Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Training FFG MT console operator training is currently being carried out ashore at the FFG Propulsion Control System (PCS) Trainer. An excellent asset, however, its use is mainly for basic console operation and limited currency training. The remainder of training for propulsion and auxiliary system operation and monitoring and all assessment is carried out at sea. The usual approach (and I apologise for my gender specific term in advance) is a ‘Father-to- Son’ apprenticeship that is resource intensive in both personnel and equipment use. The repatriation and formalising of this training ashore would markedly reduce the considerable training overhead on the ships senior engineering personnel. It would also improve the consistency of training to ensure a common standard is achieved but not overshot. Completion of the majority of training ashore would then only require consolidation, final assessment and some currency training to be carried out at sea. Harbour Watch Keeping Harbour watch keeping involves mainly a presence in CCS to oversee plant and damage control monitoring systems. Rounds of engineering spaces and running machinery also continues to be carried out whilst the ship is alongside. CIRAS was again used to determine if these activities could be removed or modified to an optimum level whilst still maintaining the required level of plant oversight. Unfortunately the analysis showed that, whilst two other locations showed potential, the ships hardware was the limiting factor as none of the alternate positions provided the level of monitoring available in CCS. The next favourable location would have been the ship’s gangway as watch keepers were also present on a 24 hour basis. However, this position provided only very limited damage control and no machinery monitoring. Active Alarm Monitoring System As part of this Study, the Active Alarm Monitoring System (AAMS) was developed to concept stage. This would allow an extension of the plant and damage control monitoring systems at a remote location and repeated in a form easily understood by nonengineering personnel allowing action to be taken should an incident occur. This system would remove the need for watch keepers to be present in CCS whilst in harbour without increasing the risk to the ship or the duty watch personnel. As seen in the diagram, the system could be couple via flexible cable to other like configured ships and allow monitoring of multiple ships alarm monitoring systems by one gangway station. Monitoring from a shore facility is also possible with this system. A basic schematic of the system is shown below with items in blue showing existing hardware and red as new installation. Harbour Rounds Whilst the ship is alongside in harbour, a considerable amount of machinery continues to run. This potentially raises the risks within the machinery spaces to that above the ship’s background level. Examination of a number of these items shows that the systems could be shut down and secured removing many of the risks associated with their operation. A systematic approach to this process would reduce the risks within the engineering spaces to the ship’s background level and remove the need for specialist engineering personnel to conduct rounds through these spaces. Any person with sufficient ship knowledge could carry out rounds through the machinery spaces. NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 The above situation opens up the possibility of having a whole ship rounds routine that would remove many of the concurrently conducted departmental and security rounds that are now carried out. The benefits of having a reduced rounds frequency would be enjoyed by the entire ships duty watch. Conclusion This Study has shown that with a systematic risk-based approach and judicious use of cost effective modern technology, significant efficiency gains can still be achieved in what is essentially an area seen as being limited by the existing hardware. The systems based approach (and technology based solutions) outlined in this article can be used on any platform to optimise watch keeping procedures. The refined practices open up a considerable number of options for engineering managers to redeploy their personnel into more worthy activities. Editor’s Note: RELeGEN has been involved in a number of other recent Navy Projects, including: a. The development of a barcode scanning audit tool that loads data from AMPS and the RAN’s new Configuration Management Tool– BASELINE Audit; b. Software to develop the RAN’s CMC code – BASELINE Connect; c. Software and hardware tools to collect watchkeeping data collected onboard – BASELINE Check; d. ISL data management software – BASELINE ILS; e. a critical item risk assessment system – BASELINE CIRAS. 61
62 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003 BY CPOMT GLEN POPE, HMAS STUART You would all be aware that current retention rates within the Technical Categories are poor, particularly for our ET brethren. You would also be painfully aware of the impact all those empty billets (resulting from said retention rate) have on the personnel that are left to shoulder the workload. And most of you would be aware that one of the main reasons our personnel leave the RAN is a lack of job satisfaction. What is not readily recognised is the exodus of corporate knowledge that accompanies the personnel that choose to leave. How do we solve this problem? The issue of job satisfaction is extremely complex; how exactly do you quantify job satisfaction? What I consider to be a satisfying day at work others may consider boring. A common complaint from most personnel relates to the need for them to perform noncore functions, such as café party, or watch on deck. Since the inception of the Navy there has been café party and watch on deck and I for one can not foresee a time in the near future when there will not be a requirement for them. The difference between now and the days of old is that our ships carry less personnel and subsequently there is a smaller pool of personnel to provide the resources required, therefore you will get “lashed” more often for non-core functions. So what is my point? My point is that it is going to be difficult to 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. overcome the job satisfaction dilemma, and retention bonuses as we have seen in the past are not necessarily the answer. Retention bonuses have the unfortunate effect of annoying the hell out of all those who don’t get one, usually resulting in a drop in their performance or worst case, a dummy spitting discharge. Retention bonus or Reward Scheme? is the question I pose. What if we reward personnel who put up with the watch on deck and the café party, who persist with the long hours and the dismal sea/shore roster; personnel who persevere and progress themselves and who are prepared to stay for more than their initial engagement? I imagine right about now most of you are thinking, “what is the difference” (….and they let this joker loose on a ship?) between what I am suggesting and a Retention Bonus? The difference is simple. A Retention Bonus works like this; if we need personnel from Category A to stay in the Navy for x number of years, we get them to sign on the dotted line and at the end of the allocated period they are given a wad of cash that is then taxed as income. A Reward Scheme is as the name suggests; My point is that it is going to be difficult to overcome the job satisfaction dilemma, and retention bonuses as we have seen in the past are not necessarily the answer. a reward, not a fistful of dollars you have to share with the Australian Taxation Office. How will it work? I would suggest that the rewards should be something tangible and useful ranging from computers, contributions to a private superannuation scheme, or ultimately a car. I know all these things are available via salary sacrifice; the difference is the Navy would pay the relevant payments and the associated fringe benefits tax. As this is a system that is currently in place there would be minimal start-up costs, if any. Who would get the Reward, and when? Personnel re-engaging after their initial period would qualify for a “reward” that was at the lower end of the financial scale, and as they progress through to Senior Sailor level and 10 years service the value of the reward would increase and so on. Eventually, a Warrant Officer with over 20 years service would qualify for a Porsche Boxster AND a new walking frame . . . no, just kidding, but you get the picture. As you can see, every one of us will qualify for some reward or other after our initial engagement. Personnel would have the option of rejecting the scheme and receive nothing until such time as it suited them. There would be no “cashing” out option and personnel would only receive the reward commensurate with their rank and “time in”. I have deliberately tied rank and time in service together, as some personnel experience more rapid movement in their promotion rosters than others. So is it feasible? I believe so. The beancounters will tell us that it is a pay rise by default and it will undoubtedly cost a fair sum of money. But how much money do we waste recruiting people and training them just to watch them walk out the door six years later? I believe that it will have a positive effect on retention – even if we only succeed in keeping 20 personnel from leaving, that is money saved by not having to recruit and train another 20 personnel (or in the case of 20 Petty Officers, another 100 personnel). Not to mention the loss of corporate knowledge, which is something no-one can put a price on.
Page 1 and 2:
NAVY ENGINEERING ISSUE 5 SEPTEMBER
Page 3 and 4:
2 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMB
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: 10 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEM
Page 61: 60 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?