Download - Royal Australian Navy
Download - Royal Australian Navy
Download - Royal Australian Navy
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
NAVY<br />
ENGINEERING<br />
ISSUE 3 AUGUST 2002<br />
BULLETIN
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
1<br />
EDITORIAL BOARD<br />
Chairman<br />
Captain Craig G. Kerr, RAN<br />
Members<br />
Engineering Advisory Council (EAC)<br />
Editor<br />
Lieutenant Commander Tom Munneke, RANR<br />
Published by<br />
Defence Publishing Service<br />
Disclaimer<br />
The views expressed in this Bulletin are the personal views of<br />
the authors, and unless otherwise stated, do not in any way<br />
reflect <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> Policy<br />
Deadline<br />
Issue 4 January 2003 Contributions by November 2002<br />
Issue 5 July 2003 Contributions by May 2003<br />
Contributions should be sent to<br />
The Editor<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Bulletin<br />
CP4–7–135<br />
Campbell Park ACT 2600<br />
Telephone: (02) 6266 3443<br />
Fax: (02) 6266 2388<br />
E-mail: navyengineeringbulletin@defence.gov.au<br />
Distribution<br />
To be added to the distribution list contact the Editor.<br />
ISSN 0642295654<br />
Foreword 2<br />
CNE Introduction 3<br />
Farewell from CDRE Ken Joseph 4<br />
A word from the Editor’s Desk 5<br />
RAN Technical Regulatory System – Development and Implementation<br />
Project - An Update 6<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Professional Development Program – The Institution of<br />
Engineers, Australia’s Perspective 9<br />
HMAS Tobruk Issued with A Certificate of Class 11<br />
Legal Liability of Commonwealth Employees Exercising Engineering Authority 13<br />
The Impact of Erika on Australia’s Ability to Support Joint and Combined<br />
Operations outside <strong>Australian</strong> Waters 15<br />
Comic Relief 17<br />
Aviation Technician Issues 18<br />
Issues Affecting Career Management 20<br />
Sailor Promotions 24<br />
All you Need to Know About Allowances 26<br />
ANZAC DAY 2002 – A Personal View From the Arabian Gulf 29<br />
Recognition of Academic Excellence 30<br />
A Patrol Boat Sailor Account 31<br />
Dubai Dry Dock Incident 33<br />
Sustainable Environmental Management in the Maritime Command 34<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Defence Engineering & Maintenance Systems Scoping Study (DEMSSS) 37<br />
FIMA & MOTU Support for OP-SLIPPER “Where and When Needed” 40<br />
We Live In an Increasingly Complex World 41<br />
Naval Engineering Is All About Combat Readiness 43<br />
Allied Maritime Tactical Wide Area Networking 47<br />
DNOP News 50<br />
Officer Promotions 52<br />
An Attachment Onboard the MV Iron Monarch 53<br />
Satellite TV – All at Sea 56<br />
The RAN Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program 58<br />
ANZAC Class System Program Office – Our Function 61<br />
The Warrlock DF Calibration 64<br />
Development of a Combat System Requirements Set 67<br />
Technical Supervision – The Naval Aviation Perspective 70<br />
Common Electric Propulsion Systems For Future RAN Ships 72<br />
Global Positioning System: Operation and Vulnerability 76<br />
Jack Will…As He Always Does 79<br />
The NSC Professional Officer Development Program 80<br />
Reverse Osmosis Desalination 81<br />
Maintaining the S-70B-2 Seahawk Helicopter 84<br />
LCDR Derek Buxton Surfaces from his MBA 87
2 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY CDRE RUSS CRANE, CSM,<br />
RAN, COMMANDER AUSTRALIAN<br />
NAVY SYSTEMS COMMAND<br />
Foreword<br />
Welcome to the third issue of the new <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Bulletin and my<br />
first as the <strong>Navy</strong> Systems Commander. I enjoyed reading the previous<br />
issues and believe they have been successful in reaching the broader<br />
defence community as means of sharing ideas, evoking thought and<br />
providing feedback regarding engineering, an essential element of the RAN.<br />
As the Commander of the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Systems Command the focus of<br />
all my activity is to ensure that<br />
maximum maritime capability is<br />
achieved. My role is to provide<br />
