Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

To MTE, or not to MTE 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 attracting sailors to the MTE branch are many and varied. Certainly one of the major disincentives appears to be the fact that MTE sailors must complete a much longer ITT course and thereby suffer the financial consequences of being 16 weeks behind their MTM counterparts. They must then attain all of the MTM qualifications, more often than not without the under pinning knowledge provided to MTM sailors by EAC’s or ASTC’s, in order to be competitive for career progression and promotion. This is in addition to their own stream requirements. Many of the Trainees will readily admit they take the easy way out and stream MTM straight away to avoid the extra course time, in a bid to escape Cerberus that much earlier. There is a definite perception of inequality in the duties and responsibilities of the MTM as opposed to those of the MTE. Despite what the “theories” on cross-training and multi-skilling may reflect, the responsibility for all but the lowest level electrical tasks still traditionally fall to the MTE, regardless of whose work centre they belong to. The age old ” it’s an electrical problem, get a Greenie” mentality is still very much alive and well. Admittedly not in all cases, but certainly anecdotal evidence would suggest that in the majority in most cases this is still happening. In effect an MTE must endeavour to become a subject matter expert in his chosen electrical field, in addition to fulfilling the watch-keeping, MWC, and ERWC demands placed upon him if he wishes to progress his career. MTM sailors only conduct about 60 odd hours of electrical training during their Initial Technical training, consequently they are excluded from all Shore Power Evolutions and the vast majority of Electrical tasks based on their lack of under pinning knowledge. The fact that the Anzac Stream have re-assigned equal numbers of MTM and MTE sailors to the reconfigured work centres highlights this inequality in expectations and must justify a case for "a separate promotional stream for the MTE". One that focuses the promotional pre requisites on the electrical as opposed to the mechanical aspects of our employment. The overwhelming evidence from the coalface must NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 lean pretty heavily to the affirmative. Realistically, if you are a work centre I/C and you develop a mechanically oriented fault on the RO plant, who are you going to send to attend to it? The sailor best qualified to deal with the problem of course, electrical sailors for electrical problems and mechanical sailors for the mechanical aspects. Hardly the shining example of multi skilling TTP92 was designed to provide. As ETP’s (Electrical Technical Power branch) we had an clear identity, a deep sense of pride in who we were and what we did, this reflected in our levels of expertise and service. Despite common perception this was important as it nurtured that pride, a sense of belonging and encouraged the passage of knowledge between the more experienced members and their younger peers or subordinates. Yes, there were inevitable lines of demarcation between the various Technical Branches, although I doubt they were ever truly enforced or a real problem for anyone, rather a guide to where respective areas of responsibility began and ended. The lack of civilian recognition of the MTE qualification must also 53 BY POMTE JIM RANKINE, HMAS CERBERUS
54 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 be addressed. At present, because our competencies are issued under the MERS ITAB, as opposed to the Electrical ITAB the best the MTE sailor can hope for is recognition to a Second Year Apprentice level. Not exactly the greatest enticement given the level of training MTE sailors undergo. Moves to rectify this and attain recognition under the Electrical ITAB have seemingly been filed in the “Too hard“ basket. As MTE’s however, we are adrift and have no real sense of identity or direction. We are expected to attain MWC’s and ERWC’s, yet will almost always be employed as electricians. I am in no way disputing the advantages gained by possession of system knowledge. But do they really need to be promotional pre requisites to allow us to perform our primary roles as electrical sailors? Surely a better solution would be to encourage MTE’s to complete these qualifications without retarding their development and progression within their chosen field. The fact we are often seen as the poor cousin within the Marine Engineering empire and expected to provide watch keeping and evolution manpower in addition to our own excessive workloads within electrically oriented ships, certainly adds to our growing levels of dissatisfaction and disillusionment. This was partially high-lighted in the findings of the mis-guided MTE survey conducted a few years ago. The major problems with the survey were, a. it was conducted by a civilian consultancy firm who really didn’t understand the requirements, b. they asked a narrow section of the MTE world (FFG MTE’s), and c. they simply asked the wrong questions, . It seemed more focused on a rate and sea service badge and the fact that individuals didn’t have a great working relationship with their immediate supervisor, rather than the ”big ticket” issues. The end result is an acute shortage of electrical expertise as MTE’s separate from the service. After all, is it a fair and reasonable expectation for MTE sailors to effectively have to be proficient in two entirely differing areas of expertise to be competitive for promotion, whilst the people we are competing with only really require one? And where will the MTE sailor be predominantly employed throughout his naval career? Speaking from experience, my work profile as an electrician has fundamentally remained constant whilst the goal posts for promotion and progression has altered immeasurably. The abolition of the POMT Engine Room Watchkeeping Certificate Under Training billets within the ANZAC Class Frigates has only compounded the problem. Whilst eliminating the requirement for an additional Petty Officer to be borne, it effectively closes the only avenue for the POMTE to under-study the ERWC qualified sailor, without the additional responsibilities and ancilliary duties incurred as a (day working) work centre I/C, and the long hours they already attract. One of the methods adopted to overcome the shortage of MTE sailors in the various ranks was to give Electrical ASTC’s to MT sailors, and then promote them as MTE’s. Whilst this satisfied the number requirement, the implications in terms of workplace electrical safety were of concern as the ASTC was a three month course, the majority of which was conducted at civilian institutions, centred around the MEN distribution system, with a 3 week Naval Specific component here in Cerberus. So “on paper” these personnel were afforded the same qualifications as former ETP sailors who had undertaken the intensive electrical training associated with the ETP category, with nowhere near the degree of the experience or deep subject knowledge. The concept that the entire MT world be trained to the MTE standard has thankfully been put on hold with the new ITT curriculum. Great theory, but realistically the additional costs involved in terms of training time, resources and manpower availability would make it impossible to justify. The fact is, that the calibre of a large percentage of the trainees we receive as a result of the recruiting process would not possess the electrical aptitude to pass the current requirements of the MTE curriculum. It’s the square peg into round hole conundrum, only we aren’t allowed to hit them with hammers (or wheelies) anymore. To some of them, fitting of a plug top really is Rocket Science. Until at least some of these injustices are addressed the unacceptably high separation rates and low recruiting levels for MTE sailors will continue. Despite the rumour that a fully AMOC’ed MTE (qualified with an Auxiliary Machinery Operator’s Certificate – AMOC Ed.) is the Engineer’s most employable sailor we continue to penalise and ostracise them. Despite the change to the watchkeeping requirements recently implemented within the ANZAC Class, the system still requires POMTE sailors to obtain a MSM qualification, MTCC and complete the CPOATT to be eligible for promotion to CPO regardless of their future employment prospects Jim Rankine Senior Instructor – High Power Engineering Faculty HMAS CERBERUS
Page 1 and 2:
NAVY ENGINEERING ISSUE 5 SEPTEMBER
Page 3 and 4: 2 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMB
Page 11 and 12: 10 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
Page 53: 52 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
Page 77: 76 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
show all

Download - Royal Australian Navy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?