engineer has a Diploma in         system four on eight off the same
                         work.
                                                                 Watch keeping - Unlimited             as we use in the RAN. The three
                         Stores are orded via a work                                                   watches are broken up between
                         requisition that is approved by         Role of deck officer in conduct       the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Mate.
                         the Master                              of all cargo operations and
                                                                                                       PETER J MELODY
                                                                 management of ships stability:
                         The Chief IR and Chief Steward                                                Petty Officer Marine Technician
                         are responsible for their own           The 1st Mate is responsible for all   HMAS TOBRUK
                         ordering for the areas.                 embarkation and discharging of        2003
                                                                           NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                           27




                                        .
                                  POMT P J. MELODY: DAILY DIARY WHILST ONBOARD
                                     MV IRON CHIEFTAIN 22 Mar – 31 Mar 03.
SAT 22 Mar Day 1:                                                               Assisted in conducting monthly safety work around which
                                                                                included checking operation of upper deck lighting,
Alongside Whyalla
                                                                                ventilation flaps and buffers, life rings, lifeboats and
         Arrived Whyalla and joined ship alongside iron ore wharf. Met          emergency D/A etc.
         Master (Captain), Chief Engineer and other engineering crew.           Conducted Standby’s on the bridge for entering Sydney
         Received safety induction forms and video with a quick                 Harbor to anchor for Bunkering (re-fueling).
         rundown of ships routines.                                             Observed Bunkering – setup, checks prior, during and post
         Met the rest of the crew 19 all up including myself.                   bunkering including soundings.
                                                                                Compile report.
SUN 23 Mar Day 2:                                                               Conducted Standby’s on bridge for leaving Sydney Harbor.
Alongside Whyalla/At Sea
                                                                         FRI 28 Mar Day 7:
         Attended morning meeting on the bridge (1stEng, 1stMate
         and Chief IR) for discussion of daily work to be carried out.   At Anchor Port Kembla
         Conducted Induction work around with 1st Eng.
                                                                                Attended morning meeting on bridge.
         Observed flash up of ME and Aux’s with duty Eng (3rd Eng).
         At 4 HNFS.                                                             Industrial action ashore has prevented the ship going
         Observed Standbys (SSD) in Engine room prior to sailing and            alongside for discharge.
         underway.                                                              Assisted 1st Eng in removal and repair of leaking valve and
                                                                                flange to evaporator.
                                                                                Compiled report.
MON 24 Mar Day 3:
At Sea
                                                                         SAT 29 Mar Day 8:
         Attended morning meeting on bridge.
                                                                         At Anchor Port Kembla
         Watched Induction video.
         Assisted 2nd Eng with D/A crankcase deflections.                       Attended morning meeting on bridge.
         Observed 3monthly emergency steering drill.                            Industrial action continues ashore.
         Observed/interacted with Fire drill involving casualty search          Assisted Chief Eng in replacing wiring run found to have
         and evacuation.                                                        dead short to earth for the cargo boom slew motor.
         Compiled report.                                                       Assisted 1st Eng with tightening main engine head bolts to
                                                                                stop oil leak.
TUES 25 Mar Day 4:                                                              Assisted 1st Eng in checking and cleaning of shaft bonding
At Sea                                                                          point.
                                                                                Assisted 3rd Eng in re-assembling of fuel oil purifier.
         Attended morning meeting on bridge.                                    Compiled report.
         Compile report.
         Assisted Chief Eng to install new speed generator to cargo
         boom motor.
                                                                         SUN 30 Mar Day 9:
         Familiarised myself with engine room layout and machinery.      At Anchor Port Kembla/Alongside Port Kembla
                                                                                Attended morning meeting on bridge.
WED 26 Mar Day 5:
                                                                                Industrial actions ashore over however still no berth available
At Sea                                                                          as yet. Aprox 1730 A/S Port Kembla.
                                                                                Helped identify stores in engine room.
         Attended morning meeting on bridge.
         Assisted Chief Eng in identifying and rectifying surging               1st Eng explained onboard stores system.
         problem with main cargo boom motor.                                    Carried out set of machinery rounds with 1st Eng.
         Compile report.                                                        Compiled report.
         Assisted 1st Eng in tracing and identifying earth on cargo
         boom slew motor.                                                MON 31 Mar Day 10:
                                                                         Alongside Port Kembla
THURS 27 Mar Day 6:
                                                                                Attended morning meeting on bridge.
At Sea/Anchor Sydney Harbor
                                                                                Completed report
         Attended morning meeting on bridge.                                    Paid off from ship.
28        NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




BY CAPTAIN ANDREW CAWLEY,
COMMANDING OFFICER,
                                               A Risk—Is It Really?
HMAS CRESWELL
                                               Over the last few years, the culture of carefully considering risk in our
                                               decision making has taken hold. People are well attuned to querying
                                               what risks are associated with an evolution and it is commonplace for
                                               people to do an “HRA”. But, is it really a risk or is it something else?

                                               The process of an Hazard Risk           behaviour, but we cannot simply         In short, Wynne has usefully
About the author: Andrew Cawley joined
the RAN in 1982, undertaking general           Assessment is well documented           extend that claim to say we know        distinguished a taxonomy:
Junior Officer training as a Sub-Lieutenant    in the NAVSAFE Manual, ABR              about the probability distribution
in HMAS VAMPIRE from October. In August                                                                                      • Risk—where you know the
                                               6303. Risk is calculated                of various events occurring. There
1983, he joined HMAS PERTH as a                                                                                                probability distribution
Systems Engineer Officer. Promoted to          according to the Australian             must be specific, objective
Lieutenant in April 1984, he posted to         Standard, AS4360. Most people           knowledge about event                 • Uncertainty—where you do not
HMAS CERBERUS for Weapons Engineer                                                                                             know the probability distribution
                                               can tell you that you calculate         probability. If we do not know
specialist training in late 1984. He
returned to sea in HMAS HOBART in early        risk as the product of                  about the probability distribution
                                                                                                                             • Unknown; and
1985 and later HMAS BRISBANE as a              consequence and probability. The        of events, we are not able to
Systems Engineer Officer.
Captain Cawley joined the Navy Office          issue I’d like to raise in this brief   assign a mathematical value to        • Unknowable.
Directorate of Fleet Engineering Policy at     article is, what do you really know     probability and we therefore
the end of 1985 as the Systems Engineer
                                                                                                                               So, what is the point of this. Next
                                               about the probability of an event       cannot calculate risk. This is
for non-USN weapons systems.                                                                                                   time someone says ‘the
Moving to Perth in early 1989, he joined       occurring?                              uncertainty.
                                                                                                                               probability of that occurring is
the small team building up commercial
refitting practices for Navy in Western        Many times I have heard people          But it does not end there, Wynne        very low’, test them about what
Australia. He joined HMAS STUART as            say ‘the probability of that            takes the issue two steps further.      they really know about the
Weapons Electrical Engineering Officer                                                                                         probability distribution. If they are
                                               occurring is very low’. That sort of    People can generally accept they
(WEEO) in October 1989 and was
promoted Lieutenant Commander in mid           an answer is either a fact or a         do not understand something             just guessing, then tell them it is
1990. When STUART decommissioned               guess, and too often it is a guess.     about a system that lies before         not risk, it is uncertainty! While
from the RAN in May 1991, he returned to                                                                                       that might be a play on words,
Navy Office in Canberra as the Staff Officer   How many people do you think            them because they do not have
for Engineer Officer career management in      say that because they have a ‘gut       the expertise to work something         what is important is you know the
the Directorate of Naval Officers’ Postings.
                                               feeling’ it does not happen very        out. But regardless of whether you      difference between guesswork
In June 1993, Captain Cawley returned to                                                                                       and science and base you
sea as WEEO of HMAS PERTH, which               often, or because they                  are an expert or a novice, there is
included the milestone of passing                                                      always the unknown. What                decisions accordingly.
                                               themselves have never witnessed
management of high power generation and                                                decision makers need to
distribution in Navy to the Marine Engineer    such an event? How many times
in August 1994. Selected for promotion in      have you heard people offer such        remember is there may be events         1 Taxonomy:- Classification, especially in
December 1994, he left HMAS PERTH to           a judgement about something             (probability) or hazards                relation to its general laws and principles, a
undertake a five month project with Naval                                                                                      systematic classification.
Support Command to establish                   they actually have no expertise         (consequences) we simply do not
                                                                                                                               2 Meaning in the broadest sense of the
engineering support models and processes       in?                                     know about. The issue for               word system, not simply electro-mechanical
in preparation for the full                                                            decision-makers is to be careful        devices.
commercialisation of Australian Defence        In 1992, Brian Wynne, a UK
Industries (ADI) and the dockyards. In May
                                                                                       of ignorance, be careful of people
                                                                                                                               References:
1995, Captain Cawley then posted as OIC        academic working in the field of        who say they have worked it all         Wynne, B., 1992. Uncertainty and
of the Navy’s Technical Training Centre at     environmental risk, developed           out and the (∑) risk is known           environmental learning: reconceiving
HMAS CERBERUS. Seconded to the Joint           what he called his Taxonomy1 of                                                 science and policy in the preventative
Education and Training Executive in May                                                and acceptable.
                                                                                                                               paradigm, Global Environmental Change
1997, Captain Cawley undertook the             Risk. The first level is where we
                                                                                       The next level in Wynne’s               2(2), 111-127.
Defence Efficiency Review related study        know about the behaviour of a                                                   Irish, J., 1998. Risk, Uncertainty, Ignorance
into ADF Technical Training Rationalisation.
                                               system2 and we can model the            taxonomy is the unknowable.             and Indeterminancy, University of
The Report was tendered in February
                                               probability of something                Given time and effort, we may           Technology, Sydney.
1998.
Before joining Maritime Command in June        happening. That is to say we can        discover new information about a
1999, Captain Cawley completed a                                                       system and convert the unknown
Masters of Engineering Management,             determine a mathematical
specialising in Systems Engineering, at the    probability, 0.0 < p < 1.0. If we       into the known. In the context of
University of Technology, Sydney.              know about consequence, then            risk management, the ‘known’ will
On 01 July 2000, Captain Cawley was                                                    become a calculable risk if we
promoted to his current rank. He was           we can calculate risk and use this
posted to HMAS CRESWELL in October             to guide our decision making.           understand its probability
2000 where he takes up his dual role as                                                distribution (and consequence) or
Commanding Officer, HMAS CRESWELL              If we possess specification about       it will become uncertainty.
and Training Authority, Initial Training
Leadership and Management. Captain             system design (variables) and           However, when ‘causal chains and
Cawley is married to Anna Glynne and lives     operation, we can claim we know         networks are open’, there is
at HMAS CRESWELL in Jervis Bay.                something about system                  always the unknowable.
                                                             NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003      29




MOTU-ME                                                                             LCDR BELINDA THOMSON RAN


(Mobile Operational Technical Unit – Marine
Engineering)

Who are we and where do we live?
As OIC MOTU-ME I am
responsible for four areas, those
being Fleet Condition Assessment
Unit (FCAU), Fleet Diesel
Inspectors (FDI), Fleet
Pneumatics Specialists (FPS) and
FFG PCS Trainer. I am located in
Building 9, GI, Sydney (near the
houses on the end of the island)
with FCAU and two FDIs. FPS live
in Building 67, GI, Sydney (next
door to the Credit Union) and the
FFG PCS Trainer is located in
Building 79, GI, Sydney (aft of
FIMA Sydney). We also have two
new additions to the organization,
that being two FDIs in West
Australia located in Building 73
co-located with FIMA Perth. In all
there are 21 billets, 17 are filled
today with the aim of all positions
filled by November 2003.
MOTU-ME is directly responsible
to FMEO and then CSO(E) within
the CSG. Our customers are the
ships and SPOs. During the past
six months the organization has
attempted to increase its profile
within the RAN by attending
meetings, taking on work within
maintenance work packages and
offering technical advice on any
URDEFs or correspondence
relevant to our duty statements.
The whole organization is also on
standby for Sea Training Group at
all times, and has been utilized
for this purpose often during the
past year.                            MAP OF GARDEN ISLAND
30   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         So what do we actually do and
                         what can we do for you?
                         Fleet Condition Assessment Unit
                         comprises of three sections, one being
                         Non-destructive testing, a position that
                         has not been filled for the past 12
                         months. The other sections are Vibration
                         Analysis (VA) and the Oil Cell. The Oil
                         Cell manages the Ships Oil Analysis
                         Program (SOAP) which at present
                         maintains a database of results,
                         distributes all results from the oil testing
                         labs to ships, as well as sending SOAP
                         alert signals when warranted. The VA
                         cell at present maintains a database to
                         hold all past results and manages any
                         software and hardware problems.
                                                                        PO LIM WITH KITTIWAKE OIL TEST KIT

                         Fleet Pneumatics is currently
                         developing its responsibilities, phasing
                         out the past tasks relating to the Fleet
                         Boiler Inspector. The pneumatics cell
                         maintains the pneumatics systems and
                         controllers on FFGs, instructs a course
                         on FFG Pneumatics systems (next one
                         to be conducted late October 2003),
                         but is mainly concentrating on
                         expanding their responsibilities to all
                         platforms. They have recently assisted
                         HMAS Tobruk, Stuart, Melbourne,
                         Canberra and Darwin with pneumatics
                         systems, taking on tasks for their FAMPs
                         as well. This section has also
                         commenced testing gauges in situ and
                         conducted tasks while sea riding, for
                         the FFG Upgrade.                               FLEET PNEUMATICS LAB – CPO JOHNSON AND LS BAYLIFF



                         Fleet Diesel Inspectors have been
                         developing their programs during the
                         past three years, but have recently
                         expanded the platforms they assist to
                         include all auxiliaries, FFGs and
                         submarines (by the FDIs in WA). While
                         inspection programs are underway, the
                         FDIs are also available as subject
                         matter experts on all diesels in the
                         RAN, and they assist with URDEFs,
                         troubleshooting and provide advice
                         relating to diesels. They conduct
                         deployment condition grooms and are
                         currently developing an ABR on trouble
                         shooting diesel defects, and information
                         to be used in conjunction with the OEM
                         technical manuals.                             FDIS INSPECTING A BEARING – CPO PARROTT AND CPO KEENAN
                                                                                     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   31




FFG Propulsion Control System
(PCS) Trainer plans and
manages the training of FFG
marine engineering sailors and
officers in regards to the
propulsion control system.
Courses conducted at the Trainer
include the CCS Operators
course, CCS Maintenance Course,
Engineering Systems
Management Course and
Engineering Control Systems
Management Course. The school        FFG PCS TRAINER – INSTRUCTOR (PO MARKS) IN SIMULATOR
has the use of a 20H7A device
simulator, which contains a
computer software interface and
ship fitted consoles. Staff are
also available for conducting
Engineering Mobile Team Training
(EMTT), administering Marine
Engineering LOE’s, conducting
Ship’s Operational Refresher
Training and Sea Training Group
commitments. Staff also aid
ships with PCS defect
investigation by replicating
symptoms in the device and
utilising staff SME knowledge.       CCS MAINTENANCE COURSE

Attached to the FFG Trainer is
WOMT Shultz, RANR who
manages the EOSS system
updates and rewrites, as well as
distributing, them throughout the
FFG class via the Trainer.
Instruction
All areas within the MOTU-ME
organization are involved with
instruction and teaching in the
classroom. A primary role of the
FFG Trainer is instruction
(including EMTT and refresher
training), but the Fleet
Pneumatics also has a classroom
for the pneumatics courses. FCAU
instruct the LSATT and CPOATT
courses, but also provide
guidance throughout the fleet
regarding Vibration analysis and
oil sampling. Instruction or
guidance is available both at sea
and in the office from any section
of MOTU-ME and this can be
requested by signal, email or
phone.                               VIBRATION ANALYSIS – PO THACKER
32   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         There are however aims for the immediate
                         future that are being developed
                         During the next six months,                   throughout Australia to assist              also including other platforms.
                         MOTU-ME aim;                                  ships staff.                            i. FFG Trainer to split the CCS
                         a. To provide ships with a                e. To provide ships and SPOs                   Ops course and instruct pilot
                            comprehensive condition                   with a trend analysis of oil                course.
                            assessment report in                      results, on a piece of
                                                                                                               j. Maintain a standardized
                            preparation for maintenance               machinery across platforms,
                                                                                                                  training regime throughout the
                            plans, including but not                  or a class issue.
                                                                                                                  FFG class.
                            limited to oil and vibration           f. Have both oil and VA results
                            analysis.                                 received via electronic means.           k. Transfer of thermography from
                         b. To provide feedback to ships                                                          FIST to MOTU-ME.
                                                                   g. Continue to take on work in
                            on their VA results and                   maintenance availabilities               l. Continue to learn and expand
                            incorporate predictive results.           related to, but not limited to,             our responsibilities with
                         c. To review the lists of machinery          pneumatics.                                 feedback from ships, SPOs
                            for VA and in conjunction with                                                        and other shore based
                                                                   h. Continue to develop Diesel
                            SPOs, reduce it to an                     inspection programs,                        support agencies.
                            acceptable and useful list.               concentrating on submarines              m. Investigate new technologies
                         d. VA section to conduct visits              for the west based FDIs, but                for use in the RAN.




                                             FDIS IN WA (PO MILES AND PO CHAPLIN) – WORKING ON A HEDAMORA ENGINE
                                                                              NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003       33




Any requests for assistance or queries?
We can be contacted via signal – AUSFLTCSG for MOTU-ME, via email or phone.
OIC MOTU-ME               Belinda.Thomson(at)defence.gov.au                    (02) 93592430
FDI (FBE)                 Greg.Parrott(at) defence.gov.au                      (02) 93592634
                          John.Keenan(at) defence.gov.au                       (02) 93592419
FDI (FBW)                 Neil.Chaplin1(at) defence.gov.au                     (08) 95535190
                          Ian.Miles(at) defence.gov.au                         (08) 95532371
FVA                       Glen.Collins(at) defence.gov.au                      (02) 93592441
Oil Cell                  Andrew.Lim(at) defence.gov.au                        (02) 93592428
FPS                       Hugh.Johnson1(at) defence.gov.au                     (02) 93592622
FFG PCS Trainer           Brian.Woolmer(at)defence.gov.au                      (02) 93593110




            Mobile Operational Technical Unit – Marine Engineering
                                                               OIC MOTU-ME
                                                               LCDR GL MEQ
                                                                  186040
                                                              LCDR THOMSON


                                               FDI-FBE                             I/C FPS               I/C FFG PCST
   I/C FCAU                                                                                              WOMT(M) FFG
  WOMT(M) FFG                               CPOMT(M) AUX                        CPOMT(M) FFG
                                               186108                              185728                   186045
    186099                                                                                              WOMT WOOLMER
                                            CPOMT PARROT                       CPOMT JOHNSON
                                                                                                              CPOMT(E) FFG
         VA CELL                                                                                                186050
      CPOMT(E) ANZ                             FDI-FBE                                I/C FPS                CPOMT RYLANCE
         186118                             CPOMT(M) FFG                           CPOMT(M) FFG
      CPOMT COLLINS                            186113                                                            SCPO
                                                                                      185728
                                            CPOMT KEENAN                                                     USN EXCHANGE
                                                                                  CPOMT JOHNSON
                                                                                                                186055
                                                                                                            SCPO BRASSEAUX
            POMT(E) FFG
                                              FDI-FBW
              186124                                                                                          POMT(E) FFG
                                         POMT(M)/CPOMT(M)                          POMT(M) AUX
           POMT THACKER                                                                                          186059
                                                                                     186094                    LSMT BODE
                                              POMT MILES                             VACANT
            POMT(M) ANZ
                                                                                                              POMT(E) FFG
              186121
                                              FDI-FBW                                                           186064
              VACANT
                                         CPOMT(M) /POMT(M)                                                     LSMT JOST

         OIL CELL                            POMT CHAPLIN                                                     POMT(E) FFG
      CPOMT(M) AUX                                                                                              186069
         186104                                                                                               POMT WILSON
        POMT LIM
                                                                                                              POMT(E) FFG
                                                                                                                186074
         NDT CELL                                                                                             POMT ELKIN
       POMT(M) FFG
          186079                                                                                              POMT(M) FFG
                                                                                                                186084
                                                                                                              POMT MARKS
34    NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