and manage the overarching<br />
systems that bring coherence to<br />
our modern FEG-Centric <strong>Navy</strong>.<br />
Common elements within those<br />
systems include Safety, Personnel,<br />
Training and Technical Regulation,<br />
and within those elements<br />
engineering is a common theme.<br />
Our <strong>Navy</strong> has been extremely busy<br />
of late with very high operational<br />
tempos and our platforms and<br />
systems successfully carrying out<br />
roles for which they were not<br />
originally designated. There has<br />
been a hectic program of<br />
upgrades and additions to Ship’s<br />
systems to ensure our interoperability<br />
with multi national<br />
forces and to have our vessels as<br />
best prepared as we can. Our<br />
engineering ability has been a key<br />
element to the delivery of these<br />
enhanced capabilities.<br />
We have learned, however, too<br />
many safety lessons the hard way.<br />
It is fortunate we have made<br />
significant progress in improving<br />
safety in the RAN and I reflect on<br />
VADM Shackleton’s comments in<br />
his foreword to Issue 1 of the NEB.<br />
It is pleasing that <strong>Navy</strong>, working<br />
with the DMO is delivering leading<br />
edge technology and that the risks<br />
are being managed. We have<br />
been able to deliver under very<br />
tight constraints. In this issue of<br />
the NEB you will find an article<br />
entitled “Jack will … as he always<br />
does” and whilst the author<br />
admits he is having a “bleat” it is<br />
encouraging that he still got on<br />
and kept the systems running as<br />
best he could. It also sends a<br />
strong message that situations are<br />
not always ideal and we do need<br />
talented, multi-skilled personnel<br />
who are able to adapt to changing<br />
circumstances.<br />
The efforts and achievements of<br />
our Engineers and Technicians in<br />
delivering capability, particularly<br />
since 11 September 2001, have<br />
demonstrated innovation and<br />
professionalism beyond the norm<br />
and I am particularly proud of<br />
their ability to persevere when<br />
times get tough. Innovation has<br />
been the key and our awareness<br />
of the necessity to manage risk<br />
and our ability to do so has been<br />
improved. Engineers and<br />
Technicians have focused on<br />
delivering capability and<br />
embraced the ethic of working out<br />
how things can be done, and how<br />
they can be done safely.<br />
There has also been a lot of<br />
activity regarding <strong>Navy</strong> People<br />
issues recently and Engineers and<br />
Technicians make up a large<br />
percentage of our <strong>Navy</strong><br />
population. The engineering and<br />
technical category sponsors<br />
teamed with the <strong>Navy</strong> Personnel<br />
and Training Branch have been<br />
working hard on a number of<br />
issues and developing sustainable<br />
solutions for the future of<br />
engineering and technical<br />
personnel. The recent signing of<br />
the agreement between the RAN<br />
and the IEAust and the<br />
introduction to the RAN of<br />
Engineering Graduate<br />
Development and Continuing<br />
Professional Development<br />
programs have been major,<br />
positive steps in improving the<br />
regulation of our engineering and<br />
technical competencies and our<br />
status in the community. The<br />
building of the RAN Technical<br />
Regulatory Framework has also<br />
progressed and is reported in this<br />
Bulletin.<br />
Whilst the above achievements<br />
cannot be attributed to a single<br />
individual, I believe the leadership<br />
shown by CDRE Ken Joseph as<br />
CNE, in his program for reinvigorating<br />
Engineering in the RAN<br />
has been a key factor in the<br />
initiatives taken. Ken is now<br />
progressing his professional career<br />
in the civilian community, having<br />
departed the RAN after 31 years<br />
of service. He has certainly made<br />
the RAN a better organisation for<br />
his efforts and I wish him all the<br />
best for his future.<br />
The reins of CNE have since been<br />
handed to CDRE Tim Barter who<br />
was promoted into the position.<br />
Tim has also played a key role in<br />