BY LCDR SEAN LEYDON RAN
                          Operation Sutton
                          Apprehension of the Alleged Illegal
                          Russian Fishing Vessel VOLGA
                          Jack of all trades, this term has been used quite often with respect to odd
                          jobs that technical departments (both WE and ME) have always carried
                          out, but more so with the introduction of minimum (or more politically
                          correct – optimum) manned ships such as the FFGs in the early 1980’s.
                          Times have changed but the variety of ‘out of core’ responsibilities has
                          kept up its momentum, Operations Sutton and Slipper Boarding and
                          Steaming Parties are prime examples of this, and proof that an
                          engineering position in the RAN isn’t exactly out of the text book.
                          During the period of 29 Jan – 19     happening. Email was suspended        Training routines of fast roping,
                          Feb 02 HMAS CANBERRA was             for security reasons and the          small arms and baton (Red Man)
                          diverted from its upcoming           Ship’s Company were only              training were carried out daily for
                          commitment to Operation Slipper,     informed after sailing by their       both Boarding parties and also
                          to sail down to Heard Island and     Commanding Officer, Captain           Steaming parties from both the
                          apprehend illegal Russian Fishing    Roger Boyce of what task laid         CANBERRA and WESTRALIA. Daily
                          Vessels operating in the             ahead for CANBERRA’s crew.            meetings in the Wardroom with all
                          Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ).       There were illegal fishing vessels    stakeholders were also carried
                                                                                                     out to cover all aspects and
                                                                                                     potential problems of the
                           The Boarding Parties for this                                             operation. The Australian Fisheries
                                                                                                     personnel aboard CANBERRA
                           operation were, for the first                                             fully briefed both boarding parties
                                                                                                     of their responsibilities and
                           time in RAN history, made                                                 limitations when aboard any of

                           entirely from members of the                                              the foreign fishing vessels.
                                                                                                     Detection and Interception
                           Ship’s Company.                                                           On the morning of the
                                                                                                     07 February 2002, the foreign
                          The Boarding Parties for this        in the Exclusive Economic Zone        fishing vessel (FFV) Volga was
                          operation were, for the first time   (EEZ) off Heard Island and the        detected by a RAAF P3 and
                          in RAN history, made entirely from   CANBERRA, with the help of            reported to the CANBERRA, within
                          members of the Ships Company.        HMAS WESTRALIA had been               30 minutes the boarding officer
                          Blue Boarding Party, which           tasked to intercept and               had briefed his team and Blue
                          apprehended the Volga,               apprehend if required to do so.       Boarding Party had gone to
                          comprised almost 50% from
                                                                                                     5 minutes notice.
                          engineering branches and was         Preparation
                          led by Canberra’s DWEEO                                                    The first stick of seven personnel
                          Lieutenant Commander Sean            CANBERRA’s two boarding parties       was aboard the ships S-70B and
                          Leydon. The steaming party that      were at OLOC for Operation Slipper    on the way to intercept the
                          remained aboard the “Volga” to       and ready for any task that was put   vessel, some 70 nautical miles
                          transit the vessel back to           to them. However the conditions off   from CANBERRA. Upon
                          Australia consisted of a majority    Heard Island were not comparable      rendezvous with the FFV it was
                          of technical personnel, with 10      to that in the Persian Gulf. Larger   clear that it didn’t intend
                          out of a total of 15 sailors from    sea states and temperatures           stopping as it made its way out
                          either the WE or ME departments.     around 1 – 2 degrees, called for      of the EEZ at top speed. After the
                                                               Thermal (Mustang) suits,              boarding officer identified the
                          Ready for Op Slipper?
                                                               balaclava’s and special boots to be   contact as a fishing vessel and
                          HMAS CANBERRA sailed early           issued for the extreme conditions     queried the FFV (without receiving
                          with no indication of what was       CANBERRA was heading into.            any response), the helo hovered
                                                                                    NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                               35




LCDR LEYDON WITH ENGINEERING MEMBERS OF VOLGA’S STEAMING & BOARDING PARTY

in front of the vessel, opened its       to pickup the second stick of 5       been winched aboard Volga after
door and shotguns were pointed           personnel. Along with the second      arrival via CANBERRA and
at the bridge. After this action the     stick there was also an Australian    WESTRALIA’s RHIBs.
vessel decided to slow down.             Fisheries Officer (to work with the
                                                                               An assessment was carried out to
                                         boarding officer to decide if an
The first stick of blue boarding                                               determine whether the Volga was
                                         apprehension would be required)
party were then inserted onto the                                              sea-worthy enough for a steaming
                                         and one of the ships PWO’s (who
FFV via fast rope in arduous                                                   party to safety transit the vessel
                                         filled a navigation requirement in
conditions. After storming the                                                 to Fremantle. The assessment
                                         case CANBERRA was diverted
bridge from both port and                                                      included such things as the
                                         before the steaming party was
starboard sides, and receiving                                                 general condition of the ship, life
                                         inserted).
refusal from the master to turn the                                            rafts, EPIRBs, navigation
vessel around, the boarding officer      Apprehension
ordered his bridge security to force     After the crew was moved to the
a heading towards the CANBERRA           ships café Low Threat was passed
by taking over the helm.                 to CANBERRA and the Fisheries
                                         Officer conducted a search of the
After the Boarding Officer
                                         vessel. After discussion between
introduced himself to the master,
                                         the fishery and Boarding Officer,
the crew was ordered to muster
                                         and following large amounts of
on the forecastle. This
                                         Patagonian Toothfish that had
commenced after some initial
                                         been found aboard, it was agreed
difficulty due to language               that the vessel had indeed been
differences, while the sweep             utilised as a fishing vessel. A
parties proceeded to search              recommendation was then made
through the Volga. CANBERRA’s            by the boarding officer to the CO
helo stayed within close proximity       of CANBERRA for an
of the Volga providing protection        apprehension to take place.
until the CANBERRA appeared
over the horizon.                        After an approval from CANBERRA’s
                                         Commanding Officer, apprehension
With CANBERRA now only a few             was then carried out to the Master
miles away from the Volga, and           of the Volga, with evidence
with ‘Low Threat’1 imminent, the         gathered for future purposes. By
                                                                               ABOVE: CANBERRA’S BOARDING OFFICERS LCDR LEYDON & LEUT LOWE WITH CAPTURED
boarding officer returned the helo       now steaming party members had        MV’S VOLGA AND LENA IN THE BACKGROUND
36       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




equipment etc. The Boarding and           are going to court in October.                 Ocean beforehand using
Steaming Party officers completed         Volga’s owners are claiming that               organic capability,
their assessment and decided              they were never in the EEZ, but            3. Both boarding parties had
Volga was of a suitable standard          only fishing around the border.               been created from scratch
for an RAN team to transit the            The ADF and the Fisheries                     only 2 months beforehand,
vessel back to Fremantle.                 Department, with the help of                  with all training geared toward
                                          CANBERRA’s crew, will put their               Persian Gulf operations, and
Return to Fremantle
                                          case forward to show otherwise
CANBERRA’s other boarding party           highlighting the value of accurate         4. The arduous and hostile
(GOLD) had also successfully              and comprehensive recording and               environment of large scale
carried out a Non Compliant               evidence gathering when involved              poaching in the Southern
Boarding (NCB)2 on another FFV,           in such activities.                           Ocean, combined with the
the Lena. Now both vessels were                                                         limited windows during which
                                          Conclusion                                    boardings could be conducted
boarded and handed over to their
                                                                                        between inclement weather
respective steaming parties.              Over the period 29 Jan – 19 Feb
                                                                                        fronts.
CANBERRA circled Heard Island             HMA Ships CANBERRA and                                                                  A MEMBER OF BLUE BOARDING PARTY
to check for any remaining                WESTRALIA sailed at short notice           Operation Sutton was a                       FASTROPES ONTO THE VOLGA
vessels, leaving both MMV’s               to the Southern Ocean for                  resounding success for the RAN
sitting in a holding area awaiting        Operation Sutton. This was                 and the Australian Fisheries
her return to transit them back to        significant for a number of                Department. It would appear that
Fremantle. The long journey home          reasons:                                   HMAS CANBERRA has set the
began and the steaming parties                                                       standard for the RAN to carry out
                                          1. CANBERRA was due to                     Southern Ocean operations while
did an excellent job in keeping a
                                             commence a two year ERN                 no longer requiring dependence
potential hostile crew in line,
                                             (refit) as lead ship for the            on external agencies.
which knew fully well that the end
                                             FFGUP only three months
result of the trip was arrest and                                                    1 Low Threat is passed once a vessels
                                             beforehand with no idea                 bridge and engine room are under
possible deportation.                                                                Boarding Party control and the crew and
                                             about the change in FAS that
                                                                                     weapons have been mustered, accounted
Court Appeal                                 was about to happen post                for and the crew under surveillance in a
                                             September 11, 2001,                     confinable area. Once Low Threat has been
It should be noted at the time of                                                    passed the vessel is considered secure and
this article being written, Volga’s       2. The RAN had never                       safe for steaming parties to board.
                                                                                     2 Non Compliant Boarding (NCB) – when a
owners are disputing the                     conducted boarding                      Boarding Party insert without consent from
apprehension of their vessel and             operations in the Southern              the vessel after they have been queried.




                                                                                                                                  ABOUT THE AUTHOR LCDR Sean Leydon
                                                                                                                                  joined in Jun 84 as an Apprentice at HMAS
                                                                                                                                  NIRIMBA and served on several FFG’s
                                                                                                                                  before completing an Engineering Degree
                                                                                                                                  at RMIT. He has been instructing FFG
                                                                                                                                  Combat Systems at CDSC since Sept 02
                                                                                                                                  after serving 18 months as DWEEO aboard
                                                                                                                                  HMAS CANBERRA. Previous postings
                                                                                                                                  include the GPS Project Office and Aide-
                                                                                                                                  De-Camp for the Assistant Defence
                                                                                                                                  Minister.
                                                                                                                                  LCDR Sean Leydon was awarded the
                                                                                                                                  Commendation for Distinguished Service
                                                                                                                                  for duties and leadership as a Boarding
                                                                                                                                  Officer during Operations Sutton and
                                                                                                                                  Slipper.
A FISHERY OFFICER SPEAKS WITH LCDR LEYDON AND BRIDGE SECURITY WHILE VOLGAS FISHING MASTER LOOKS ON DEJECTEDLY
                                                                                  NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                      37




  Applying Reliability-                                                                                               BY DR ALUN ROBERTS, THE
                                                                                                                      ASSET PARTNERSHIP

  Centred Maintenance to
  Mechanical, Electrical,
  Electronic and Structural
  Systems
  Introduction
  In the March edition of Navy Engineering Bulletin, the benefits of
  applying Reliability-centred Maintenance to Naval assets were explored.
  It was shown that there is now a large body of experience in Defence to
  demonstrate that SAE JA 1011 compliant RCM (such as RCM2 and Def
  Stan 02 45) produces a maintenance programme which reduces the
  high cost of traditional naval maintenance without sacrificing system
  availability or reliability. Ongoing benefits in the Royal Navy for applying
  RCM to the majority of platforms and systems are expected to be in
  excess of £50M per annum.
  The article explained that true     completes a Failure Modes and          the RCM process applies equally
  RCM involves answering seven        Effects Analysis (FMEA) for the        well to mechanical, electrical,
  structured questions about the      asset in question. The fifth           electronic systems and naval
  asset or system under review:       question determines failure            structures and reviews the value
                                      consequence and determines             of a comprehensive RCM
• What are the functions of the
                                      how each failure matters. The four     database.
  asset in its present operating
                                      RCM consequence types are
  context?                                                                   RCM and Failure Management
                                      ‘Hidden, Safety, Environmental,
• How can the asset fail to fulfil    Operational (loss of mission in        Before we can understand how
  each function?                      the naval sense) and Non-              RCM can be applied ‘across the
                                      Operational. The last two              board’, we must try to understand
• What would cause each
                                      questions enable the appropriate       both the nature of failure and the
  functional failure?
                                      failure management policy to be        decision-making logic involved in
• What happens when each failure      developed.                             undertaking SAE compliant RCM.
  occurs?
                                      These seven questions can only         The six failure patterns
• In what way does each failure       be answered by people who know
                                                                             The starting point is the six failure
  matter?                             the asset best – the maintainers
                                                                             patterns described in the March
                                      and operators supplemented by
• What can be done to predict or                                             issue, reproduced in Figure 1.
                                      specialist input where
  prevent each failure?                                                      These patterns, which are
                                      appropriate.
                                                                             fundamental to understanding
• What should be done if no
                                      Readers of Navy Engineering            maintenance programme
  suitable proactive task can be
                                      Bulletin have requested more           development, show the possible
  found?
                                      information about the                  ranges of failure mode behaviour
  Through the first four questions,   applicability of this process to the   and are plots of conditional
  RCM defines functional              complete range of systems and          probability of failure (vertical axis)
  requirements, including             subsystems which make up               against time in service (horizontal
  performance standards, defines      modern platforms and weapon            axis). They arise from a large body
  what we mean by ‘failure’ and       systems. This article shows that       of failure analysis conducted in
  38       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                                                       Pattern A: The “Bathtub Curve”                                     sufficient doubt exists, RCM does
   A                                        4%         High infant mortality, then a low level of random                  not sanction scheduled
                                                       failure, then a wear out zone.                                     restoration or discard as valid
                                                                                                                          strategies and instead seeks an
                                                       Pattern B: The “Traditional View”                                  alternative approach. Also,
   B                                        2%         A low level of random failure, then a wear out zone.               scheduled restoration and
                                                       Pattern C:                                                         discard are both extremely costly,
                                                       A steady increase in the probability of failure.                   and can seriously impact future
   C                                        5%                                                                            reliability by increasing the
                                                       Pattern D:                                                         incidence of Failure Pattern F
   D                                                   A sharp increase in the probability of failure settling            failures. For these reasons, they
                                            7%         down to random failure.                                            are selected relatively
                                                                                                                          infrequently.
                                                       Pattern E: Random Failure
   E                                        14% No relationship at all between how old it is and how                      Managing Random Failure
                                                       likely it is to fail.                                              For obvious reasons, random
                                                                                                                          failure (as demonstrated by
   F                                        68% Pattern F: The “Reversed J” curve                                         Failure Patterns D, E and F and
                                                       High infant mortality, then random failure.                        the early age failures in Patterns
  FIGURE 1: THE SIX FAILURE PATTERNS                                                                                      A, B and C) cannot be managed
                                                                                                                          through scheduled restoration
  the aircraft industry during the        of a Pattern E failure is a rolling   point before the conditional              and discard.
  1960s and 1970s.                        element bearing. Bearings are         probability of failure increases.         This reality has led to the growth
                                          complex items which tend not to       Such items are often described            of condition-based maintenance
  The significance of the Patterns is
                                          have a dominant failure mode.         as having a ‘Life’.                       (CBM) strategies over the last ten
  as follows:
                                          For a family of bearings, failures                                              to fifteen years in most areas of
                                                                                Unfortunately, most industrial
• Patterns A, B and C display age-        will occur through normal wear                                                  industry. CBM is based on the
                                                                                organisations do not possess the
  related failure. For Patterns A and     and tear, incorrect installation,                                               fact that most incipient failures
                                          inadequate lubrication, faulty        large body of failure data
  B the ‘conditional probability’                                                                                         provide us with early warning
                                          materials, overloading (etc), this    necessary to demonstrate beyond
  increases sharply after a specific                                                                                      signs, known in RCM as Potential
  point in time, (whereas with            diversity being responsible for the   doubt the presence of age-
                                                                                                                          Failures. Once we know a failure
  Pattern C, the increase is steady       demonstration of random failure       related failure. Indeed, in current
                                                                                                                          is occurring, we are to undertake
  and there is no one age at which        behaviour).                           overhaul-oriented programmes
                                                                                                                          corrective action at a time of our
  a rapid increase occurs). These                                               such as those used in the RAN,
                                        • In the world of aviation, Failure                                               choosing.
  three patterns generally apply to                                             most plant will not reach the
                                          Pattern F accounted for               point at which any rapid increase         In managing random failure, RCM
  simple items or to complex items
                                          approximately two thirds of all       in the conditional probability of         employs the concept of the P-F
  which have a dominant mode of
                                          failure modes. This was a direct      failure would arise – the                 curve shown in Figure 4. This
  failure. Typically, they involve
                                          result of the level of invasive       equipment will usually have been          describes the deterioration of
  failure mechanisms such as wear,
                                          scheduled overhaul being              changed out far earlier based on          physical systems and the
  corrosion, erosion, evaporation
                                          conducted which often left the        the current invasive maintenance          conditions which apply to
  and fatigue, often associated,
                                          system concerned in a failed          regimes in place. When an RCM             selection of an appropriate failure
  although not exclusively, with
                                          state. The reasons for infant         analysis is being conducted,              management policy known in
  mechanical systems. For aircraft
                                          mortality are shown in Figure 2:      there is therefore some doubt             RCM as an ‘On-condition’ task.
  systems, only 11% of failure
  modes could be assigned to this         Managing Age-related failure          about whether a failure is truly          Frequencies of On-condition tasks
  group with any confidence.                                                    age related or not. Where                 are driven by the gap between
                                          Failure Patterns A and B, and to a
• Patterns D, E and F, on the other       lesser extent C, can often be
  hand, are not age-related, as           managed through some form of
  there is no age at which there is       scheduled maintenance activity          Premature failures caused by:
  a rapid increase in the                 which will be driven by the age at      • incorrect functional specification (what it must do)
                                                                                   • poor design (what it must be in order to do it)
  conditional probability of failure.     which we are confident the                • poor quality manufacture
  With the exception of the low or        conditional probability of failure         • incorrect installation
  high conditional probability of         increases. In RCM, these                     • incorrect commissioning
  failure in the early periods of         strategies are labelled scheduled               • incorrect operation
  service for Patterns D and F, the       restoration and scheduled                          • unnecessary maintenance
  three patterns display essentially      discard. Here, we either restore or                      • excessively invasive maintenance
                                                                                                                   • bad workmanship
  random failure. Patterns D, E and       remanufacture a part or piece of
  F are associated with systems           equipment to name plate levels
  such as hydraulics, pneumatics          of performance, or throw the item
  and electronics. (A good example        away and replace it at some           FIGURE 2: PREMATURE FAILURE (PATTERN F)
                                                                               NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                    39




                                   Conduct a scheduled                                                     the Potential Failure (P on the
                                   overhaul just before                                                    curve) and the functional failure
                                   reaching this point                                                     point (F). For mechanical
                                                                                                           systems, a good example of an
                                                                                                           On-condition task would be
                                                                                                           vibration analysis on a rolling
                                                                                                           element bearing. On-condition
                                         "Life"                                                            tasks need to be undertaken at
Probability of




                                                                                                           frequencies less than the P-F
Conditional




                                                                                                           interval in order to give adequate
                                                                                                           time to react before the
Failure




                                                                                                           functional reaching point F.
                  Small number of
                  random failures                                                                          Where failure is random
                                                                                                           (scheduled restoration and
                                                                                                           discard is not an option) and On-
                                          Time in Service                                                  condition maintenance is not
                                                                                                           feasible or economic, the
FIGURE 3: SCHEDULED OVERHAUL
                                                                                                           maintenance policy designer is
                                                                                                           faced with some hard decisions:
                                                                                                         • Allowing the failure to occur
                                                                                                           (known as No Scheduled
                                                                                                           Maintenance in RCM); or
 There is a clear and (reliably)
                                                                   The P - F Interval:                   • Redesigning the system or the
 detectable potential
 failure condition                                                 • It must be long                       way it is operated or maintained
                                                                     enough to be of
                                                                                                           so the failure consequences are
                                         P                           use
                                                                   • It must be
                                                                                                           reduced. Aircraft maintenance
                                                                     consistent                            policy designers learned at an
 resistance




                                                                   • It must be                            early stage that when random
 to failure




                                                                     practical                             failures occur and there is no
                                                                     to do the task                        warning, then some form of
                                             P - F Interval          at the required                       protective device is usually
                                                                     interval                              required, such as installation of