recent Engineering initiatives and<br />
worked closely with CDRE Joseph<br />
on a number of projects including<br />
“HELP” and the <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering<br />
Doctrine. I congratulate CDRE<br />
Barter on his promotion and<br />
appointment as CNE, Head of the<br />
Engineering Branch. I challenge<br />
him in his new role as the CNE to<br />
lead our engineers and continue<br />
to “make it happen”.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
3<br />
CNE Introduction<br />
BY CDRE TIM BARTER<br />
Welcome to the <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Bulletin. It is pleasing to see the<br />
growing, wider interest in this publication, particularly from the technical<br />
sailors. I think the editorial team has done a great job again and my<br />
thanks particularly go to LCDR Tom Munneke for the long hours he has<br />
spent compiling and editing this issue. Of course without the<br />
contributions from the wider <strong>Navy</strong> and Defence community, the NEB<br />
would not exist and I thank you for your continued support.<br />
This is my first opportunity to<br />
write for the NEB in the role of<br />
CNE. I follow in the steps of<br />
CDRE Ken Joseph and I thank<br />
him on your behalf for his efforts<br />
in his role as CNE, particularly the<br />
work he did in reinvigorating <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering. Two initiatives<br />
outlined in previous Bulletins are<br />
progressing well. There is an<br />
article regarding Technical<br />
Regulation by CMDR Bob<br />
Hornsnell, in this issue of the<br />
NEB. The issues paper which we<br />
envisage will underpin the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering Doctrine (see NEB<br />
issue 2 Pg 18) is essentially<br />
complete and will be considered<br />
by the Engineering Advisory<br />
Council in September. After EAC<br />
consideration I would hope to be<br />
able to recommend to CN that<br />
this paper should be circulated<br />
for wider consideration.<br />
I thought that it would be<br />
worthwhile sharing with you my<br />
thoughts on some key issues and<br />
areas I intend to focus on during<br />
my tenure as CNE. Up front I<br />
want to make it clear that I<br />
consider the future of <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering is in our hands. <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering exists to support the<br />
delivery of <strong>Navy</strong> capability so it is<br />
up to us to ensure we do add<br />
more than our cost to <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />
output. It is up to us to ensure<br />
engineering services are delivered<br />
as efficiently and effectively as<br />
possible. Now turning to a few<br />
specific areas:<br />
Technical Regulation. As CNE, I<br />
am the RAN’s Technical<br />
Regulatory Authority. I am<br />
responsible to CN for the effective<br />
implementation of Technical<br />
Regulatory functions within an<br />
overall RAN Regulatory<br />
Framework established by the<br />
Director General Naval<br />
Certification, Safety and<br />
Acceptance (DGNCSA). The aim<br />
of Technical Regulation is to<br />
control the risks during design<br />
construction and maintenance<br />
that effect fitness for service,<br />
safety or the environment. To<br />
achieve this technical support of<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> systems must be<br />
conducted; to approved<br />
standards, by authorised<br />
organisations who comprise<br />
competent and authorised<br />
individuals; and whose work is<br />
certified correct. Core issues are<br />
therefore; risk management,<br />
standards and a sustainable<br />
competent technical work force.<br />
Risk management. We work in<br />
an environment that presents us<br />
with risk across a multitude of<br />
facets. Our work is hazardous,<br />
not only during times of conflict,<br />
but also during peacetime merely<br />
by going to sea. OH&S is not the<br />
only area of risk. Our decisions<br />
contribute directly to operational<br />
availability, the effectiveness and<br />
cost of support. We need to<br />
consider the risks to these<br />