                                                                   F
                                                                                                           back up systems. With aircraft,
                                                                                                           additional systems increase
                               time
                                                                                                           complexity and add to overall
FIGURE 4: THE P-F CURVE
                                                                                                           weight, reducing economy.
                                                                                                           The RCM Decision Logic
                               Y                          N                     N
       Evident to                     Affect safety             Affect                                     All of the above sounds complex.
       operators?                         or the              operations?                                  Fortunately, the architects of RCM
                                      environment?                                                         have laid out a decision-making
                  N                                                    Y                                   framework for us, known as the
                                                  Y
                                                                                                           Decision Diagram in the case of
     On-condition                      On-condition           On-condition               On-condition      RCM2 and Def Stan 02 45. The
        task?                             task?                  task?                      task?          RCM2 logic is shown in summary
                                                                                                           form in Figure 5.
       Scheduled                        Scheduled              Scheduled                  Scheduled        Starting from the top left, the
      restoration?                     restoration?           restoration?               restoration?      logic firstly sorts Evident from
                                                                                                           Hidden failures, and then
        Scheduled                       Scheduled              Scheduled                  Scheduled        identifies whether Evident failures
         discard?                        discard?               discard?                   discard?        have Safety, Environmental,
                                                                                                           Operational or Non-operational
    Failure-finding                    Combination            No scheduled               No scheduled      consequences. (A good example
         task?                           of task?             maintenance                maintenance       of a Hidden failure is a domestic
                                                                                                           smoke detector which lies
    Redesign may                       Redesign is            Redesign may               Redesign may      dormant until required to sound
    be compulsory                     be compulsory
                                       compulsory              be desirable               be desirable     an alarm in the event of smoke
                                                                                                           levels in the room being above a
FIGURE 5: RCM DECISION LOGIC                                                                               particular level).
40       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                                                        25.0

                                                        20.0


                                          Percentage
                                                        15.0
                                                                                                                                                     Mechanical
                                                        10.0                                                                                         Electrical/Electronic


                                                         5.0

                                                         0.0




                                                                                                             g
                                                                   on




                                                                                                                          sk



                                                                                                                                     gn
                                                                                             d
                                                                                   n




                                                                                                          in
                                                                                           ar
                                                                               tio




                                                                                                                         Ta
                                                                ti




                                                                                                                                   si
                                                                                                        nd
                                                                                            c
                                                             di



                                                                            ra




                                                                                                                                  e
                                                                                         is




                                                                                                                    n
                                                                                                      Fi




                                                                                                                               ed
                                                           n


                                                                         to



                                                                                       D




                                                                                                                    io
                                                        Co




                                                                                                    re
                                                                        es




                                                                                                                               R
                                                                                    ed




                                                                                                                 at
                                                                                                 ilu
                                                        n




                                                                                                                n
                                                                     R


                                                                                  ul
                                                       O




                                                                                                             bi
                                                                                            Fa
                                                                 ed



                                                                                d




                                                                                                         om
                                                                             he
                                                               ul


                                                                          Sc




                                                                                                         C
                                                               d
                                                            he
                                                        Sc




                                           FIGURE 6: PERCENTAGE OF MAINTENANCE TASK TYPES FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS



                                          Each column in the Diagram then                       examining mechanical or                   appropriate. Whether the failure
                                          provides guidance for selecting                       electrical/electronic systems.            is truly age related or not,
                                          an appropriate On-condition,                          Figure 6 shows the percentage of          however, the RCM decision logic
                                          Scheduled Restoration or Discard                      each type of maintenance for a            (Figure 5) always requires us to
                                          task for managing the failure                         sample of 1300 failure modes in           evaluate ‘On-condition’ tasks
                                          mode in question. If these                            5 mechanical and 5                        first, before considering
                                          proactive tasks are not feasible,                     electrical/electronic systems.            scheduled restoration or discard.
                                          the bottom of the Diagram                                                                       This encourages maximisation of
                                          identifies a series of Default                        RCM and Mechanical, Electrical            service life and reductions in the
                                          actions which are selected where                      and Electronic Systems                    level of intrusive maintenance
                                          proactive maintenance is not                          What conclusions can we draw              undertaken. Mechanical systems,
                                          possible. These include No                            from Figure 6?                            therefore, produce a relatively
                                          Scheduled Maintenance,                                                                          high proportion of proactive
                                          Redesign and Failure Finding.                         We know that all systems,                 maintenance activities – On-
                                                                                                whether mechanical or electrical,         condition, scheduled restoration
                                          The incidence of each                                 come to us with a built-in level of       and scheduled discard which are
FIGURE 7: RCM APPLIES EQUALLY WELL TO
                                          maintenance task type varies                          capability (or resistance to              found on the first three
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS         significantly whether we are                          external stress). We also know            maintenance task selection rows
                                                                                                that this built-in capability will        of the Decision Diagram. Figure 6
                                                                                                inevitably deteriorate over time in       shows that On-condition
                                                                                                accordance with the second law            maintenance applies to around
                                                                                                of thermodynamics to the point            22% of failure modes in the
                                                                                                at which it will no longer permit         sample and traditional scheduled
                                                                                                the user to achieve the required          restoration and discard
                                                                                                outputs. At this point, it has            (overhaul) only about 9%. Failure
                                                                                                failed.                                   Finding and redesign account for
                                                                                                For mechanical systems,                   a further 19%.
                                                                                                deterioration takes several forms         On the other hand, electrical and
                                                                                                including wear, erosion,                  electronic systems display
                                                                                                corrosion, fatigue and                    predominantly random failure,
                                                                                                evaporation. In some                      although there are some age-
                                                                                                circumstances, failures caused            related failures associated with
                                                                                                by these mechanisms may be                such items as batteries,
                                                                                                age-related (Failure Patterns A, B        capacitors, switches and other
                                                                                                and C) and so scheduled                   built-in mechanical devices. Not
FIGURE 8: COMPRESSIVE AND TENSILE STRESSES INDUCE FATIGUE IN WARSHIP STRUCTURES                 restoration or discard may be             only do electrical and electronic
                                                                                         NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                         41




FIGURE 9: THE DIRECTED SURVEY APPLIES RCM TO STRUCTURALLY SIGNIFICANT ITEMS ONLY



systems tend to fail randomly, but         Figure 6 also shows us that             subjected to tensile and               these functions simultaneously.
they generally provide us with no          there are still nearly 50% of all       compressive forces in heavy seas.      For instance, a corroded
warning of impending failure, so           failure modes in the mechanical                                                structural component may reduce
                                                                                   Environmental Deterioration
that the interval between P and F          systems for which no form of                                                   longitudinal and local strength as
                                                                                   (ED): Corrosive and other
in Figure 3 is minimal and on-             proactive maintenance is                                                       well as causing a containment
                                                                                   processes lessen the resistance
condition maintenance is                   possible, the corresponding                                                    breach (flooding/leakage). For
                                                                                   to failure by reducing cross
therefore not feasible. For the            figure for the                                                                 this reason there is usually no
                                                                                   section, or by producing
electrical/electronic systems in           electrical/electronic systems                                                  need to define the functions of
                                                                                   metallurgical changes at the
Figure 6, only 6% of failure               being about 84%.                                                               structural elements so the
                                                                                   molecular level.
modes respond to on-condition                                                                                             structures FMEA can be based on
                                           RCM and Structures
maintenance, with scheduled                                                        Accidental Damage (AD):                physical components rather than
restoration and discard applying           We now turn our attention to            Random stress applications             functions, simplifying the analysis
only to a further 3% of failure            structures which are a form of          reduce resistance to failure by        process.
modes. Failure Finding on                  mechanical system. RCM has              deformations which change load
                                                                                                                          The number of physical
redesign account for a further 7%          been applied to aircraft structures     paths and/or accelerate other
                                                                                                                          components in a large warship is
of failure modes and are                   for a number of years, although         failure modes. Accidental damage
                                                                                                                          enormous making the
therefore still important features         its application to Naval structures     often occurs through docking and
                                                                                                                          completion of a structural survey
of managing the failure of                 is relatively recent. Structures        removal of systems for
                                                                                                                          of the whole vessel immensely
electrical/electronic systems.             suffer from three categories of         maintenance.
                                                                                                                          complex and time consuming.
                                           failure modes:
Overall, there is a tendency for                                                   Complex structural assemblies          Instead, recent experience in the
electrical/electronic systems to           Fatigue Damage (FD): Here,              have a range of functions              Defence community with the
push us towards the Default                applied cyclic stresses resistance      including longitudinal strength,       application of RCM to structures
actions at the bottom of the RCM           to failure. All ships are prone to      local strength and containment.        has led to the development of a
Decision Diagram.                          fatigue failure as they are             Structural failure can affect all of   ‘Directed Survey’ on Structurally
                                                                                                                          Significant Items (SSIs). In the
                                                                                                                          model shown in Fig 9, RCM and
                                                                                                                          the Directed Survey would apply
                                                                                                                          to the shaded areas only which
                                                                                                                          include those components prone
                                                                                                                          to FD (red), ED (Green) and AD
                                                                                                                          (blue).
                                                                                                                          For each SSI, the appropriate
                                                                                                                          failure modes and effects are
                                                                                                                          considered within the overall
                                                                                                                          RCM database for the vessel.
                                                                                                                          FD, ED (corrosion and erosion)
                                                                                                                          and AD (random failure) are
                                                                                                                          covered in the 6 Failure Patterns
                                                                                                                          (Figure 1), allowing us to use
                                                                                                                          the RCM decision logic to
                                                                                                                          develop the appropriate survey
                                                                                                                          elements and periodicities.
                                                                                                                          Examples of the RCM software
                                                                                                                          outputs for structures are shown
FIGURE 10: THE STRUCTURES FMEA                                                                                            in Figures 10 (SSI FMEA) and
42         NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                                               FIGURE 11: THE STRUCTURES RCM DECISION WORKSHEET




                                               11 (Structures Decision                    database is of immense value for         drawings etc), allowing work
                                               Worksheet).                                a range of other purposes,               packages to be determined with
                                                                                          including:                               ease;
                                               RCM has been successfully
                                               applied to structures on a             •   Review and optimisation of           •   Provision of a consistent frame of
                                               number of Warship classes in the           Useage and Upkeep Cycles (UUC)           reference for reporting defects
                                               Royal Navy including Hunt Class            for a variety of Mission profiles:       both for individual ships and
                                               MCMV and Type 23 Frigate.                  With little further effort, the          across Class, particularly if RCM
                                                                                          impact of extending useage or            failure codes are embedded in
                                               The Consolidated RCM
                                                                                          changing the upkeep cycle can            the ship/shore maintenance
                                               Database
                                                                                          be readily determined. This is           management system;
                                               We have seen how the RCM                   because RCM separates truly
                                               process applies equally well to            age-related failures from non age-   •   Satisfying the needs of
                                               mechanical, electrical, electronic         related (random) failures and            regulation, classification and
                                               systems and to the vessel                  allows us to evaluate the risks of       internal audit by demonstrating
About the author: Alun Roberts is a            structure itself. It delivers a            extending upkeep intervals. The          asset management due diligence.
Director of The Asset Partnership, based in
Sydney. His company is closely allied to the
                                               management policy for all likely           holy grail of UUC optimisation is
                                               failure modes - some of which we           indeed notoriously difficult to          Applying and implementing RCM
RCM implementation programmes being
conducted by the Royal Navy and the US         will already have suffered, others         achieve by any other route;              will require a high level of
Navy. The Asset Partnership has supported
                                               of which will not yet have                                                          commitment from the Navy and
the RNZN, ANZAC and ASASMO in RCM
reviews of several systems and is also         happened – and maximises
                                                                                      •   Improved forecasting of manning          its contractors, disciplined
working closely with the Army in
                                                                                          levels required for completion of        application of the RCM
                                               system reliability and availability.
determining the supportability requirements                                               UUC work packages: The RCM               technology and some time to
of the new BUSHMASTER Infantry Mobility
                                               RCM also facilitates very
                                                                                          database details proactive,              achieve. The rewards, however, will
Vehicle using RCM2. In addition to working     significant reductions in
                                                                                          default and corrective actions
in world of Defence, The Asset Partnership     maintenance expenditure.                                                            be enormous.
works closely with a range of asset-                                                      including the full range of ILS
intensive businesses including mining,         It is less well understood that a          requirements (work content,              Is the Royal Australian Navy ready
utilities, petrochemicals and manufacturing.
                                               comprehensive consolidated RCM             skills, spares, tools, manuals,          for the challenge?
                                              NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003     43




Navy Engineering Reunion 2003
                                                                      BY CPOMT GRAHAM TURNLEY
        The 2003 Navy Engineering Re-union was held at
        HMAS KUTTABUL Senior Sailors Mess on Friday
        evening, 4 July.
        Approximately 80 attended, (slightly down on
        previous years but this can perhaps be attributed
        to the busy times the Navy is currently
        experiencing), with plenty of old (and sometimes
        shamelessly embellished) warrie’s being spun and
        many an old friendship renewed.
        The organisers of the Navy Engineering Reunion
        would like to take this opportunity to express their
        gratitude to their generous sponsors, without
        whose support the evening would not have been
        possible:
        The Limited edition framed print of a painting of
        HMS NOTTINGHAM at Norfolk island was donated
        by Matrix HR International, formerly known as
        Reliable People Worldwide.
        This company has previously provided fire sentries,
        confined space cleaners, and trades assistants to
        FIMA Sydney.
        (The R.N. Long Look exchange WO was exempted
        from buying a ticket for this prize)
        3 framed maritime prints were donated by
        Maritime Press. These prints generated a lot of
        interest and a full inventory of the companies
        products can be viewed at
        www.maritimepress.com.au
        2 signed copies of the book In The Navy were
        donated by the author David Rickard.
        ADI also donated several corporate gifts which
        were well received.
        The artwork (HMAS ANZAC) used on the reunion
        flyer was created by Daryl White.
        Of particular note were the willing and enthusiastic
        volunteers from the Skills Development Centre
        and from FIMA Sydney; the night would not have
        been possible without their help.
44   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                        Naval Engineering Reunion
                                 2003
                                Canberra
           All serving, retired and civilian members of all Naval
          Engineering branches are cordially invited to attend the
                     Naval Engineering Reunion 2003
                            which will be held on

                     FRIDAY 14 November 2003
     Venue:          Tuggeranong Valley Rugby Union & Amateur Sports Club,
                     Ricardo Street, Wanniassa, ACT, 2903
     From:           1730 (5.30pm) to 0300 (3.00am)
     Cost:           $25.00 per head (not changed since 1990), includes drinks,
                     buffet & entertainment
      Bookings can be made by contacting one of the committee members listed below.

       The preferred method of payment is by cash or cheque. Cheques should be made
                  payable to "Naval Engineering Reunion" and forwarded to:
                                          K. Assenheim
                                         1 Haskett Place
                                        Kambah ACT 2902

              (Payment is requested by no later than Friday 07 November 2003)

     Contacts:
     Kevin Assenheim           Phone: (02) 6239 1133
                               Email: krassenheim@sma.com.au
     Peter Webb                Phone: (02) 6209 5503
                               Email: Peter.Webb@VikingsClubs.com.au
     Ian Thompson              Phone: (02) 6266 1845
                               Email: ian.thompson1@defence.gov.au
     Ron Sheargold             Phone: (02) 6292 3583
                               Email: dimples.vvmc@bigpond.com


                      DON'T MISS OUT – BOOK NOW
                                                                                     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                   45




  The New C3 – Cost,                                                                                                  BY SIMON SYKES AND MARK
                                                                                                                      WARREN - AASSPO

  Capability, and
  Commonality
  A Naval Fantasy
  Imagine looking around a new RAN ship, of a class that you have never
  been on before, and feeling familiar with the systems and equipment
  and their general layout. You’ve operated and maintained equipment of
  the same family before, the layout of major systems within the ship is
  similar to your last ship and most of the outfit and fittings provided
  reliable service in that ship also.
  If you are having difficulty with        noticed the high level of            What is Commonality?
  this scenario it is probably             commonality with classes such as
                                                                                Commonality between ship
  related to the wide variety of           our FFGs and DDGs, in
                                                                                classes can be achieved at
  countries from which we have             equipment types, system and
                                                                                various stages in the engineering
  sourced the designs for our ships        ship layout.
                                                                                life cycle of an asset often
  in the past. The number of
                                           From the perspective of an           leading to increased commonality
  classes of ships currently
                                           operator and maintainer, high        at later stages.
  operated by the RAN only just
  exceeds the number of countries
  of origin and while there is
  commonality evident within a
  class there is little in common
                                           The number of classes of
  between classes. This is because
  the technology, design philosophy
                                           ships currently operated by
  and practices, and the associated
  standards used by different
                                           the RAN only just exceeds the
  countries vary considerably. When
  faced with a similar problem, ship
                                           number of countries of origin
  designers from different countries       and while there is
  often pursue different but still
  effective solutions. While this          commonality evident within a
  variety might put some spice in
  our lives, it does little to assist us   class there is little in
  deliver reliable capability.
• HMAS SUCCESS – French
                                           common between classes.
• FFG, LPA – USA
                                           levels of commonality between        Common design philosophy refers
• ANZAC, Hydrographic Ships –
                                           classes are definitely beneficial.   to the way in which systems and
  German
                                           But would a policy of increased      sub systems work together and
• TOBRUK, FCPB and WESTRALIA –             commonality between platforms
  UK                                                                            how they achieve their outputs.
                                           bring significant benefits to the    For example the use of separate
• MHC – Italian                            RAN’s bottom lines of capability     or combined firemain and salt
• Collins – Swedish                        and cost? The recent DMO Future      water cooling systems within a
• LCH – Australian                         Ship Commonality Study               ship. This has significant benefits
                                           responded to that question, and      in terms of operator familiarity
  In contrast if you have ever had a       this article is based on that        and training requirements.
  look around a current USN                report and subsequent
  surface combatant you will have          developments.                        Common design standards refers
46   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                          FIGURE 1 - LEVELS OF COMMONALITY



                          to the use of a similar set of      • system and equipment specific        Acquisition Arrangements
                          consistent standards across the       training;
                                                                                                     Currently the acquisition of RAN
                          fleet and with the advent of
                                                                Commonality could also lead to       ships is conducted by separate
                          computer aided design, the                                                 and almost independent projects
                                                                increased operational availability
                          ability to re-use the detailed        through such effects as the          each looking to get the best value
                          design for components based on        increased availability of critical   for money on the day for
                          these standards has never been        spares from ships in company         Australia’s rather unique
                          more straight forward.                and familiarity of personnel with    capability requirements. In
                          Common product specifications,        equipment such that they are         isolation the decision to acquire
                          operating procedures and support      less likely to damage it during      any particular class of ships may
                          arrangements are all relatively       operation and maintenance.           appear sensible but together we
                          easy to achieve if the high level                                          have ended up with a truly multi-
                                                                On the down side commonality
                          commonality is achieved.                                                   cultural navy. It does reflect our
                                                                can reduce capability and
                                                                                                     Australian society but does it
                          How Commonality Influences            increase costs by:
                                                                                                     assist us in spending the Defence
                          the Cost–Capability Equation        • restricting access to innovative     budget efficiently?
                          In general commonality enables a      technology,
                                                                                                     Assuming earlier ship
                          wide variety of economies of        • increasing the likelihood of block   acquisition projects did
                          scale. Provided the common            obsolescence, and                    examine through life costs and
                          approach continues to be                                                   the possibility of leveraging
                          utilised, non-recurring expenses    • locking the RAN into a single
                                                                                                     efficiencies from commonality
                          are able to be spread over more       supplier who subsequently uses
                                                                                                     with existing classes, one could
                          projects and the subsequent           that arrangement to its
                                                                                                     conclude that the open
                          projects experience lower non-        commercial advantage.
                                                                                                     competitive tendering practices
                          recurring expenses. Examples of                                            that are encouraged generally
                                                                Why is there currently so little
                          non-recurring expenses include:                                            result in greater cost
                                                                commonality between current
                        • system specification & design;        RAN classes?                         efficiencies than commonality.

                        • production processes;                 There appears to be three main       Technology Change
                                                                reasons for the lack of
                        • stockholdings of contingency                                               In no other arena is the
                                                                commonality between RAN ship
                          spares;                                                                    development of technology more
                                                                classes:
                                                                                                     important than for military
                        • development of logistic support
                                                              • acquisition arrangements;            superiority. In fact it is sometimes
                          data;
                                                                                                     only through radical change in
                                                              • rate of change of technology,
                        • development of system and                                                  technology that a military
                                                                and
                          equipment support experience;                                              advantage can be gained over an
                          and                                 • rate of change of requirements.      opponent.
                                                                                  NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   47




Changing technology hinders the      classes. This initiative could be       as the F-122 system was long
achievement of effective             pursued independent of or in            out of production, and more
commonality. In general,             conjunction with the use of a           expense to train because the
commonality appears to be more       common ship design and build            1990s recruits had to be given a
easily achieved between classes      team. The development of the            computer history lesson before
progressively utilising the same     ANZAC propulsion plant was an           they could understand the
basic technology than between        example of this type of approach.       1970s era computers. Of course
classes where a significant                                                  the
                                     The formation of the DMO has
change in technology has                                                     F-123 also missed out on all the
                                     lead to a focus on the total cost
occurred.                                                                    efficiency advances in the
                                     of ownership of a platform, with
Given the rate of change of                                                  interim. In the end some sort of
                                     life cycle costs having a
technology in some areas, such       significant influence on the            sense prevailed and the MCR on
as communications, and the rate      acquisition decision. Recognising       the F-123 was ripped out and
at which we acquire new RAN          the financial benefits of               replaced by a modern system.
ships, commonality in these          commonality within this                 To successfully leverage the
areas is hard to achieve.            modelling would encourage               advantages of commonality it is
Nevertheless, for areas where        increases in commonality where          necessary to understand where
technology change is slow, such      appropriate.                            resources are currently being
as internal combustion engines,
                                     The current Defence Capability          consumed and why, where the
effective commonality between
                                     Plan (DCP) identifies the               inefficiencies are, and what the
classes should be relatively easy
                                     intended acquisition of 8 major         lessons of history are. Along
to achieve.
                                     surface platforms (2xAOR,               these lines the DMO has just
Large Changes in Requirements        3xLPD/H, 3xAWD) in the next 10-         completed a study on the effect
                                     15 years with the selection of the      of the lack of commonality
Large scale changes in
requirements encourage               designs mostly completed in the         between the Australian Frigate
significant changes from the         period 2004-2007. This program          and the ANZAC Frigate on the
current system and equipment         presents a significant opportunity      ANZAC production costs1. It is
solution, often associated with      to realise effective commonality        estimated that 5-10% was
technology change. With the          between elements of the surface         added to the acquisition costs
recent changes in international      fleet.                                  of the ANZAC (averaged across
circumstances we are observing a                                             the entire program) because of
                                     Taking the Good without the
review of our defence                Bad                                     lack of commonality in design
requirements that may result in                                              philosophy with the Australian
significant changes to the           As stated previously, ensuring that     Frigate. If the ANZAC Frigate was
systems and equipment we             commonality strategies actually         less than 10% cheaper than an
operate. Achieving effective         increase capability and decrease        equivalent offering that was
commonality in these                 costs is a major challenge. The         common to an FFG, then from
circumstances is problematic.        research for the Future Ship’s          an acquisition perspective, the
                                     Commonality report found the            FFG based option may represent
How Could Increased                  only way to make commonality
Commonality Be Achieved?                                                     money well spent.
                                     work effectively is to be rigorous
The circumstances most likely to     and detailed in system design           What hasn’t been sufficiently
result in significant commonality    analysis.                               studied is the effect of lack of
between future naval platforms                                               commonality on through life
                                     For example, the German Navy            support. Given that crew size, fuel
involve teaming with a single ship   required that the MCR of the
design and build team over                                                   usage, and hull maintenance are
                                     F-123 be common with that of            among the biggest contributors to
multiple projects, especially
                                     the F-122. That sounded like a          through life cost, it is not hard to
where the ship designer already
                                     good idea, as the F-123 could           see that commonality could
incorporates significant
                                     use the F-122 training system,          easily restrict access to
commonality between classes.
                                     logistic support data, and
This approach would require the                                              substantial cost savings due to
                                     inventory. However in the
DMO to seriously change its                                                  the limited common design
                                     intervening 13 years between
acquisition management                                                       solutions available for any
                                     the design of these ships (1979
arrangements.                                                                particular problem. However this
                                     – 1992) much had happened in
                                                                             needs to be weighed against
Long term arrangements with          engine management control,
                                                                             inefficiencies such as:
some technology sectors and          computer technology, and the
suppliers for various capability     education system. Consequently        • Class specific courses that could
would also increase the level of     it was more expensive to acquire        have been common but for the
effective commonality between        the MCR systems and equipment           change in design philosophy
48        NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                                         • On the job training that could        Conclusion                             One of the major difficulties
                                           have been done ashore if                                                     associated with quantifying the
                                                                                 Increased commonality is
                                           economies of scale allowed                                                   cost benefit of increased
                                                                                 certainly achievable between
                                         • One off equipment that is poorly      future ship classes, with              commonality is that to achieve
                                           supported                             associated financial benefits also     the increases in commonality
                                                                                 achievable. Teaming with a single      sought may require a move away
                                         • The need for additional staff to                                             from open competition in the
                                                                                 ship design and build team over
                                           deal with the uncommon class.
About the author: Simon Sykes                                                    multiple acquisitions projects and     acquisition process toward long
Joined RAN in 1985                       • Increased inventory to support        the incorporation of life cycle cost   term arrangements with
Graduated from UNSW with a BE(Mech) in                                           models that recognise the              technology sectors and suppliers
1988                                       As stated above, the analysis
Served on 1 DE (Torrens), 2 FFGs
                                                                                 benefits of commonality into the       over multiple acquisition projects.
                                           needs to be rigorous if
(Canberra and Sydney) and 1 AOR MEO                                              acquisition management                 These changes in acquisition
                                           unexpected cost increases are to
HMAS SYDNEY 1997-98 (lots of fun)                                                processes appear to be the keys        management present a whole
Resigned from RAN 1998 (for a peaceful     be avoided. For example, moving
                                                                                 to achieving this objective.           new series of cost benefit issues.
life)                                      ‘on the job’ training ashore will
1999-Current: various positions in
                                           involve an increase in costs. If      In order to justify pursuing           1 The Australian Frigate Project delivered
DAO/DMO (ANZAC Ship project, FFG
upgrade and AOR replacement project)       that isn’t offset by an increase in   significantly increased                FFGs MELBOURNE and NEWCASTLE. These
Currently married with a mortgage and      capability availability or a          commonality between future             were built at Williamtown dockyard, where
three cats and has never been to           reduction in the SOC, then            classes, the cost benefit of the       the ANZAC Frigates are currently being
Portsmouth.                                                                                                             built.
                                           commonality has been negative.        approach must be quantified.
                                                                                    NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   49




MOBI – A Look at the Past
This is the second in our series of articles taking a humorous look at
they way we used to train techo’s. Reprinted with the kind permission of
the author, ex WOETP4SM ‘Sandy’ Freeleagus.

WORKSHOPS                               When we worked in the turning          we'd all turn off the individual
                                        'factory' on the lathes, a favourite   main switches of each lathe, turn
Our workshops were old aircraft
                                        pastime was, each afternoon            on every conceivable accessory
hangers fitted out with
                                        when we knocked off and                on the lathe, then on a 'ONE,
workbenches and shapers for
                                        cleaned up our lathes, we'd angle      TWO, THREE - NOW!!' all hit the
fitting instruction and lathes of all
                                        the coolant liquid nozzle up in the    main switches at once. This, we
sorts (centre lathes, relieving,
                                        air. When the civilian instructor      found, would blow the main
turret and capstan lathes),
                                        powered down the factory by            power fuse for the factory which
grinding machines, and-
                                        throwing the main switch to OFF,       would take some 20 minutes to
horizontal and vertical milling
                                        everyone would turn their coolant      replace. They woke up to this little




                                        pump motor ON. Next morning
machines in the turning
                                        when the instructor came in and
workshop.
                                        threw the main switch to ON, he’d
The fitting workshop consisted of       be subjected to up to thirty
long metal benches back to back         fountains of coolant spurting
so you worked facing someone            away up into the air. This bloke,
with a safety gauze between each        for some reason best beknown to
bench. During our chiselling jobs,      himself, didn't bother to break
the frame around the gauze              the main switch immediately to
became a score board – hit your         turn off all the lathes, instead
hand, fingers or thumb with the 2       held rather run around madly to
pound hammer and you put up a           each individual lathe and turn
mark with chalk – do the same           them off one by one. By the
and draw blood – chalk up a             time this exercise was
mark with a blood spot on it.           completed, the deck used to be
There were some quite impressive        aflow with coolant. At least the
scores around indicating some           floor wouldn't get rusty with all
quite unimpressive chiselling           the lubrication it received day
abilities. Naturally, all of this was   after day.
done in winter so a smack on the
thumb hurt just that little bit         If during the day we decided we'd
more.                                   like a break of 20 minutes or so,
50   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         ploy when we blew our third
                         consecutive fuse for an hour's
                         break on a hot summer's
                         afternoon.
                         Our other work practices were
                         spectacular as well.
                         In Blacksmithing, we found that if
                         you got your furnace going well
                         and you threw cans of oil into the
                         coke, you could effectively send
                         an awesome mushroom fire-ball
                         up the chimney and out into the
                         atmosphere.
                         Since Plumbing and
                         Blacksmithing were in the same
                         building and we didn't particularly
                         like the plumbing instructor, and
                         his office was on a mezzanine           couldn't pull it off. Another silly   you a hand. (They'd never refuse
                         floor in the rafters of the building,   thing we did was yell for our         you - a senior termer). You'd tell
                         we found that if we stoked up the       instructor and when he stuck his      them to look away as they stood
                         furnaces first thing to get them        head inside your welding cubicle,     on a big metal plate (to steady it
                         going, used as little forced air as     you and two or three mates would      of course) so they wouldn't hurt
                         possible, a fair amount of oil and
                         turn off the chimney flute, then
                         thick oily smoke would roll out
                         from under the chimney uptake
                         and float up to the building's roof
                         to be caught there. Some
                         mornings, we worked it quite well,
                         so well, in fact, you wouldn't even
                         see his office – although you
                         could hear him coughing – but
                         he’d never give you the
                         satisfaction of coming down out
                         of it.
                         Welding came in two forms – arc
                         welding and oxy-welding.
                         In arc welding, we'd slip into a        all strike an arc at once. Result     their eyes as you did your job. As
                         mate's welding bay and either           one blind as a bat and swearing       soon as they looked away, you'd
                         turn up or turn down his welding        instructor groping around trying to   weld their steel toe caps and heel
                         amperage controller. This either        find one of us to kill slowly.        caps of their boots to the metal
                         zapped his electrode on the job                                               plate and then race off and leave
                         in one big glob, or the electrode       A particular favourite move was to
                                                                                                       them there.
                         would stick to the job and he           ask some poor junior termer
                                                                 walking past to come and give         We found during our
                                                                                                       Coppersmithing, that if we held
                                                                                                       two oxyacetylene torches, burning
                                                                                                       on full acetylene, into a I inch
                                                                                                       water pipe securely clamped in a
                                                                                                       vice to a heavy metal work-
                                                                                                       bench, and slowly increased the
                                                                                                       oxygen into the flame, then by the
                                                                                                       time you had the flame burning
                                                                                                       half and half (equally oxygen and
                                                                                                       acetylene), then the water pipe
                                                                                                       acted like a jet engine and the
                                                                                                       bench would try to take off. (This
                                                                                                       was nothing to the take-off that
                                                                                                       the plumbing instructor did when
                                                                                   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   51




he saw us doing it and the bench        produced compared to the              our most confused and worried
quivering and bouncing around           correspondingly bulky and             expressions, we approached our
on the concrete floor and a great       intricate gear obtained from          naval instructor, who hearing of
long flame whistling out of the         the Brits.                            our symptoms with the machine,
tail end of the water pipe).                                                  put on a 'you stupid drongos'
                                        One rather contrived incident
                                        back-fired on us. We were             look and confidently ambled over
Any misdemeanours caught
                                        struggling through our Gunnery        to the machine. As if only to
during the factory hours resulted
                                        Theory that consisted mostly of       humour us, he stretched out his
in 'extra factory' duties - generally
                                        electrical theory and to say we       hand - and ZAPP!! He whipped
a Saturday afternoon for two
                                        were somewhat confused with           his hand back, then very
hours. One instructor put us on
this extra factory, then got us to      this 'white man's magic' was, if      tentatively, tried again
do a private job for him while we       nothing else, a gross                 ZAPP!! Got him again.
were serving out our time – then        understatement of fact and a
wondered why we buggered                flattering assessment of our          After about five minutes of deep
it up'.!                                electrical knowledge.                 thought during which his full sum
                                                                              of electrical why-fors in this area
But our workshop training was           We had been told all about eddy       were exhausted and proven that
excellent and our end of term test      currents and magnetic fields of       this just could not possibly
jobs and passing out test job           force around electrical conductors    happen, he stretched out his
were quite remarkable both in           and different insulations, and
                                                                              hand again - ZAPP!!
their complexity and complete           knew only enough to put a little
uselessness as practicable              plan into effect.                     That was enough for him - call in
equipment. However, the jobs we                                               bigger reinforcements.
                                        In our Ordnance building, we had
had to do in NIRIMBA with the           a number of motor-generators to       Up came a solemn, unbelieving
choice of materials and endless         drive our various mountings, so in    civy instructor, who giving us all
availability of countless tools bore    some down-time, we went to one        (including our PO instructor) a
no resemblance to any job we            of the motor-generators, and on       'you incompetent fools' stare, did
had to perform on board a ship          the coupling on the shaft             the honours
out in the Fleet.                       between the motor and the             and – ZAPP!!
Our technical training was carried      generator, we secured a very fine
                                        piece of wire whose length was        Two more ZAPPS!! followed until
out 'over there' (over the airstrip                                           civy instructor was completely
at Building 259). As Ordnance           slightly shorter than the distance
                                        from the coupling to the deck.        baffled also. Before too much
Artificers, we had only a single                                              time had elapsed, we apprentices
hydraulic bofor Mk V14 a twin           The result was, when the machine
                                        was flashed up and you put your       were quite worried, because, not
Bofor Mk-V, a Simple Tachometric                                              only was our PO instructor and
Director and a Twin 4 inch HA/LA        hand near the coupling, it'd get
                                        hit by the now invisible wire which   civy ordnance instructor involved
mounting. (The acquisition of a                                               with this unique phenomenon,
                                        felt like an electrical shock.
4.5 inch turret was still a hopeful
                                                                              but so too were the Ordnance
dream away in those days. As it         Nonchanantly we flashed up the        Officer, the Electrical PO
was, we completed the 4.5 inch          motor-generator and, putting on       instructor, the Electrical Officer
turret complete - mechanically,
electrically and hydraulically -
three times altogether - the first
two times without even seeing a
4.5 inch Mk 6* turret and only
knowing what class of ship
carried them). We were also
instrumental in stripping a couple
of the old quadruple 40mm
Bofors mountings from the old
'AUSTRALIA' for scrap. Apart from
the historical value in these
mountings, the equipment was
superb and very well maintained
with everything still in perfect
working order. At that seemingly
early stage of our careers, we
could appreciate the relatively
simple and basically functional
equipment the Americans
52   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         and the Electrical Civy Instructor   had 'set them up'. However, we        necessary (if the instructors
                         along with the Instructor            received an extra work load 'just     thought you covered up-a
                         Commander.                           in case', which we thought was        question with a profusion of
                                                              most unfair, but decided, under       words but didn't actually say
                         Unfortunately for us, the civy
                                                              the circumstances, not to push        anything). We were marked on
                         engineering instructor, Reg, who
                                                              our luck too far.                     what we put down in an answer
                         shared our building, noticed us
                                                                                                    and had marks taken off for
                         rolling around laughing at the       The irony of all this was, soon
                                                                                                    anything we didn't put down in
                         back of the rapidly expanding        after we were informed that we
                                                                                                    our answer. We hated the multiple
                         group (before the brass began to     were to be fully crossed trained in
                                                                                                    choice answers as all choices of
                         arrive), slapping each other on      high power electrics to become
                                                                                                    answer were very similar and you
                         the back and holding our sides to    Systems Artificer Power - SAP's -
                                                                                                    had a mark deducted for every
                         keep in the peals of laughter.       'Quite appropriate', said Reg and
                                                                                                    wrong answer. The rule was - if
                         Putting two and two together and     agreed upon by all our
                                                                                                    you don't know - don't guess. It
                         getting four (and we numbered        instructors.
                                                                                                    was quite possible to emerge
                         four), and knowing us OA's from
                                                              But then, if we couldn't take a       from a multiple choice
                         previous little efforts, Reg
                                                              joke, we shouldn't have joined.       questionnaire with a minus score
                         casually asked if anyone had
                                                                                                    that had to be made up in other
                         thought of turning off the           But it wasn't all fun and games.
                                                                                                    more conventional questions.
                         machine? To those that 'knew' us,    Studies were demanding and
                         the penny began to drop - and        pass marks inordinately high. Our     When one left ‘NIRIMBA', one was
                         we stopped laughing and began        final Ordnance examinations were      confident that he knew what he
                         to plan an escape route.             as follows: a paper on Bofors         was talking about theory wise
                                                              (single, twin and associated          and could, if need be, prove his
                         The machine wound down, was
                                                              directing gear); a paper on           point.
                         inspected and many pairs of
                                                              Gunnery Theory (including




                                                              mechanical fire control
                         glaring eyes swung around to find
                                                              mechanisms) and three papers
                         us 'innocents' quietly engrossed
                                                              on the 4.5 inch turret - one each
                         in the breech mechanism and
                                                              on the electrical, mechanical and
                         recoils systems of the 4 inch
                                                              hydraulic aspects of the turret.
                         guns. Accusation time has arrived
                                                              The problem was, there was no
                         and before a hastily convened
                                                              time limit and our final exams
                         inquisition of baleful stares and
                                                              lasted on an average, four hours
                         accusing twisted half grins of our
                                                              per paper – some longer, blowing
                         immediate superiors (and anyone
                                                              out to five hours (forget about a
                         else who had a score to settle),
                                                              meal break too).
                         we were given the third, fourth,
                         fifth and sixth degrees, but         This was followed by an oral
                         thankfully, they couldn't prove we   exam if it was considered
                                                                                   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                    53