aspects when we make technical<br />
decisions. As CNE my intention is<br />
to ensure we have systems in<br />
place that enable us to recognise<br />
and manage technical risks.<br />
Defining <strong>Navy</strong>’s Engineering<br />
policy and standard materiel<br />
requirements. Too often we<br />
bemoan that lack of consultation<br />
with Engineers has contributed to<br />
the problem we are dealing with.<br />
It is up to us to ensure<br />
engineering services are<br />
delivered as efficiently and<br />
effectively as possible.<br />
Even when Engineers are involved<br />
we sometimes find that outcomes<br />
fall short of expectations because<br />
we have not learnt the lessons<br />
from our previous experience.<br />
Part of the problem is that we do<br />
not have well documented policy<br />
and materiel standards. In the<br />
past we have been able to rely on<br />
corporate memory but we now<br />
find that in a lean manned, triservice<br />
environment where we are<br />
heavily reliant on commercial<br />
support we need to formally<br />
document our policy and<br />
requirements. This is an area in<br />
which we can further improve and<br />
I intend progressing the get-well<br />
programs commenced by<br />
previous CNEs.<br />
About the author Commodore Barter joined<br />
the RAN in 1977 after completing a Degree<br />
in Electrical Engineering at the <strong>Royal</strong><br />
Melbourne Institute of Technology. After initial<br />
training and a period in HMAS DERWENT he<br />
undertook postgraduate engineering courses<br />
in the UK. His Sea and Fleet Staff posting<br />
have included WEEO to Commander<br />
<strong>Australian</strong> Mine Warfare and Patrol Boat<br />
Forces, DWEEO HMAS DERWENT and WEEO<br />
HMA Ships ADELAIDE and DARWIN.<br />
Shore posting have included Combat Data<br />
Systems Centre, and an exchange with the<br />
<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> at the electrical training school<br />
HMS COLLINGWOOD as the Corporate<br />
Manager.<br />
More recently CDRE Barter has been posted<br />
to Naval Materiel Division responsible for<br />
corporate management of new major<br />
acquisition projects and the submarine<br />
project as the Project Manager. His most<br />
recent fleet appointment was as Chief Staff<br />
Officer (Engineering) to the Maritime<br />
Commander from 1998 to 2000 before<br />
being appointed as Director of Naval Weapon<br />
Systems in <strong>Navy</strong> Systems Command.<br />
Commodore Barter took up his current<br />
position as the Director General <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Systems and Chief Naval Engineer on 8 May<br />
2002 and is married to Robyn and has two<br />
children. He is currently undertaking a<br />
Masters in Management at ANU.
4 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Professional Competence of our<br />
Engineers and Technicians. A<br />
very important set of standards<br />
that need to be maintained is the<br />
professional competence of our<br />
Engineers and Technicians. There<br />
have been a number of incidents<br />
that have demonstrated to me<br />
the mandatory nature of ensuring<br />
personnel employed in technical<br />
decision making positions<br />
possess appropriate<br />
competencies. This will be an<br />
important factor in determining<br />
the future for <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering<br />
because we are critically<br />
examining the roles of Engineers<br />
and Technicians, military and<br />
civilian, within <strong>Navy</strong> through the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Doctrine<br />
Project.<br />
Building and maintaining a<br />
sustainable technical<br />
workforce. One of the biggest<br />
challenges facing our <strong>Navy</strong> at<br />
present is the retention of our<br />
personnel. Engineers and<br />
Technicians are amongst the<br />
critical retention categories.<br />
Although we have been making<br />
improvements in recruiting, if we<br />
cannot retain appropriate level of<br />
our experienced personnel the<br />
macro technical experience levels<br />
in the <strong>Navy</strong> will continue to<br />
recede. This is something we can<br />