To MTE, or not to MTE                                                                                                  BY POMTE JIM RANKINE, HMAS
                                                                                                                       CERBERUS
As Marine Technical Electrical (MTE) instructors at HMAS CERBERUS we
are often called upon to provide “Streaming Lectures” to the MT sailors
passing through the Faculty. These lectures are basically delivered before
they are given the opportunity to stream “M” (mechanical) or “E”
(electrical), and are intended to be our recruiting sales pitch to entice
impressionable MT’s into making a career choice. In addition to these
structured presentations it is commonplace for trainees to “hit us up” for
advice in the passageways as they ponder, what could very well be, for
an ever-decreasing number, a lifetime decision. This in itself creates a
moral dilemma for us, as we knowingly connive to tempt them into
signing into a branch that will ultimately disadvantage them financially
and retard their career progression.
The problems we are having with         ” it’s an electrical problem, get a   lean pretty heavily to the
attracting sailors to the MTE           Greenie” mentality is still very      affirmative. Realistically, if you are
branch are many and varied.             much alive and well. Admittedly       a work centre I/C and you
Certainly one of the major              not in all cases, but certainly       develop a mechanically oriented
disincentives appears to be the         anecdotal evidence would              fault on the RO plant, who are
fact that MTE sailors must              suggest that in the majority in       you going to send to attend to it?
complete a much longer ITT              most cases this is still              The sailor best qualified to deal
course and thereby suffer the           happening. In effect an MTE must      with the problem of course,
financial consequences of being         endeavour to become a subject         electrical sailors for electrical
16 weeks behind their MTM               matter expert in his chosen           problems and mechanical sailors
counterparts. They must then            electrical field, in addition to      for the mechanical aspects.
attain all of the MTM                   fulfilling the watch-keeping, MWC,    Hardly the shining example of
qualifications, more often than         and ERWC demands placed upon          multi skilling TTP92 was designed
not without the under pinning           him if he wishes to progress his      to provide.
knowledge provided to MTM               career.
sailors by EAC’s or ASTC’s, in                                                As ETP’s (Electrical Technical
order to be competitive for career      MTM sailors only conduct about        Power branch) we had an clear
progression and promotion. This         60 odd hours of electrical            identity, a deep sense of pride in
is in addition to their own stream      training during their Initial         who we were and what we did,
requirements.                           Technical training, consequently      this reflected in our levels of
                                        they are excluded from all Shore      expertise and service. Despite
Many of the Trainees will readily       Power Evolutions and the vast         common perception this was
admit they take the easy way out        majority of Electrical tasks based    important as it nurtured that
and stream MTM straight away to         on their lack of under pinning        pride, a sense of belonging and
avoid the extra course time, in a       knowledge.                            encouraged the passage of
bid to escape Cerberus that                                                   knowledge between the more
much earlier.                           The fact that the Anzac Stream        experienced members and their
                                        have re-assigned equal numbers        younger peers or subordinates.
There is a definite perception of       of MTM and MTE sailors to the re-     Yes, there were inevitable lines of
inequality in the duties and            configured work centres highlights    demarcation between the various
responsibilities of the MTM as          this inequality in expectations       Technical Branches, although I
opposed to those of the MTE.            and must justify a case for "a        doubt they were ever truly
Despite what the “theories” on          separate promotional stream for       enforced or a real problem for
cross-training and multi-skilling       the MTE". One that focuses the        anyone, rather a guide to where
may reflect, the responsibility for     promotional pre requisites on the     respective areas of responsibility
all but the lowest level electrical     electrical as opposed to the          began and ended.
tasks still traditionally fall to the   mechanical aspects of our
MTE, regardless of whose work           employment. The overwhelming          The lack of civilian recognition of
centre they belong to. The age old      evidence from the coalface must       the MTE qualification must also
54   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         be addressed. At present,             It seemed more focused on a            personnel were afforded the
                         because our competencies are          rate and sea service badge and         same qualifications as former ETP
                         issued under the MERS ITAB, as        the fact that individuals didn’t       sailors who had undertaken the
                         opposed to the Electrical ITAB the    have a great working relationship      intensive electrical training
                         best the MTE sailor can hope for      with their immediate supervisor,       associated with the ETP category,
                         is recognition to a Second Year       rather than the ”big ticket” issues.   with nowhere near the degree of
                         Apprentice level. Not exactly the                                            the experience or deep subject
                         greatest enticement given the         The end result is an acute             knowledge.
                         level of training MTE sailors         shortage of electrical expertise as
                         undergo. Moves to rectify this and    MTE’s separate from the service.       The concept that the entire MT
                         attain recognition under the          After all, is it a fair and            world be trained to the MTE
                         Electrical ITAB have seemingly        reasonable expectation for MTE         standard has thankfully been put
                         been filed in the “Too hard“          sailors to effectively have to be      on hold with the new ITT
                         basket.                               proficient in two entirely differing   curriculum. Great theory, but
                                                               areas of expertise to be               realistically the additional costs
                         As MTE’s however, we are adrift       competitive for promotion, whilst      involved in terms of training time,
                         and have no real sense of identity    the people we are competing with       resources and manpower
                         or direction. We are expected to      only really require one? And           availability would make it
                         attain MWC’s and ERWC’s, yet will     where will the MTE sailor be           impossible to justify.
                         almost always be employed as          predominantly employed
                         electricians. I am in no way          throughout his naval career?           The fact is, that the calibre of a
                         disputing the advantages gained       Speaking from experience, my           large percentage of the trainees
                         by possession of system               work profile as an electrician has     we receive as a result of the
                         knowledge. But do they really         fundamentally remained constant        recruiting process would not
                         need to be promotional pre            whilst the goal posts for              possess the electrical aptitude to
                         requisites to allow us to perform     promotion and progression has
                                                                                                      pass the current requirements of
                         our primary roles as electrical       altered immeasurably.
                                                                                                      the MTE curriculum. It’s the
                         sailors? Surely a better solution
                                                                                                      square peg into round hole
                         would be to encourage MTE’s to        The abolition of the POMT Engine
                                                                                                      conundrum, only we aren’t
                         complete these qualifications         Room Watchkeeping Certificate
                                                                                                      allowed to hit them with hammers
                         without retarding their               Under Training billets within the
                                                                                                      (or wheelies) anymore. To some of
                         development and progression           ANZAC Class Frigates has only
                                                                                                      them, fitting of a plug top really is
                         within their chosen field. The fact   compounded the problem. Whilst
                                                                                                      Rocket Science.
                         we are often seen as the poor         eliminating the requirement for
                         cousin within the Marine              an additional Petty Officer to be
                                                                                                      Until at least some of these
                         Engineering empire and expected       borne, it effectively closes the
                                                                                                      injustices are addressed the
                         to provide watch keeping and          only avenue for the POMTE to
                         evolution manpower in addition to     under-study the ERWC qualified         unacceptably high separation
                         our own excessive workloads           sailor, without the additional         rates and low recruiting levels for
                         within electrically oriented ships,   responsibilities and ancilliary        MTE sailors will continue. Despite
                         certainly adds to our growing         duties incurred as a (day              the rumour that a fully AMOC’ed
                         levels of dissatisfaction and         working) work centre I/C, and the      MTE (qualified with an Auxiliary
                         disillusionment.                      long hours they already attract.       Machinery Operator’s Certificate –
                                                                                                      AMOC Ed.) is the Engineer’s most
                         This was partially high-lighted in    One of the methods adopted to          employable sailor we continue to
                         the findings of the mis-guided        overcome the shortage of MTE           penalise and ostracise them.
                         MTE survey conducted a few            sailors in the various ranks was to    Despite the change to the
                         years ago. The major problems         give Electrical ASTC’s to MT           watchkeeping requirements
                         with the survey were,                 sailors, and then promote them         recently implemented within the
                                                               as MTE’s. Whilst this satisfied the    ANZAC Class, the system still
                         a. it was conducted by a civilian     number requirement, the                requires POMTE sailors to obtain
                            consultancy firm who really        implications in terms of               a MSM qualification, MTCC and
                            didn’t understand the              workplace electrical safety were       complete the CPOATT to be
                            requirements,                      of concern as the ASTC was a           eligible for promotion to CPO
                                                               three month course, the majority       regardless of their future
                         b. they asked a narrow section        of which was conducted at              employment prospects
                            of the MTE world (FFG MTE’s),      civilian institutions, centred
                            and                                around the MEN distribution            Jim Rankine
                                                               system, with a 3 week Naval            Senior Instructor – High Power
                         c. they simply asked the wrong        Specific component here in             Engineering Faculty
                            questions, .                       Cerberus. So “on paper” these          HMAS CERBERUS
                                                                               NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                 55




ERUS                                                                                                              BY WOMT MARK RICHARDSON
(Engineering Ready-Use Stuff!)                                                                                    MT CATEGORY SPONSOR


News, Views and Issues concerning
Marine Technicians
Welcome to the second edition of ERUS. This time, I aim to provide you
with an update on the changes to MT Operator qualifications and
watchkeeping practices that I outlined in the last edition of the Navy
Engineering Bulletin. Following that, I’ll give you details of the
Occupational Analysis of the Category which will be conducted in 2004.

What about these watchkeeping        assess the new arrangements, as      arrangements. A condensed list of
changes?                             well as validate the revised         the recommendations arising
                                     ANZAC MT Scheme of                   from RELeGEN’s report is
In the last ERUS, I gave an          Complement.                          contained at the article
overview of some of the far-                                              Optimising Engineering Watch
reaching changes proposed for        In the case of FFG’s, a              Keeping Duties in FFGs – A
the MT Category in the areas of      comprehensive study has been         Systems Approach, at page 57 of
MT Operator Qualifications and       conducted by an external agency      this edition of the Bulletin. Not all
watchkeeping practices. To           engaged by the acting FFG            these recommendations will be
simplify reference to these          Capability Element Manager,          implemented, however those that
changes, they have been given a      (CMDR David Coyle) to analyse        directly relate to the initiatives
Project name: PROJECT MEPAQ,         the proposed changes, identify       above will be trailed and
an acronym for Marine                any risks or hazards arising from    validated, under Fleet Staff
Engineering Practices and            their implementation and provide     supervision, over the next
Qualifications.                      risk management strategies to        12 months.
                                     mitigate these. The company
There has been a delay in the        chosen to undertake this study       With regard to implementation
official roll-out of these changes   was RELeGEN, an IT Development       and trials in all other classes, at
to the Fleet as a whole while        and Consultative agency which        the time of writing this article, an
minor amendments have been           has been involved in or has          AF Memo is being drafted which
made to address concerns raised      managed a number of Navy             will initiate Project MEPAQ
by AUSFLTCSG (Fleet Staff), and      Engineering projects.                throughout the Fleet, and call for
some of the Force Element                                                 implementation plans from the
Groups. Significant progress has     Part of RELeGEN’s charter was        various FEGS to be provided to
been made, however, toward           also to analyse the changes from     the Maritime Command.
implementation of the new            a retention viewpoint, and provide   Hopefully, by the time you read
operator qualifications in the FFG   opinion as to the anticipated        this the AF Memo will be on the
and ANZAC Classes. CSOE (CAPT        effect on MT retention the           streets and you’ll all be familiar
David Sippel) has endorsed the       changes will bring. I’m pleased to   with it. Subsequently, AUSFLTCSG
changes for full implementation      announce that the comprehensive      Engineering Staff will assume the
in the ANZAC Class. HMAS             report and extensive list of         role of Front-line management of
PARRAMATTA will enter service        recommendations provided by          trials of the initiatives associated
under the new Engineering            RELeGEN as the project               with Project MEPAQ on a class by
watchkeeping regime, using the       deliverable, has ratified the        class basis. The Submarine FEG
new qualifications and               implementation of the new            already has a well developed
implementing the reduced             watchkeeping qualifications;         implementation plan which
Engineering Watch manning            revised rounds and data              converts the Project MEPAQ
states that accompany them.          collection routines; and reduced     initiatives to align with their
PARRAMATTA’s initial Light-Off-      Engineering Watch manning, in        qualifications and routines;
Examination and Work-Up will         the FFG Class. As a result, CSOE     similarly CPO Paul Kenny at the
provide AUSFLTCSG staff with an      has authorised the FFGCEM to         Patrol Boat FEG has developed
ideal opportunity to critically      proceed with trials of the new       an innovative strategy for
56       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




introducing the new qualifications      aimed at quantifying just that: the     Subject Matter Experts in each         marine technician, with an
throughout the FREMANTLE Class.         amount of time spent on each            location for panels lasting up to      invaluable opportunity to
                                        task by individual marine               three days, and the costs              comment on your employment,
MT OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS                technicians. All marine                 associated with producing,             your training and to suggest ways
                                        technicians will complete the           distributing, completing,              that things can be improved. We
Another major issue on the              ‘Time Spent’ questionnaire;             collecting, and analysing the          will be actively pursuing the
horizon for the category is the         additionally ‘Training Emphasis’        survey forms, and it becomes           optimum result of a 100% return
conduct of a formal Occupational        and ‘Task Learning Difficulty’          clear that this is not an              rate of survey forms; we will be
Analysis (OA) of Marine                 questionnaires will be circulated       undertaking to be taken lightly. It    pestering you and your superiors
Technicians. The Directorate of         to selected experienced                 is also clear that any subsequent      for your completed survey forms.
Strategic Personnel Policy and          personnel within the category.          OA will be a long time coming,         Remember as you fill them out
Research (DSPPR) will undertake                                                 especially when you consider that      that the future of your category
this research on behalf of the MT       Oh No! Not another survey!!!            DSPPR are responsible for              will very much depend on the
Category Sponsor during 2004. It                                                occupational analysis of all           results gained from the surveys
is expected to take the whole of        Before you all groan too loudly         Defence trades, numbering over         and the future policies they
next year to complete.                  about having to fill out yet            300 individual categories in total.    generate.
                                        another survey, I’d ask you to          ( For example, DSPPR have
What is the purpose of the              consider a few pertinent points:        recently completed the OA of the       SUMMARY
Occupational Analysis?                                                          tri-service communications
                                        a.   A formal Occupational              categories, the results of which,      In light of what I’ve covered
The purpose of an Occupational               Analysis has not been              for Navy, will be used to formulate    above, it would be a huge
Analysis is to identify current              carried out on the Marine          policy on a wide range of issues       understatement to say there’s a
tasks performed by all MT                    Technical Category since it’s      affecting the employment, training     big year ahead for the Category.
personnel by rank, class of ship             inception - if you consider        and remuneration of our CIS            The challenges presented by the
and organisation. It is also used            that the current MT sailor         sailors). Once our turn is finished,   introduction of new operator
to identify and evaluate the                 arose from the integration of      we will drop to the bottom of a        qualifications and watchkeeping
current structure in terms of                the old Sailstruc MTP MTH
                                                                   ,            very long list.                        practices will test the category
career progression and overlap of            and ETP categories resulting                                              and will require extensive resolve
tasks performed between ranks.               from the recommendations           Subject Matter Experts                 and commitment on all our parts
The OA will provide additional               of TTP 92.                                                                if it is to be successful. Similarly,
training emphasis and task                                                      A word about the Subject Matter        total resolve and commitment to
learning difficulty data to assist in   b.   In the case of the MT              Experts. Commands will be              the OA will be crucial in ensuring
the validation of training and               Category, the OA is aimed at       approached to supply high-             the data it produces is accurate,
competency logbooks, and                     defining areas of training         performing PO and CPO MT               and leads to the development of
establish priorities for training            shortfall and areas of             sailors to form the SME panels in      policy that will truly benefit the
development.                                 training ‘overkill’ or wasted      each locality. We will be looking      Category and represents the
                                             training. It will also assist in   for exemplary sailors who can be       direction you want your branch to
The OA will also collect relevant            identifying ineffective jobs       considered role models for the         follow.
background information about                 and jobs that don’t provide        branch, and are able to provide
retention factors, morale status,            the opportunity to develop         accurate information on tasks          We at DNPR(E&L) welcome
workload levels, remuneration                core skills.                       performed by junior and senior         comment and feedback on the
and career management.                                                          marine technicians. A panel will       above topics or on any other
                                        c.   The Occupational Analysis          comprise approximately 8 sailors       issue you think is important to
What does an OA involve?                     will comprise the foundation       in each locality and will need to      the MT Category. Until next time,
                                             for the impending Pay group        reflect the wide diversity of Ship     keep progressing your operator
The occupational analysis for the            placement review of the MT         classes and employment                 qualifications and stay safe.
MT Category will involve gathering           Category.                          environments encountered by
Subject Matter Experts (SME)                                                    marine technicians. It is vital that   Cheers Richo
from all major populations of           Furthermore OA’s are                    the personnel nominated for the
Marine Technicians; (i.e. Fleet         extraordinarily expensive to            panels are spared for three full
Base East and the Sydney area;          conduct in terms of time, money         working days to concentrate
Fleet Base West; the Darwin and         and resources, – the MT survey          solely on the compilation of the
Cairns areas and HMAS                   alone will require a full-time          Task Inventory; interruptions or
CERBERUS) to form SME panels,           commitment by two OA analysts           absences while the panels are
which will be interviewed in order      from DSPPR, (CPOCIS Ivan Oreb           convened will significantly impair
to develop a ‘Task Inventory’. The      and Ms Kirsty Yates) for over 12        the quality of the data collected.
task inventory will list all the work   months, combined with extensive
tasks that could possibly be            involvement from Category               What’s in it for me?
carried out by a Marine                 Sponsor staff to co-ordinate the
Technician. From this, a ‘Time          SME panels and survey returns.          The Occupational Analysis
Spent’ questionnaire is compiled        Add to this the commitment of           presents you, the individual
                                                                             NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003               57




Optimising Engineering                                                                                      BY STUART REEVES (EX WOMTE)
                                                                                                            RELEGEN PTY LTD

Watch Keeping Duties in
FFGs – A Systems
Approach
Introduction
RELeGEN Pty Ltd, an innovative Australian owned Defence Systems
Development business was recently contracted to provide independent
engineering analysis to ensure the generic engineering watch keeping
structure proposed by DNPR(E&L) could be safely implemented on the
RAN’s FFG Class ships. The RELeGEN team consisted of the author as
Team Leader, Ken Clayton (ex-WEEO) and Brad Whitford (ex-WOMTM).
The team brought together considerable experience in FFG Class ships,
systems engineering, risk analysis and departmental restructuring
respectively.
The Study’s final report included    a.   Engineering Officer of the    watch keeping structure that
38 recommendations. Of these,             Day (EOOD),                   would allow for:
only the core recommendations
are discussed in this article. The   b.   Duty Engineering Leading      a.   the Machinery Systems
purpose of this article is to show        Hand (DELH), and                   Manager (MSM) to oversee
that significant improvements can                                            the watch but not
                                     c.   two watch keepers that also        necessarily be in the
be made to engineering work
                                          perform specialist roles           controlling space;
practices without loss of
capability by the application of          should an emergency
                                          incident occur.               b.   the Machinery Systems
systems based analytical tools                                               Controller (MSC) to man the
and the judicious use of modern                                              controlling space and be
                                     A general feeling within the FFG
technology.                                                                  capable of carrying out all
                                     Engineering Community
                                     considered that, noting the             normal plant operation as
Background                                                                   well as being capable of
                                     advancements in personnel skills
                                                                             bringing the plant to a
                                     and technology, the time had
An engineering cruising watch on                                             stable state should a
                                     come to re-examine the current
an FFG at sea currently                                                      malfunction occur.
                                     watch keeping manning structure
comprises four personnel. Two                                                Subsequent plant
                                     and practices.
personnel are located within the                                             restoration would be carried
Central Control Station (CCS) –                                              out by the MSM; and
                                     DNPR(E&L) had already proposed
the Engineering Officer of the       a common watch keeping
Watch (EOOW) and the Electric                                           c.   the Machinery Systems
                                     structure that has been                 Technician (MST) be
Plant Control Console Operator       successfully implemented within         employed to monitor the
(EPCCO). A further two are           the ANZAC Class ships using the         propulsion and auxiliary
employed as roving monitors and      skills of WO Brad Whitford. This        systems externally to the
operators for the propulsion and     proposal included a suite of            controlling space.
auxiliary plant.                     competencies that would assist
                                     with providing a common level of   The Task
The Engineering Duty Watch in        assessment and skill across the
harbour consists of four             various ship classes. In summary   The scope of the review was
personnel:                           DNPR(E&L) proposed a cruising      primarily aimed at examining the
58   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         MT watch keeping requirements          keep continuous watches at sea.       b.   emergency and hazard
                         needed to:                             Attached to each of the functions          monitoring,
                                                                listed below would be a list of
                         a.   safely sail an FFG in cruising    tasks carried out by an               c.   specialist and general
                              watches, and                      engineering cruising watch                 response to above incidents
                                                                keeper. These functions were:              (within given constraints),
                         b.   maintain ship safety and                                                     and
                              preparedness whilst the ship      a.   plant operation to provide
                              is alongside.                          control for navigational,        d.   ship security.
                                                                     operational or safety
                         The review needed to consider all           reasons,                         The task listings were developed
                         likely situations that a watch                                               using a three tiered breakdown
                         keeper would face whilst carrying      b.   manual recording of              structure underneath the
                         out their normal duties. These              machinery and other              functions listed above. This
                         included plant failure, damage              operating data,                  approach ensured all tasks likely
                         control incidents and operation of                                           to be carried out as part of the
                         the engineering plant whilst in        c.   performing low-level, high       current practices were captured
                         redundant modes. The effect of              frequency maintenance            for analysis.
                         such on the rest of the ship’s              tasks,
                         capability was also examined.                                                Using a risk-based approach,
                         Finally, other peripheral issues       d.   safety examinations (via         each task was considered with a
                         were considered including what              visual inspection) of            view to removing the task from
                         effect the proposed changes in              engineering and, during          the duties of the watch keeper. If
                         watch keeping practices may                 transit, other spaces            removal was not an option, other
                         have on current training.                                                    alternatives were explored. The
                                                                     throughout the ship,
                                                                                                      risk analysis was carried out
                         The scope allowed for both                                                   using an adaptation of the
                                                                e.   to provide a ready and alert
                         hardware and routine based                                                   RELeGEN’s BASELINE CIRAS
                                                                     team that can:
                         solutions.                                                                   (Critical Item Risk Assessment
                                                                                                      System). In short, the four
                                                                     i. respond quickly to
                         Finally, one of the drivers for this                                         decision collection points were:
                                                                        engineering plant failures
                         study was a need to increase
                                                                        or critical problems,
                         retention of personnel and so a                                              a.   omit without further action if
                         broad license was given to                                                        HRA =/> 18,
                                                                     ii. respond quickly to
                         consider any areas associated
                                                                         emergencies such as fire,
                         with the topic that may improve                                              b.   omit with alterations/
                         the workplace leading to a                      toxic hazards or floods,          contingencies placed on
                         reduction in personnel wastage.                 and                               other tasks,

                         The Analysis and Optimisation               iii. operate the plant in        c.   modify task to reduce
                         Process                                          redundant modes should           frequency, complexity or
                                                                          a normal operating mode          duration, and
                         The approach for this Study was                  fail,
                         carried out mindful of what we                                               d.   retain in current form.
                         viewed as the root requirement.        f.   to provide timely and flexible
                         That is, to keep a Defence Asset            services such as being part      From this exercise, 421 raw tasks
                         (the Ship) at a stated level of             of the helicopter or boat        were identified. Examples of
                         preparedness in order to either             refuelling team, and             these tasks at the lowest level
                         complete a mission or to be                                                  would be ‘Start Gas Turbine in
                         available on a stated level of         g.   to provide expert and            Manual Mode’ or ‘Respond to
                         standby to carry out a mission if           immediate advice on              loss of lube oil pressure on Ship
                         required. Keeping this in mind,             engineering matters to           Service Diesel Generator at local
                         the Study attempted to link each            Command or other                 operating position’. For various
                         watch keeping task needing to be            functional areas of the ship     reasons there was a considerable
                         performed back to this root                 as required.                     difference in some operator work
                         requirement.                                                                 practices and procedures across
                                                                Alongside watch keeping routines      the Class. In order to ensure all
                         Within the FFG Class context, the      were broken down into the             tasks would be included for later
                         broad functions listed below were      following functions:                  analysis, task lists were
                         considered as making up the                                                  developed from first principles
                         perceived need for personnel to        a.   maintaining preparedness,        using information contained in
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   59




equipment technical manuals,           b.   divide tasks based into on-          considerable damage
system drawings, Standard                   occurrence (only requiring a         control activity, and
Operating Procedures, various               time allocation if the
policy and directive documents              situation occurs. For           b.   a propulsion system
and Standing Orders.                        example, responding to a             casualty during a period of
                                            fire or plant casualty) or a         increased navigational risk
The only items considered as                cyclic time requirement              requiring an immediate
rigid constraints on our analysis           (checking the oil level on an        reconfiguration of the plant
were the ship’s hardware, the               air compressor);                     as this would exceed the
capability to be delivered and                                                   skills of the MSC and
generic personnel training (such       c.   subdivide tasks based on             require assistance from the
as Initial and Advanced Technical           operator skill levels as             MSM.
                                            proposed by DNPR(E&L);
Training). The remainder of
                                            and                             The scenarios were tested against
associated topics were
                                                                            a fully operational plant and also
considered as potential for
                                       d.   further divide tasks on time-   a plant carrying automatic control
variation.
                                            based labour division into      system defects. We found that the
                                            manageable work packages        plant fully operational could be
The raw tasks were analysed
                                            based on personnel physical     safely operated by the MSC and
using CIRAS to produce the first            constraints.                    MST during a fire in AMR2.
refinement of the task lists.                                               However, depending on the
Reasons for task removal or            Our initial findings were that the   defect, there may be a
modification included duplication      typical workload that would be       requirement for a separate
of records and parameter               experienced during a watch could     operator for the Electric Plant
monitoring, alternate (or more         be easily handled by one watch       Control Console to reduce
practical) operating means and         keeper at the MSC level in CCS       operator stress, human error and
more functionally efficient work       and one MST roving external to       complete the required actions in
practices.                             CCS monitoring and operating the     a timely manner. As situations
                                       propulsion and auxiliary systems.    such as the AMR2 fire are
The next step was to breakdown,                                             random, there would be a
within the functions, tasks that       The Study also found that whilst     requirement for a second watch
were tied to an operating station.     the MCS would need to maintain       keeper in CCS to operate the
This step determined that, due to      a four-hour watch routine, the       electric plant whenever the
hardware constraints, personnel        MST and MSM were no longer           system was carrying control
would be required on standby           tied to this routine. The MST        system defects.
both inside and external to CCS        would be free to work in a routine
to provide an initial response to      similar to an alongside duty         Discussions with senior
casualty and emergency                 watch where they complete            navigation personnel indicated
situations. The analysis showed        rounds as required and can           that there are likely to be varying
that all initial plant actions could   complete other working activities    levels of navigational risk of which
be controlled from within CCS          providing they are available         some will require immediate
with other personnel able to           immediately should an incident       response to a propulsion system
                                       occur. The MSM was entirely ‘on      casualty. Therefore, the propulsion
attend the plant or scene at short
                                       call’. Therefore, a watch period     system operator in CCS will need
notice. This confirmed the need
                                       extending beyond the current         to vary between the MSC and
for an as yet undefined number
                                       four-hour cycle for the MSM and      MSM depending on this
of watch keepers to be present
                                       MST was available as an option.      navigation risk. Although difficult
whilst equipment was
                                                                            to quantify, it is envisaged that
operational.                           Our proposed cruising watch          the majority of steaming time will
                                       composition was risk tested          only require the MSC to be
At this stage it was decided to        against what we saw as worst         present in CCS.
determine the workflows based          case and probable scenarios for
on a need to either stay within        the watch keeping team. These        Watch Keepers Required
CCS or have the ability to move        scenarios were:
about the ship. To summarise the                                            Our analysis had reached a stage
process, the following steps were      a.   a fire in Auxiliary Machinery   where the number and type of
taken:                                      Room (AMR) 2 as this would      personnel required to watch keep
                                            have severe ramifications on    at sea at cruising stations had
a.   allocate tasks based on the            the ships propulsion, power     been determined. It had shown
     need to be present in CCS              generation and auxiliary        that the original work force
     or elsewhere;                          systems as well as requiring    directly involved in sea watch
60   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         keeping could be reduced by          inspecting many of the                   The current direction for
                         50% during defect free operation     equipment running parameters             engineering rounds frequency is
                         and low level navigational risk      were valid tasks. They were,             contained within ABR5225 and
                         situations. These excess             however, being collected in a            states a four-hour interval. Based
                         personnel were now available to      user-unfriendly manner that made         on the inherent reliability of some
                         carry out other activities. It had   it difficult for this valuable data to   of the equipment within the ship
                         also determined that the sea         be used for condition monitoring         class, there may be scope for
                         watch keeping routines proposed      or maintenance triggering                further optimising equipment
                         by DNPR (E&L) could be safely        purposes. Current technology             rounds to a frequency that
                         implemented onboard the RAN’s        such as the RELeGEN BASELINE             matches the individual
                         FFG Class Ships.                     Check system would allow for this        equipment’s operating and
                                                              data to be collected via bar-code        reliability characteristics. This
                         Getting a Hand From Modern           enabled hand held PDA (often             would allow a further reduction in
                         Technology                           referred to as “Palm Pilot”)             the watch keeper’s workload.
                                                              scanners integrated with AMPS.           Field data for this type of analysis
                         It was now down to refining the      As well as increasing the MST’s          is currently limited and would
                         watch keeping activities to          workflow efficiency, it would also       require further collection before
                         achieve the optimum resource         allow for greater integration with       an optimisation analysis could be
                         loading. One of the activities       the maintenance planning                 carried out. Again, BASELINE
                         shown to be a major time driver      process. Further, data is able to        Check would also assist with this
                         for the MST was the recording of     be loaded from the Check system          process by providing a long-term
                         equipment running data. The          into AMPS to trigger                     data repository and powerful data
                         CIRAS analysis showed that           maintenance.                             interrogation feature.
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003   61




Training                               position provided only very          The above situation opens up the
                                       limited damage control and no        possibility of having a whole ship
FFG MT console operator training       machinery monitoring.                rounds routine that would remove
is currently being carried out                                              many of the concurrently
ashore at the FFG Propulsion           Active Alarm Monitoring System       conducted departmental and
Control System (PCS) Trainer. An                                            security rounds that are now
excellent asset, however, its use is   As part of this Study, the Active    carried out. The benefits of having
mainly for basic console               Alarm Monitoring System (AAMS)       a reduced rounds frequency
operation and limited currency         was developed to concept stage.      would be enjoyed by the entire
training. The remainder of training    This would allow an extension of     ships duty watch.
for propulsion and auxiliary           the plant and damage control
system operation and monitoring        monitoring systems at a remote       Conclusion
and all assessment is carried out      location and repeated in a form
at sea. The usual approach (and I      easily understood by non-            This Study has shown that with a
apologise for my gender specific                                            systematic risk-based approach
                                       engineering personnel allowing
term in advance) is a ‘Father-to-                                           and judicious use of cost
                                       action to be taken should an
Son’ apprenticeship that is                                                 effective modern technology,
                                       incident occur. This system would
resource intensive in both                                                  significant efficiency gains can
                                       remove the need for watch
personnel and equipment use.                                                still be achieved in what is
The repatriation and formalising       keepers to be present in CCS
                                       whilst in harbour without            essentially an area seen as being
of this training ashore would                                               limited by the existing hardware.
markedly reduce the considerable       increasing the risk to the ship or
                                       the duty watch personnel. As         The systems based approach
training overhead on the ships                                              (and technology based solutions)
senior engineering personnel. It       seen in the diagram, the system
                                       could be couple via flexible cable   outlined in this article can be
would also improve the
                                       to other like configured ships and   used on any platform to optimise
consistency of training to ensure
                                       allow monitoring of multiple ships   watch keeping procedures. The
a common standard is achieved
                                       alarm monitoring systems by one      refined practices open up a
but not overshot. Completion of
                                                                            considerable number of options
the majority of training ashore        gangway station. Monitoring from
                                                                            for engineering managers to
would then only require                a shore facility is also possible
                                                                            redeploy their personnel into
consolidation, final assessment        with this system. A basic
                                                                            more worthy activities.
and some currency training to be       schematic of the system is shown
carried out at sea.                    below with items in blue showing
                                                                            Editor’s Note:
                                       existing hardware and red as new
Harbour Watch Keeping                  installation.
                                                                            RELeGEN has been involved in a
Harbour watch keeping involves                                              number of other recent Navy
                                       Harbour Rounds
mainly a presence in CCS to                                                 Projects, including:
oversee plant and damage               Whilst the ship is alongside in
control monitoring systems.                                                 a.   The development of a
                                       harbour, a considerable amount
Rounds of engineering spaces                                                     barcode scanning audit tool
                                       of machinery continues to run.            that loads data from AMPS
and running machinery also             This potentially raises the risks
continues to be carried out whilst                                               and the RAN’s new
                                       within the machinery spaces to            Configuration Management
the ship is alongside. CIRAS was       that above the ship’s background
again used to determine if these                                                 Tool– BASELINE Audit;
                                       level. Examination of a number of
activities could be removed or
                                       these items shows that the           b.   Software to develop the
modified to an optimum level
                                       systems could be shut down and            RAN’s CMC code –
whilst still maintaining the
                                       secured removing many of the              BASELINE Connect;
required level of plant oversight.
                                       risks associated with their
Unfortunately the analysis             operation. A systematic approach     c.   Software and hardware tools
showed that, whilst two other          to this process would reduce the          to collect watchkeeping data
locations showed potential, the        risks within the engineering              collected onboard –
ships hardware was the limiting        spaces to the ship’s background           BASELINE Check;
factor as none of the alternate        level and remove the need for
positions provided the level of        specialist engineering personnel     d.   ISL data management
monitoring available in CCS. The       to conduct rounds through these           software – BASELINE ILS;
next favourable location would         spaces. Any person with sufficient
have been the ship’s gangway as        ship knowledge could carry out       e.   a critical item risk
watch keepers were also present        rounds through the machinery              assessment system –
on a 24 hour basis. However, this      spaces.                                   BASELINE CIRAS.
62       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




BY CPOMT GLEN POPE,
HMAS STUART
                                      Retention Bonus or
                                      Reward Scheme?
                                      The following article is the result of absolutely zero research and was
                                      prompted by a random thought I had (which I naively voiced) at the
                                      recent TSAG meeting held in Sydney. My aim is to stimulate discussion
                                      on the subject of retention and how to achieve it, a topic I feel certain
                                      sections of the wider Naval community is ignoring.
You would all be aware that           overcome the job satisfaction         of years, we get them to sign on     10 years service the value of the
current retention rates within the    dilemma, and retention bonuses        the dotted line and at the end of    reward would increase and so on.
Technical Categories are poor,        as we have seen in the past are       the allocated period they are        Eventually, a Warrant Officer with
particularly for our ET brethren.     not necessarily the answer.           given a wad of cash that is then     over 20 years service would
You would also be painfully aware     Retention bonuses have the            taxed as income. A Reward            qualify for a Porsche Boxster AND
of the impact all those empty         unfortunate effect of annoying the    Scheme is as the name suggests;      a new walking frame . . . no, just
billets (resulting from said                                                                                     kidding, but you get the picture.
retention rate) have on the
personnel that are left to
shoulder the workload. And most
                                      My point is that it is going to                                            As you can see, every one of us
                                                                                                                 will qualify for some reward or
of you would be aware that one        be difficult to overcome the                                               other after our initial engagement.
of the main reasons our
personnel leave the RAN is a lack     job satisfaction dilemma, and                                              Personnel would have the option
                                                                                                                 of rejecting the scheme and
of job satisfaction. What is not
readily recognised is the exodus
                                      retention bonuses as we have                                               receive nothing until such time as
                                                                                                                 it suited them. There would be no
of corporate knowledge that
accompanies the personnel that
                                      seen in the past are not                                                   “cashing” out option and
                                                                                                                 personnel would only receive the
choose to leave.                      necessarily the answer.                                                    reward commensurate with their
How do we solve this problem?                                                                                    rank and “time in”. I have
The issue of job satisfaction is                                                                                 deliberately tied rank and time in
                                      hell out of all those who don’t get   a reward, not a fistful of dollars
extremely complex; how exactly                                                                                   service together, as some
                                      one, usually resulting in a drop in   you have to share with the
do you quantify job satisfaction?                                                                                personnel experience more rapid
                                      their performance or worst case,      Australian Taxation Office.
What I consider to be a satisfying    a dummy spitting discharge.                                                movement in their promotion
day at work others may consider                                             How will it work? I would suggest    rosters than others.
boring. A common complaint from       Retention bonus or Reward             that the rewards should be
most personnel relates to the         Scheme? is the question I pose.       something tangible and useful        So is it feasible? I believe so. The
need for them to perform non-         What if we reward personnel who       ranging from computers,              beancounters will tell us that it is
core functions, such as café          put up with the watch on deck         contributions to a private           a pay rise by default and it will
party, or watch on deck. Since the    and the café party, who persist       superannuation scheme, or            undoubtedly cost a fair sum of
inception of the Navy there has       with the long hours and the           ultimately a car. I know all these   money. But how much money do
been café party and watch on          dismal sea/shore roster;              things are available via salary      we waste recruiting people and
deck and I for one can not            personnel who persevere and           sacrifice; the difference is the     training them just to watch them
foresee a time in the near future     progress themselves and who are       Navy would pay the relevant          walk out the door six years later?
when there will not be a              prepared to stay for more than        payments and the associated          I believe that it will have a
requirement for them. The             their initial engagement? I           fringe benefits tax. As this is a    positive effect on retention – even
difference between now and the        imagine right about now most of       system that is currently in place    if we only succeed in keeping 20
days of old is that our ships carry   you are thinking, “what is the        there would be minimal start-up      personnel from leaving, that is
less personnel and subsequently       difference” (….and they let this      costs, if any.                       money saved by not having to
there is a smaller pool of            joker loose on a ship?) between                                            recruit and train another 20
                                                                            Who would get the Reward, and
personnel to provide the              what I am suggesting and a
                                                                            when? Personnel re-engaging          personnel (or in the case of 20
resources required, therefore you     Retention Bonus?
                                                                            after their initial period would     Petty Officers, another 100
will get “lashed” more often for      The difference is simple. A           qualify for a “reward” that was at   personnel). Not to mention the
non-core functions.                   Retention Bonus works like this; if   the lower end of the financial       loss of corporate knowledge,
So what is my point? My point is      we need personnel from Category       scale, and as they progress          which is something no-one can
that it is going to be difficult to   A to stay in the Navy for x number    through to Senior Sailor level and   put a price on.
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                    63




Aircraft Battle Damage                                                                                              BY LEUT NATASHA TINDAL,


Repair and Contingency
                                                                                                                    FLEET AVIATION ENGINEERING
                                                                                                                    SUPPORT OFFICER



Maintenance in the
Aviation World
Picture this, you and nine other Aviation Technician (AT) maintainers
are posted to an FFG S-70B-2 Seahawk Flight during a declared
contingency. Far from home and any hope of Deeper Level
Maintenance (DLM) support, you have, through necessity, become a
fairly self-sufficient team. By day five of the operation, the aircraft is
averaging eight flying hours a day and is considered an important
force multiplier for the ship’s involvement in the operation. The aircraft
is also heavily involved in up lifting stores and troops in support of
allied operations. Your team is working hard to keep the aircraft
available by undertaking scheduled maintenance tasks between each
sortie, where possible. It’s just before lunch and the team, who have
been working hard since before sunrise, are savouring the thought of a
well-cooked steak. Suddenly, the Helicopter Control Officer (HCO)
reports that the aircraft has declared a PAN and is returning to the
ship immediately. The pilot has reported taking ground fire and the
aircraft has fluctuating hydraulic pressure.