ill afford. There is a raft of<br />
activities being undertaken<br />
between the FEGs, <strong>Navy</strong><br />
personnel and Training, the<br />
workforce planners and DNPR<br />
(E&L) aimed at stabilising and<br />
sustaining our technical<br />
workforce. I see my role as<br />
drawing those activities together<br />
into an integrated plan through<br />
the delivery of the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering Doctrine and<br />
individual Category Management<br />
Plans.<br />
I look forward to working with you<br />
as CNE.<br />
Farewell from CDRE Ken Joseph<br />
Many of you will know by now that<br />
I have resigned from the <strong>Navy</strong> and<br />
have joined ‘the dark side’ in<br />
Defence Industry. My decision to<br />
leave was well considered and I<br />
depart from the <strong>Navy</strong> on good<br />
terms.<br />
I joined the <strong>Navy</strong> at 16 years of<br />
age and spent over 31 years in the<br />
service, with each posting being a<br />
different challenge. Overall, I have<br />
enjoyed a terrific, highly enjoyable<br />
and rewarding career culminating<br />
in my appointment as the Chief<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Engineer. As CNE, I felt that<br />
the engineering profession in <strong>Navy</strong><br />
needed reinvigorating and with the<br />
help of my team, began to<br />
establish the Technical Regulatory<br />
Framework, and initiated the<br />
Yates/Hudson study to determine<br />
the vision for engineering. But<br />
after almost two years as CNE - the<br />
pinnacle of engineering in <strong>Navy</strong>, I<br />
felt it was time for me to move on.<br />
An opportunity arose for me to join<br />
Defence Industry and to me this<br />
was a natural progression.<br />
For the great majority of us, the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> is our first career. Choosing<br />
the time to start our second career<br />
is critical, and I consider that<br />
many engineers leave the <strong>Navy</strong> too<br />
early. Certainly, there are<br />
opportunities in Industry for<br />
engineers at all levels, but I<br />
consider the perceived benefits of<br />
making the move early are<br />
outweighed by the increasing<br />
opportunities in <strong>Navy</strong> to continue<br />
to develop your leadership,<br />
professional knowledge and skills<br />
over a broad range of areas. <strong>Navy</strong><br />
engineers are highly valued in<br />
Industry, but the more skilled and<br />
experienced they are, the more<br />
they are valued. To be able to<br />
move into a senior position in<br />
industry, I think reflects very<br />
positively on the range of<br />
experiences and the skills I<br />
acquired in <strong>Navy</strong> as an Engineer.<br />
My decision to leave was not an<br />
easy one, as the <strong>Navy</strong> was my life<br />
with great times and many friends.<br />
The hardest part of the decision is<br />
leaving the people – the sailors,<br />
officers and civilians that are the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong>. In my last few months, I<br />
was most impressed by <strong>Navy</strong><br />
people. In the Middle East I met<br />
sailors and officers serving both<br />
afloat and ashore, and was most<br />
impressed with their<br />
professionalism and attitude. I<br />
also had the opportunity of<br />
reviewing a Recruit School<br />
graduation parade where the<br />
enthusiasm of those young<br />
graduates was overwhelming.<br />
While across the <strong>Navy</strong> engineering<br />
community I was aware of a<br />
renewed enthusiasm for<br />
engineering in <strong>Navy</strong>. You will need<br />
to nurture this enthusiasm to meet<br />
the challenges ahead.<br />
I hand over the responsibility of<br />
CNE to Commodore Tim Barter. He<br />
is a passionate advocate of<br />
engineering and was a great<br />
supporter during my time as CNE. I<br />
leave <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering in his most<br />
capable hands, confident in his<br />
ability to progress the<br />
reinvigoration. <strong>Navy</strong> Engineers, it<br />
has been both an honour and<br />
privilege to lead you over the past<br />