The aircraft returns on deck          An unlikely scenario? Not really.     The recent Gulf Conflict saw a
without further incident and a        A realistic timeframe? Now that       contingency declared for the first
cursory glance reveals evidence       depends.                              time since 1990 and as a result,
of gunshot damage to the STBD                                               RAN aircraft operating in the AO
                                      As the world stage continues to
transition section, hydraulic fluid                                         were able to adopt Contingency
                                      change shape, the above               Maintenance (CMAINT) policies.
is evident down the side of the       scenario is more likely to
cab. The OOW phones the                                                     CMAINT prioritises aircraft
                                      become a reality. Therefore, with     operational availability over the
hangar, the ship’s CO wants an        a slight shift in focus the RAN       longer-term preservation of
immediate report, and expects         Aviation Branch is endeavouring       material condition, or economic
his aircraft back in the air before   to better prepare its technical       considerations, and is intended
he finishes lunch. All hope of a      sailors for just such a situation.    to reduce maintenance
well-cooked steak vanishes from       Accordingly, armed with newly         downtimes without reducing
their minds as the team start         acquired Aircraft Battle Damage       safety - a ‘force-multiplier effect’.
dragging the aircraft's Structural    Repair (ABDR) techniques, finely      ABDR is normally a subset of
Repair Manual (SRM) out of the        honed Sheet Metal Repair (SMR)        CMAINT that utilises modified or
correctly secured-for-sea             skills, appropriate tooling and the   unconventional rapid repair
bookshelf and the Flight Senior       right attitude, AT sailors are        techniques to maximise aircraft
Maintenance Sailor (FSMS)             becoming increasingly prepared,       availability without significantly
starts the Hostile Action Report      and expected, to ‘do the job’         compromising airworthiness.
(HAR).                                themselves.                           Historically, a greater number of
64   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         aircraft are damaged during         revealed that both Flights lacked      procedures. Therefore, in order to
                         combat than lost completely.        the required proficiency,              carry out CMAINT and ABDR
                         Through the application of rapid    confidence, and in some                procedures personnel must first
                         repair techniques, ABDR can         instances tooling and                  have an in-depth understanding
                         return a damaged aircraft to        consumables to conduct the             of electrical and structural repairs
                         service in the shortest possible    necessary repairs. This situation      carried out with all the necessary
                         time frame, whether the aircraft    presented a significant capability     resources and in accordance with
                         has been rendered unserviceable     risk. Central to this situation was    approved standard procedures.
                         due to structural or system         an historical reliance to call on      FAEU Staff, in conjunction with
                         damage. ABDR employs locally
                         designed, authorised and applied
                         repairs utilising non-standard
                         materials, tools and equipment in
                                                             ABDR is not an acceptable
                         order to minimise aircraft
                         downtime.
                                                             peacetime maintenance
                         ABDR is not an acceptable           action, but can be used
                         peacetime maintenance action,
                         but can be used under certain       under certain circumstances
                         circumstances to quickly repair a
                         damaged aircraft so it can be       to quickly repair a damaged
                         flown out of further harms way.
                         Implementing CMAINT and ABDR
                                                             aircraft so it can be flown
                         is a prerogative of the
                         operational commander when
                                                             out of further harms way.
                         contingencies are declared or
                         warlike situations encountered. A                                          Training Authority - Aviation (TA-
                                                             contractor assistance almost
                         potential downside for                                                     AVN) and the ABDR School at
                                                             every time a complex airframe
                         implementing CMAINT or ABDR
                                                             structural repair was required to      RAAF Williamtown, devised a
                         is that the aircraft must be able
                                                             be expediently completed at            method for evaluating a Flights’
                         to be returned to peacetime
                                                             NAS Nowra. This practice had           structural repair capability,
                         standards if required, once the
                                                             resulted in a subsequent 'de-          including their understanding of
                         contingency is over. Where
                                                             skilling' of the AT workforce.         existing procedures. The
                         CMAINT conditions have been
                         implemented over a protracted       To rectify this situation, staff       evaluation employed the use of a
                         period or the aircraft has          within the Fleet Aviation              'repair simulator' that replicated a
                         undertaken a significant            Engineering Unit (FAEU) set            section of an aircraft's structure,
                         workload under such conditions,     about assessing the existing level     incorporating skin, frames,
                         a considerable maintenance          of tooling, material and AT            stringers, hydraulic lines and
                         effort may be needed to properly    sheetmetal repair skills in the        electrical looms. The simulators
                         complete any structural repairs     embarked environment, and then         were employed during a ship’s
                         and re-establish scheduled          compared the existing capability       Work-up and Unit Readiness
                         maintenance programs.               to what is required of an              Evaluation (URE) and were pre-
                                                             embarked ABDR/SMR baseline             damaged to reflect varying
                         So why has the RAN Aviation         capability. The overall intention of   degrees of ‘battle damage’
                         community suddenly started          the review was to ensure ships         expected to be sustained during
                         focusing on ABDR, and how           Flights were able to carry out, as     a contingency scenario. The
                         does it impact our                  a minimum, repairs detailed in         simulators were required to be
                         preparedness for combat?            the aircraft specific Structural       repaired by the ship's Flight
                                                             Repair Manuals. Training and           within a specified time frame,
                         In early 2002 two separate          competency in the concept of
                         aircraft structural repair                                                 with technical personnel ‘thinking
                                                             ABDR, although not an initial          outside the box’ where necessary.
                         instances highlighted a             focus, was also an objective.
                         deficiency in the airframe repair                                          The repair capability deficiencies
                         capability of RAN ships’ Flights.                                          identified by the exercises
                                                             So where to begin?
                         Both instances were                                                        provided a clear indication of
                         satisfactorily resolved by the      As with any situation, the ability     where efforts should be expended
                         Fleet Air Arm’s Mobile Aircraft     to operate safely outside              in order to improve a Flights’
                         Support Team (MAST), but            specified standard procedures          repair capabilities. Typical
                         arguably should have fallen         requires a thorough                    examples of the simulators and
                         within the capabilities of the      understanding of, and ability to       damage are shown in figures
                         ships’ Flights. Investigations      correctly carry out, those             1 to 4.
                                                                                     NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003              65




FIGURE 1: REPLICA S-70B-2 AIRFRAME SECTION (EXTERNAL VIEW)
                                                                                FIGURE 2: REPLICA SK-50 AIRFRAME SECTION (INTERNAL VIEW)




                                                                                FIGURE 4: DAMAGED SK-50 TEST PIECE (EXTERNAL VIEW)
FIGURE 3: DAMAGED S-70B-2 (EXTERNAL VIEW)


Trials with the SMR simulators on           Flights as they work-up. Flights    The toolboxes should enable
Flights at sea consistently                 have also developed an              Flights to carry out repairs
demonstrated:                               appreciation of their own           detailed in the appropriate
                                            strengths and weaknesses and        aircraft's SRM and, if called on,
(i)   a professional and                    confidence in their abilities.      undertake ABDR.
      enthusiastic approach to the          Subsequently, the Aviation FEG
      exercises;                                                                TA-AVN is also developing a range
                                            had a better understanding of
                                                                                of training packages to improve
(ii) an eagerness on the part of            each Flight's proficiency and
                                                                                ABDR awareness, including
     both ATA and ATV sailors to            warfighting capability and
                                                                                Technician, Assessor and
                                            confidence that those Flights
     use previously acquired but                                                Instructor courses that should
                                            deployed to OP FALCONER could
     under utilised skills;                                                     supplement skills already held
                                            reliably carry out ABDR if
                                                                                and to enhance the RAN’s ABDR
(iii) a keenness to improve                 required.
                                                                                capability. The Fleet Aviation
      current capability and
                                            As a result of the evaluation       Engineering Instruction (FAEI) 3-1
      practices, and to become              process and the identification of   has also been promulgated to
      involved in the ‘bigger               tooling shortcomings, FAEU is       provide RAN policy guidance to
      picture’; and                         currently involved in designing     Squadron’s to enable them to
(iv) a willingness to learn.                special SMR toolboxes that are      develop their own continuation
                                            compact but robust and contain      training packages for SMR and
Use of the simulators has                   all necessary structural repair     ABDR processes peculiar to their
continued beyond the initial                tooling and consumables,            specific aircraft. NASPO has also
evaluation process in order to              including some pre-fabricated or    been directed to review the
determine the capabilities of               heat-treated sheetmetal pieces.     process for allocating airframe
66   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                                                                       structural repair work to the         MAST will remain as a functioning
                                                                       contractor at NAS Nowra.              capability under the control of the
                                                                                                             FAEO and will continue to provide
                                                                       The ADF Directorate General
                                                                                                             support as required, but its role
                                                                       Technical Airworthiness (DGTA)
                                                                       has recently promulgated ABDR         will focus on specialist DLM
                                                                       policy with the release of            repairs that are patently beyond
                                                                       Australian Air Publication (AAP       the capability of a ship’s Flight.
                                                                       7002.011) that provides tri-          OIC MAST (the Fleet Aviation
                                                                       Service guidance on how to train,     Engineering Support Officer at
                                                                       test, implement and carry out         MHQ) performs the role of the
                                                                       ABDR. The RAN is well on track to     RAN ABDR Engineer to provide a
                                                                       meet all these requirements and       readily deployable source of
                                                                       to ensure an effective and            engineering advice and guidance
                                                                       efficient ABDR response if and        to Flights during circumstances
                                                                       when required.                        where complex structural or ABDR
                                                                                                             repairs need to be undertaken.
                                                                       So where to from here?                Overall, ships’ Flights will be
                                                                       In parallel to the formal             better equipped with appropriate
                                                                       introduction of the simulated         tools, a wider range of
                                                                       structural repair process into a      consumables, and the necessary
                                                                       Flight’s work-up and URE              proficiency training to become far
                         About the Author: LEUT Natasha Tindall,
                         FAESO, Fleet Aviation Engineering Unit
                                                                       program, the first specialist SMR     more self-sufficient. As a result,
                         (FAEU), Maritime Headquarters, Wylde          toolbox is planned to be trialed      scenarios such as the one
                         Street, Potts Point, Sydney NSW. An MHQ       by the end of August 03. An initial   detailed at the introduction will
                         element of COMAUSNAVAIRGRP      .             order for seven toolboxes has
                         natasha.tindall@defence.gov.au
                                                                                                             be easily managed within the
                         (02) 9359 4534.                               been placed by NASPO and will         capability of the Flight's
                         LEUT Tindall completed an Aeronautical        be distributed between 816 and        maintenance team, thus
                         Engineering Degree at the Australian          817 Squadrons for appropriate
                         Defence Force Academy in 1997. She
                                                                                                             improving the RAN's ability to
                         subsequently trained at 816 Squadron in       allocation to their Flights.          undertake sustained warfighting
                         order to obtain her Aviation Engineering                                            or contingency operations.
                         Officer’s Certificate of Competence           Aircraft SRMs will be reviewed by
                         (AEOCC). Since achieving this, she has        NASPO Design Engineers to
                         worked as a Project Engineer for Project      ensure they contain accurate,         Bibliography:
                         Sea (PS) 1405 (the Seahawk FLIR and                                                 AAP 7002.011, Aircraft Battle Damage
                         ESM project) and been the Deputy AEO at
                                                                       easy to read and user-friendly
                                                                                                             Repair.
                         817 Squadron. LEUT Tindall is currently the   repair schemes that contain all
                                                                                                             ‘Review of RAN Ships’ Flight Airframe
                         Fleet Aviation Engineering Support Officer    relevant and approved structural      Repair Capability’, report written by LCDR
                         (FAESO) at Maritime Headquarters.
                                                                       repair processes.                     D. Hanley, dated 28 May 02.
                                                                                NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003               67




The Navy Technical                                                                                              BY CMDR BOB HORSNELL CSC


Regulatory System
(TRS) –
Development and
Implementation Project –
an Update
(Formerly Project HELP)
Introduction
In the last Engineering Bulletin, I provided an update and described the
plan for the immediate future (six months) of the Project. In this article, I
will again provide a Project update, but also include some discussion on
the Delegation of Engineering Authority component of the Navy Technical
Regulatory System (NTRS).
For those readers who have              The Project was established to     level of support and constructive
missed previous articles, Navy          develop and deploy the NTRS        feedback the Project has received
Technical Regulation is defined as      during the period 2002 to 2004.    from its ‘customers’. Although
“A principles based system for                                             many have contributed, particular,
                                        Project Update and Immediate
controlling the risks, during                                              thanks must go to the following
                                        Future
design, construction and                                                   organisations; CME, LSA-N, NCSA,
maintenance, that impact on the         I am pleased to report that        DSME, DSMS, AWD SPO, ANZ
technical integrity of ADF              support for the Project remains    SPO, FFG SPO, AAS SPO and the
maritime materiel.” Technical           strong and progress has been       ANZAC CEM.
integrity refers to an item’s fitness   better than expected. As a
for service, safety and                                                    In parallel with the development
                                        consequence, the primary           of ABR 6492, the Project has
environmental compliance.               deliverable of this phase of the   conducted a number of
Navy Technical Regulation is            project — The Navy Technical       successful appraisals of
achieved by ensuring that work          Regulations Manual (ABR 6492)      organisations with a view to CNE
undertaken during design,               is now complete, has been          granting them Authorised
construction and maintenance of         signed by the Chief Naval          Engineering Organisation (AEO)
ADF maritime materiel is:               Engineer (CDRE Tim Barter) and     status. This is one of the
a.   to approved standards,             is in the hands of the Defence
                                                                           requirements of the NTRS as
                                        Publications Service for
                                                                           listed in the introduction to this
b.   completed by competent             production and promulgation. The
     and authorised individuals,                                           article. Seven organisations will
                                        released version (V1.0) is also
     who                                                                   be accredited by the end of
                                        available on the Directorate of
                                                                           September this year with a
c.   work for Authorised                Technical Regulation – Navy’s
                                                                           further 10 planned for the
     Engineering Organisations,         (DTR-N) website (see contact
                                                                           remainder of FY 2003-04. The
     and                                details below).
                                                                           achievement of AEO status
d.   whose work is certified as         This progress would not have       indicates that the organisation
     correct.                           been achieved without the high     has the right systems, people,
68   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         processes and data
                         management in place to                Delegation of Engineering
                         effectively maintain the technical
                         integrity of the ADF maritime
                         materiel for which the
                                                               Authority
                         organisation has responsibility.
                                                               Introduction                            based on competency and the
                         During the remainder of 2003 the                                              risk associated with decisions.”
                         Project Team and DTR-N will focus     The Navy Technical Regulatory
                         on the following:                     System (NTRS), as you have read         Engineering Authority and the
                                                               previously, is about controlling        Individual Vs Organisational
                         a.   development of training,         technical risk during design,           Position
                              education and awareness          construction and maintenance of
                              packages for DMO and Navy        ADF maritime materiel. One of the       You will note from the definition
                              personnel;                       fundamental principles of the           that delegation of engineering
                                                               system is that only competent           authority is related to individual
                         b.   improving the DTR-N website
                                                               and authorised individuals are to       competency and the risk
                              and its links to associated
                                                               undertake work on ADF maritime          associated with decision
                              documentation and
                                                               materiel.                               making. This is important, as it
                              standards;
                                                                                                       must be stressed that
                         c.   development and                  Although the principle is simple        delegation of engineering
                              implementation of strategies     and few would disagree with it,         authority is linked to the
                              to inculcate the principles of   application of the principle            individual and not the position
                              Navy Technical Regulation into   requires a shift in thinking from       the individual fills within an
                              the culture of both the RAN      associating engineering authority       organisation. Too often in the
                              and those DMO organisations      with position to linking                past an engineering
                              responsible for the support of   engineering authority to the            organisational structure was
                              ADF maritime materiel;           individual. This paradigm shift         established, individuals were
                                                               may cause confusion among               recruited or posted to fill those
                         d.   improve and automate,
                                                               those setting up engineering            positions, and then some level
                              where possible, DTR-N’s
                              process and practices; and       organisations or considering an         of engineering authority was
                                                               engineering organisation                assigned to the incumbent. For
                         e.   progress the review and          restructure.                            example, “As Combat System
                              facilitate the upgrading of                                              Engineer for XXXX, you are
                              associated engineering           The aim of this article is to clarify
                                                                                                       authorised to . . . ”. This method
                              documents and instructions       the requirements of the NTRS as
                                                                                                       did not, as a general rule, take
                              including:                       they apply to the delegation of
                                                                                                       into account the actual
                                                               engineering authority. Firstly I will
                              (i) ABR 5230,                                                            competence of the incumbent.
                                                               define engineering authority, then
                              (ii) ABR 5454,                   detail the relationship between         Under the NTRS, when
                                                               risk and engineering authority          establishing an engineering
                              (iii) ABR 5225,                  before outlining regulatory             organisational structure,
                              (iv) DI(N) LOG 82-3, and         obligations of Authorised               organisations are encouraged to
                                                               Engineering Organisations (AEO)         firstly list the engineering tasks to
                              (v) The TM 180 / 181             and how engineering authority is        be performed, then determine the
                                  process and                  applied in the Fleet. Finally, I will   category of technical risk
                                  management.                  add a short paragraph explaining        associated with these tasks. A list
                                                               the links between engineering           of these risk categories can be
                                                               authority and IEAUST                    found in ABR 6492 Volume 2
                                                               accreditation.                          Section 5 Chapter 2 Annex A, and
                                                                                                       range from 1 (catastrophic) to 5
                                                               Full details may be found in
                                                                                                       (Minor).
                                                               Volume 2 Section 5 of ABR
                                                               6492.                                   Having established the risk
                                                                                                       categories associated with the
                                                               Definition
                                                                                                       engineering tasks to be
                                                               Engineering Authority may be            undertaken by the organisation,
                                                               defined as “an individual with          reference can then be made to
                                                               delegated authority, in                 Annex B of the same chapter of
                                                               accordance with ABR 6492, to            ABR 6492 to determine the level
                                                               make engineering decisions              of engineering authority required
                                                               concerning ADF maritime materiel        to make decisions for each risk
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                          69




category. For example, a Level 2      Technical Regulatory                  units and the FEGs. It is             In Conclusion
engineering authority is required     Requirements                          anticipated that Charge Engineers
to make decisions at Risk                                                   (WEEO/MEO) of platforms, and          Technical regulation is about
                                      Organisations conducting design,                                            controlling risk. One way to
Category Level 2.                                                           the Senior Engineers of each FEG
                                      construction and or maintenance                                             contribute to the control of
                                                                            will be at Level 3 as a minimum.
Once the tasks, risk categories       on ADF maritime materiel must
                                                                            Formal delegations of engineering     technical risks during design,
and engineering authority             seek AEO status. To qualify for
                                                                            authority below Level 3 in            construction and maintenance of
requirements have been                AEO status, organisations must
                                                                            Platforms is not deemed               ADF maritime materiel is ensure
determined, the organisation can      have an Engineering Management
                                                                            necessary at this time with the       that those individuals conducting
then decide which engineering         System (EMS). A component of
                                                                            exception of Senior Technical         this work are both competent and
authorities will be maintained in-    the EMS will be a documented
                                                                            Officers in Minors. However,          authorised to do so.
house, and which engineering          process for the internal delegation
                                                                            platform Charge Engineers are to
authorities will be ‘outsourced’.     of engineering authority, reviewing                                         When developing an engineering
                                                                            ensure that work (maintenance)
This decision will generally be       both the process and the                                                    organisational structure, it is
                                                                            conducted on their platform is
based on the frequency of             delegations, and a method of
                                                                            undertaken by competent               important to assess the technical
decision making at the higher (eg     recording delegations in what is to
                                                                            individuals. This means ensuring      risk associated with the tasks and
Level 2) end of the risk category     be termed an Engineering
                                                                            that Competency Logs are              delegate engineering authority
scale. For example, if Level 2        Authority Register.
                                                                            complete, billet pre-requisites are   only to individuals competent to
decisions of a combat system
                                      The Chief Naval Engineer (CNE)        fulfilled, and watch-keeping and      manage those risks, even if this
nature are taken infrequently, and
                                      will be the only Level 1              Certificates of Competency            means out-sourcing that
the majority of decisions are at
                                      engineering authority within the      (officer and sailor) are held where   competence. Delegation of
risk category level 3, it may be
                                      ADO, and will be the only person      necessary. Charge Engineers are       engineering authority is to the
decided to outsource level 2
                                      with the authority to delegate        to flag shortcomings to the FEG       individual, not their position in
decisions and retain one or more
                                      engineering authority to Level 2      and CSO(E).
level 3 engineering authorities in-                                                                               the organisation.
                                      engineers. Level 2 engineers may
house. The engineering                                                      Professional development
                                      delegate Level 3 or below                                                   AEOs must develop a process to
organisational structure can then
                                      engineering authority to other        It is vital that both Navy and the    manage internal engineering
be formalised.
                                      engineers, technicians and            DMO retain, maintain and              delegations and recording these
It can be seen, from the              tradespersons; however, Level 3       develop engineering expertise.        delegations in the Engineering
paragraphs above, that the            engineering authorities (or           AEOs will be required to maintain     Authority Register. The chain of
incumbent of any particular           below), may not sub-delegate          a professional development            engineering delegations within
position within an engineering        engineering authority. Where there    program to demonstrate how the        Navy stems from CNE, through
organisation may not have the         is to be no Level 2 engineering       organisation will continue to
                                                                                                                  CSO(E) to platforms and the
engineering authority to take all     authority within an organisation,     provide competent individuals
                                                                                                                  FEGs.
of the decisions associated with      delegations for Level 3 and below     throughout the lifecycle of the
that position. This must be clearly   are to be sought from a Level 2       ADF maritime materiel for which it    Professional development
understood by the incumbent,          engineering authority outside of      has responsibility. Navy already      programs are to be aligned with
who must exercise good                the organisation, or from CNE.        has such a program.                   IEAust standards. RAN engineers
engineering judgement when                                                                                        are encouraged to seek IEAust
                                      AEOs are also responsible for         Readers will note that the
taking decisions, and seek higher                                                                                 recognition, and should contact
                                      ensuring that products and            minimum competency
engineering authority for                                                                                         DNPR(E&L) for detail. Application
                                      services provided by contractors      requirements for the higher levels
decisions outside of his or her                                                                                   forms are available on
                                      and suppliers meet defence            of engineering authority as
assigned authority.
                                      requirements. Therefore, they are     detailed in Annex B of Chapter 2      DNPR(E&L)’s website, see details
In all circumstances, engineers,      to ensure that their contractors      to Section 5 of Volume 2 of ABR       below.
technicians and tradespersons         and suppliers have comparable         6492 are aligned to IEAust
                                      levels of engineering authority                                             Contact details
must exercise what is termed                                                accreditation. Professional
their ‘self-assessed level of         associated with the technical risk    development programs are to be        DEFWEB: see NAVSYSCOM site
competence’ when taking               related to the tasks to be            developed to encourage                then select ‘Regulation’, then
decisions. This means that if         performed.                            engineers to seek recognition at      ‘DTR-N’
there is concern that the decision                                          Chartered Professional Engineer       E-mail: DTR-N@defence.gov.au
                                      Engineering Authority in the
about to be taken may be beyond                                             or Chartered Professional             Phone: CMDR Bob Horsnell
                                      Fleet
the assigned level of engineering                                           Technologist and membership of
                                                                                                                  02 6266 2652
authority, or the individual making   The chain of engineering authority    IEAust. Naval officers and sailors
the decision is uncomfortable in      within Navy commences with            interested in seeking recognition     DNPR(E&L) 02 6266 4023
doing so, then peer review or the     CNE. From CNE, authority passes       with IEAust should contact            DNPR(E&L) website: see
advice of a higher engineering        to CSO(E), as a mandatory Level       DNPR(E&L) for detail and              NAVSYSCOM site then select
authority should be sought.           2 engineer, and then into Fleet       application forms.                    ‘Engineering and Logistics’.
70       NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




MR. JEREMY LINDEYER
SEA 1442 SYSTEMS
                               Engineering of Maritime
ENGINEERING MANAGER
                               Capability, a Project SEA
                               1442 perspective
                               Introduction
                               SEA 1442 Phase 3 is a critical project in Maritime Communications and
                               Information Management Architecture Modernisation (MCIMAM),
                               delivering both task-group Maritime Tactical Wide Area Networks
                               (MTWAN) and automated message handling in the form of a Maritime
                               Battlespace Communications and Information System (MBCIS), depicted
                               in Figure 1. In contrast with the existing ‘stove-piped’ communication
                               systems on board ships, the commercial IP network technology and
                               adaptive networking within the MBCIS will efficiently utilize all available
                               ship communication resources, irrespective of bearer type. This provides
                               the infrastructure to support services ranging from command and control
                               to ‘quality of life’ applications in the difficult maritime environment,
                               allowing closer collaboration between Navy, other services, and allied
                               force elements. The development of this infrastructure has been a major
                               focus of AUSCANUKUS nations as outlined in ‘Allied Maritime Tactical
                               Wide Area Networking’ -by Mr. Van Vu, Navy Engineering Bulletin,
                               August 2002.




FIGURE 1: THE SEA 1442 MTWAN
                                                                                 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                        71




Developing Capability Definition      of effort to manually maintain        632:1998), identified by the         Broadly speaking, two iterations
Documents                             consistency once changes are          ASDEFCON(SM) template. It is an      of the entire IEEE 1220 SEP will
                                      made. This ‘engineering by            engineering policy standard          be conducted during the
SEA 1442 Phase 3 is an
                                      Microsoft Office’ approach is         requiring a complete and             development of the SEA1442
endorsed project and the
                                      considered inadequate for the         integrated technical effort from     capability documents, at two
Integrated Project Team (IPT),
                                      specification of complex systems      identification of need through to    levels of detail. In the first
including members from
                                      such as the SEA 1442 Phase 3          disposal. Oriented towards control   iteration, the OCD and TCD are
Capability Systems, are
                                      MBCIS. The complexity of the          and surveillance by the customer,    developed in parallel, using as
developing the initial version of
                                      Phase 3 MBCIS stems not only          its principle value is contained     inputs all the draft documents
the capability definition
                                      from the technology involved but      more in the guidance associated      created by the collaborative effort
document suite for the Phase 3
                                      the potential number of other         with the 33 abstract requirements    with contractors mentioned
request for tender (RFT). The suite                                         than the description of
                                      systems to which it interfaces.                                            earlier and further stakeholder
includes the Operational Concept                                            recommended engineering              engagement by the project office.
Document (OCD), Function and          While the CDDG provides               processes.                           This iteration codified the high-
Performance Specification (FPS)       information about the content of
                                                                                                                 level requirements of the
and Test Concept Document             the DAF views, it does not provide    In contrast, the Institute of
                                                                                                                 warfighter, and sketches out the
(TCD). To provide the                 guidance about how the views          Electrical and Electronic
                                                                            Engineering 1220 standard (IEEE      first few levels of the functional
Commonwealth with diversity in        should be kept holistic and
                                                                            1220:1998) is similar to the EIA-    and logical hierarchy of the
approach to the MBCIS solution,       complete. A robust and clearly
                                                                            632 but details systems              system. On completion of the
three independent prime system        articulated system engineering
                                                                            engineering processes and its        OCD, the FPS is developed using
integrators were engaged early,       process in the context of a C4ISR
                                                                            application throughout the           a second major iteration of the
yielding significant benefits for     (Command, Control,
                                                                            system life cycle. It defines an                      ,
                                                                                                                 IEEE 1220 SEP translating the
the Commonwealth as insight into      Communications, Computers,
                                                                            engineering model involving          requirements of the OCD into
the range of problems that could      Intelligence, Surveillance and
                                                                            numerous processes and               technical specifications at far
result from the development effort    Reconnaissance) framework is
                                                                            associated planning that comply      greater detail and filling out the
was gained.                           required to guide systems
                                                                            with the requirements of EIA-632     lower levels of the hierarchies.
                                      engineering efforts within the
The SEA 1442 IPT team will                                                  and emphasize verification and       These major iterations are shown
                                      project office and maintain the
consolidate the capability                                                  validation. Each                     in Figure 3.
                                      integrity of the system model
definition documents with                                                   analysis/verification loop forms a
                                      being developed.                                                           The CDDG guidance was
stakeholders from DNC4ISREW,                                                phase of the overall process. This   extended by mapping it onto the
Force Element Groups (FEG),           For this reason, the project office   standard was selected because it     SEP defined in IEEE 1220. The
System Project Offices (SPO) and      decided to integrate a systems        contained detailed content, which    mapping involved relating all
other RAN agencies into a             engineering standard into the         suited the SEA 1442 Phase 2B         parts of the CDDG to IEEE 1220
capability baseline that will form    foundation set out by the CDDG        project definition study and the     processes and the various
the basis of a contract between       for the development of the            relative immaturity of the           sections of the capability
Capability Systems and DMO. The       capability definition documents.      processes within the project         definition documents to process
DMO will use these documents          By mandating a more rigorous          office.                              outputs.
for the contract baseline for         process that details what and
tender activity.                      how tasks such as requirements        It is anticipated that as the        The mapping created breakpoints
                                      and functional analysis are           project office’s capabilities        in the development process of
Systems Engineering Issues                                                  mature, the less restrictive EIA-
                                      implemented, those working on                                              the definition documents where
The DMO’s Capability Definition       the project are better guided in      632 standard will be utilised for    quality and consistency between
Documents Guide (CDDG)                producing a suite of mutually         controlling engineering efforts in   the various sections of the OCD,
provides significant advice           consistent documents with             the SEA 1442 Phase 3                 FPS and TCD could be checked.
concerning the content of the         improved integration.                 acquisition.                         As a consequence of explicitly
OCD, FPS and TCD, the                                                       Process                              embedding the iterative nature of
                                      The choice of which standard to
applicability of the various                                                                                     the SEP into the CDDG, conflicts
                                      integrate into the process was        The systems engineering process
Defence Architecture Framework                                                                                   or variances discovered at each
                                      determined on basis of the            (SEP) defined in IEEE 1220
(DAF) views and an indication of                                                                                 phase of development trigger
                                      standard’s quality, detail and        contain three phases:
the system engineering approach                                                                                  another iteration of a phase in a
                                      popularity in Defence industry, as    requirement analysis/verification,
that must be followed to ensure                                                                                  controlled manner in accordance
                                      outlined below.                       functional analysis/verification
stakeholder needs translate into                                                                                 with the IEEE 1220 standard. This
                                                                            and design synthesis/verification.   approach is in contrast with the
effective capability.                 SE Standards
                                                                            Each phase may be iterated           CDDG, where updating the
The IPT is maintaining the            There are many standards              many times during system             documents on receiving feedback
consistency of the various DAF        applicable to the engineering of      specification to ensure validity     is considered nearer the
views to completely describe the      complex communications                and consistency of the resultant     conclusion of the development
system by managing changes as         systems, written by several global    requirement, functional and          process.
they occur. Often, views are          authorities. One of the standards     logical baselines. A simplified
generated in Word or PowerPoint       considered was the Electronics        overview of this process is shown    The development of the
formats and require a great deal      Industry Alliance 632 (EIA-           in Figure 2.                         integrated development process
72   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         FIGURE 2: SIMPLIFIED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS FROM IEEE 1220



                         highlighted the importance of a           specifications are merged into the   Development Guide (CDDG), the
                         cohesive and integrated approach          CORE repository’s model at ever-     SEA 1442 project office is
                         to analyzing and specifying               increasing levels of detail, as      actively reducing risk by explicitly
                         requirements. It identified the           shown in Figure 4. The CORE™         integrating strong systems
                         need to greatly reduce exposure           tool allows the requisite DAF        engineering processes of the
                         to risk during architectural              views in the CDDG to be              IEEE1220 standard and powerful
                         comparison, selection and                 automatically generated and          software tools into the
                         development, particularly during          updated, removing the need to        development of mutually
                         the earlier concept definition            redraw them on modification,         consistent and robust capability
                         stages in the exploration of              which improves project office        definition documents. These
                         mission need and benefit, and             efficiency. The use of the           documents will form the basis of
                         the development of mission                database gives the project office    the project office’s Request for
                         concept and operations.                   far greater control of the system    Tender.
                         The CORE™ integrated database,            model being developed, as the        Further details including the
                         together with its specialized             elements, relationships and          SEA1442 OCD, FPS and TCD are
                         C4ISR schema has been                     attributes of the system within      located on the project website on
                         mandated to capture systems,              and between operational, system      the DefWeb.
                         operations and design elements            and functional domains are           1 From ‘Systems Engineering
                         in a common data repository. The          tracked automatically.               Fundamentals’, Defense Acquisition
                         development process was                                                        University Press, January 2001, Figure 1-3.
                                                                   With the system model complete,      2 From ‘Systems Engineering and Core®: A
                         extended to detail how data               the OCD, FPS and TCD, complete       Natual Approach to C4ISR’, Figure 3, Vitech
                         would be entered into the                 with required DAF views may be       Corporation, 2002.
                         database using the special                generated from the CORE™
                         semantics of the C4ISR schema             database using existing or
                         that relate operational and
                                                                   modified scripts, ensuring tightly
                         system architectural domains.
                                                                   integrated definition
                         As the system engineering effort          documentation of the desired
                         progresses through the IEEE               system and improving overall
                         1220 defined phases of                    document integrity.
                                                                                                        About the Author: Mr. Lindeyer joined DMO
                         (operational) requirements                                                     in January 2003 after five years as a
                                                                   Conclusion
                         analysis, functional analysis and                                              software engineer. He has degrees in
                         synthesis, requirements and               Building on the foundation of the    engineering and science and shall
                                                                                                        complete an MBA this year.
                         function/performance                      Capability Documents
                                                                            NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003    73




      Desirable Products
                                                                 OCD, FPS Refinement                   Draft RFT


  •      Stakeholder
         Interviews
  •      T&E Program                                                                                •     Initial OCD
  •      Draft OCD (sec. 4 & 5,                                                                     •     Initial TCD
         annex A & D)
  •      Draft FPS
  •      Draft TCD
  •      PD                                                           OCD/TCD
                                                                      SEP
  •      Committee Endorsed
         Option
  •      DSTO Study
  •      RANCIS
  •      MARIGOLD



                                                                                                   •     Final OCD
                                                                                                   •     Final FPS
                                                                      FPS SEP                      •     Final TCD
FIGURE 3: SEP USED IN OCD, FPS DEVELOPMENT




FIGURE 4: C4ISR PRODUCTS AS A FUNCTION OF ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES.
74   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




                         Engineering or
                         management?
                         Nick Hammond spent 35 years as an engineer officer in the Royal
                         Australian Navy, entering the RAN College in 1960 and retiring as a
                         Rear Admiral in 1995.

                         He has had a long involvement in      academic background of the            the other hand it generally
                         Defence acquisition including the     leadership and most of the            involves less day to day stress
                         management of the Guided              members of the review team, it        and better opportunities for a
                         Missile Destroyer Modernisation       was not surprising that               balanced lifestyle – something
                         and the Australian Frigate and        mathematics and hard sciences         the younger generation thankfully
                         ANZAC Ship Projects. In 1992 he       were well represented in the          seems to be more sensible about
                         became responsible for all Navy       fundamentals.                         than its predecessors.
                         Projects as the Assistant Chief of
                         Naval Staff – Materiel.               The input to the review from          A decision to become a real
                                                               industry where most “Real             engineer does not burn bridges.
                         He transferred to the Reserve in      Engineering” is done these days       As long as technical skills and
                         January 1995 to become the            emphasised that people skills,        people skills are both included in
                         First Assistant Secretary, Defence    communications and teamwork           initial and continuing education,
                         Materiel, responsible for joint       were more important than the          transition to engineering
                         service acquisition projects and      ability to do fifth order             management in mid career is
                         for Defence policy on information     differential-equations in one’s       quite possible and good
                         management.                           head. This awkward information        engineers with management skills
                                                               was largely buried in the final
                                                                                                     are in high demand. Those who
                         In January 1997 he took up his        report. As a result, the profession
                                                                                                     don’t aquire people skills early
                         present job as Managing Director      continues to attract more than its
                                                                                                     will have more difficulty but (as
                         of Saab Systems (formerly             fair share of individuals whose
                                                                                                     Ken Michael points out in the
                         CelsiusTech Australia), a supplier    enormous technical ability is
                                                                                                     same issue) they won’t progress
                         of major systems for the Defence      rendered ineffective by their
                                                                                                     far in straight engineering either.
                         market. He retired as Managing        inability to communicate.
                         Director in 2003 but remains on
                         the Saab Systems board and is a       There is a role and a career path     For undergraduates and young
                         director of a number of other         for people who want to move into      engineers facing career decisions,
                         companies.                            engineering management without        the choice doesn’t have to be
                                                               fully developing their engineering    complicated. If “real engineering “
                         The following letter appeared in      skills. Many jobs in project          interests you and you have the
                         the July 2003 issue of Engineers      management for example require        academic ability, then take that
                         Australia, the Journal of the         an understanding of the               path, but make sure that your
                         Institution of Engineers Australia.   engineering processes involved        engineering training is not at the
                                                               but not the ability to design those   expense of people skills,
                         May I add a few thoughts to the       processes. Good people in this        particularly effective
                         “Real Engineer” vs “Engineering       area are readily employable.          communication and team work.
                         Manager” debate in your May
                         2003 issue correspondence?            “Real Engineers” are also in          You can still make a transition to
                                                               demand. Although many company         engineering management in mid
                         The 1986 review of Engineering        chief engineers earn more than        career.
                         education came out strongly in        their engineering manager peers,
                         favour of a solid base in the         this career path is probably less     Nick Hammond, FIEAust
                         fundamentals. Given the               well renumerated on average. On       Adelaide
                                                               NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003                       75




                                  MANAGEMENT
                                  EDUCATION
Professional development is essential for career success. To keep you up-to-date with the latest knowledge and skills,
APESMA Management Education offers a full range of management education and training solutions. Whatever your
management education and training needs, APESMA has a solution to suit you.
A quick skills update
APESMA Short Courses are designed to produce immediate performance outcomes. Our expert presenters draw their content
from workplace experience and case studies, which means you learn one day and apply your learning the next. You can use
short courses to gain 1 Unit credit towards the Graduate Certificate of Management by completing 3 two-day courses*
conditions apply

Popular courses include:
• Contract Management
• Risk Management
• Project Management
• Leadership & Team Management
• Writing Winning Technical Documents
A selection of courses is also available online.
See www.apesma-shortcourses.com or call 1300 85 33 77 for details.
The essential management qualification
If you aspire to a senior management position, then a Master of Business Administration (MBA) is rapidly becoming a pre-
requisite for success.
The APESMA MBA
• Offered in partnership with La Trobe University
• Australia’s largest MBA: 2,000 active students and 10,000 graduates
• Technology Management specialisation available
• Flexible distance learning format
See www.mba-distance-learning.com or call 1300 85 33 77 for details.
Other qualifications available in partnership with La Trobe University include: Master of Technology in Project Management,
Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma of Management. A Doctor of Business Administration is offered in partnership
with Charles Sturt University.
Training for frontline supervisors
The Modular Frontline Management Program offers members in supervisory positions a nationally recognised qualification. It
is a competency-based training program which aims to develop workplace skills across the following key areas:
• Work priorities
• Operational relations
• Workplace relations
• Teamwork
• Information systems
Three levels of qualification are available, and credit for workplace projects can be provided.
See www. apesma.asn.au/education/frontline or call 1300 85 33 77 for details.
76   NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003




        Course Schedule

        Contract Management                                                    Project Management
      Members $650 Non Members $750                                          Members $650 Non Members $750
      This course is designed to provide participants with an                This course aims to assist participants to understand how project
      understanding of the key concepts, skills and issues involved in       management can be used to achieve business goals.
      contract management.                                                   Date:                 Location:             Duration:
      Date:                 Location:             Duration:                  September 2-3         Perth                 2 days
      September 9-10        Sydney                2 days
      October 7-8           Melbourne             2 days                     September 29-30       Sydney                2 days
      October 14-15         Perth                 2 days                     October 9-10          Hobart                2 days
                                                                             November 11-12        Melbourne             2 days

        Finance for Non-Financial People                                       Risk Management
      Members $650 Non Members $750                                          Members $650 Non Members $750
      This course is recommended for participants with little or no          This course gives participants an understanding of the principles,
      financial or accounting experience who wish to develop their ability   current processes and techniques of risk management.
      to understand and utilise financial information.                       Date:                  Location:           Duration:
      Date:                  Location:             Duration:                 September 29-30        Darwin              2 days
      September 8-9          Adelaide              2 days
      September 11-12        Darwin                2 days                    October 9-10           Brisbane            2 days
      October 8-9            Sydney                2 days                    November 12-13         Sydney              2 days
      October 28-29          Perth                 2 days                    November 18-19         Melbourne           2 days
      November 24-25         Melbourne             2 days
                                                                               Negotiation Skills & Dispute Resolution
        Leadership & Team Management                                         Members $650 Non Members $750
                                                                             This course aims to demonstrate the importance of communication
      Members $650 Non Members $750                                          and problem solving skills in the negotiation process.
      This course will enable participants to understand how effective       Date:                 Location:              Duration:
      leadership can improve productivity, and what constitutes effective    September 24-25       Brisbane               2 days
      leadership and team management.                                        October 21-22         Adelaide
      Date:                  Location:            Duration:
      September 17-18        Sydney               2 days                     November 25-26        Sydney

                                                                               Strategic Asset Management
        Managing Consultants & Contractors                                   Members $650 Non Members $750
                                                                             This course has been designed for enterprises wanting to develop
      Members $650 Non Members $750                                          coherent, and appropriately structured, asset management plans.
      This course is designed to help participants avoid the pitfalls and
                                                                             Date:                Location:             Duration:
      maximise the benefits from contracting work to others.
      Date:                 Location:             Duration:                  September 23-24      Melbourne             2 days
      September 16-17       Melbourne             2 days                     October 15-16        Sydney                2 days
      November 12-13        Canberra              2 days
                                                                               Advanced Technical Writing Skills
                                                                             Members $350 Non Members $750
        Strategic Marketing for Technical People                             Date:             Location:                Duration:
                                                                             October 16        Canberra                 1 day
      Members $650 Non Members $750
      This course has been designed for enterprises wanting to develop
      coherent, and appropriately structured, marketing plans and to           Effective Research for Busy Professionals
      understand the importance and value of developing marketing
      effective marketing strategies.                                        Members $350 Non Members $750
      Date:                  Location:           Duration:                   Date:             Location:                Duration:
      September 29-30        Melbourne           2 days                      September 4       Sydney


        Writing Winning Technical Documents                                    Getting Results with Microsoft Project
      Members $350 Non Members $750                                          Members $350 Non Members $750
      Date:             Location:                 Duration:                  Date:             Location:                Duration:
      November 27       Melbourne                 1 Day                      October 23        Sydney                   1 day

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:11/4/2011
language:English
pages:78