two years. I thank you all for<br />
contributing to my life in the <strong>Navy</strong>,<br />
and I wish you every success as<br />
you navigate the uncharted waters<br />
ahead.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
5<br />
A Word from the<br />
Editor’s Desk<br />
BY LCDR TOM MUNNEKE<br />
I am back for this issue, coaxed<br />
out of my weekday’s golf games,<br />
and Ray Cairney (previous editor)<br />
has raised the yardstick with the<br />
last edition. Thus welcome to the<br />
third edition of the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering Bulletin, and the<br />
cynics said it wouldn’t last. Many<br />
thanks to those who contributed<br />
and keep the engineering voice<br />
relevant, to communicate the<br />
issues or inform us. Again this is<br />
a pretty big edition and most<br />
people should find something of<br />
interest. At least I hope so, as it<br />
is important to give me feed back<br />
on what interests you as a reader.<br />
The present Fleet OpTempo and<br />
Support has everyone very busy<br />
and little time to contribute so<br />
it is great to again find a<br />
diversity of articles to publish.<br />
In particular, from the Senior<br />
Sailors who contributed to the<br />
issues. The <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering<br />
Bulletin needs this diversity<br />
and contribution from all<br />
technical personnel. Either<br />
from the ships, shore, civilian<br />
or serving personnel, young or<br />
experienced (I didn’t say old) it<br />
will find a place in the bulletin.<br />
Leading Seaman Chris Spiro, a<br />
patrol boat techo, found the<br />
time to give his view on his<br />
calling. That has to be a<br />
challenge. Also, except for<br />
minor editorial changes, the<br />
views expressed in this Bulletin<br />
are the personal views of the<br />
authors, and unless otherwise<br />
stated, do not in any way<br />
reflect RAN policy.<br />
A quick reminder for serving<br />
engineering personnel to keep in<br />
synch to the upcoming ‘road<br />
shows’ by the Category<br />
Sponsors who will be presenting<br />
near you. Good reading.<br />
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR<br />
Sir, Just a quick note to correct an error in Mr Peter Clark's interesting<br />
article on "Signature Aspects of Marine Gas Turbine Propulsion". The<br />
author states that the type of stack used on the MEKO 200 (and by<br />
association ANZAC ships) provides no means of reducing the IR<br />
signature.<br />
This is not entirely correct. The Anzac ships' gas turbine exhaust<br />
features a diffuser system similar to that shown in the article, and the<br />
port stack is fitted with three large fans that draw ambient air into the<br />
funnel and force it up through and around the gas turbine exhaust<br />
(and annoy the bridge staff when they are running).<br />
In addition to this the Anzac class has other IR reduction features<br />
such as IR diffusers fitted to ventilation exhausts outlets and<br />
seawater heat exchangers in the machinery space ventilation<br />
system, designed to keep the spaces relatively cool, thus reducing<br />
the heat signature of the ship's side.<br />
I have no idea as to how effective all of this is as I am but a<br />
humble engineering sailor, but I'm sure someone from the<br />
Operational part of the <strong>Navy</strong> could tell us!<br />
Cheers<br />
Glenn Pope<br />
CPOMT<br />
Tiff<br />
NUSHIP STUART<br />
NAVAL ENGINEERING REUNION<br />
CANBERRA<br />
The annual Naval Engineering Reunion will be held in Canberra for all serving, retired and civilian members<br />
of the <strong>Navy</strong> technical branches on<br />
08 November 2002<br />
at the Tuggeranong Valley Rugby Union & Amateur Sports Club, Wanniassa, ACT, 2903.<br />
Bookings a must at $25.00 all inclusive.<br />
Contacts:<br />
Kevin Assenheim (02) 6239 1133<br />
(krassenheim@sma.com.au)<br />
Ian Thompson (02) 6266 3692<br />
(Ian.Thompson@defence.gov.au)<br />
Peter Webb (02) 6209 5501<br />
(peter.webb@tuggers.com.au)<br />
Ron Sheargold<br />
(jasheargold@bigpond.com)
6 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY CMDR BOB HORSNELL CSC<br />
PROJECT DIRECTOR - RAN<br />
TECHNICAL REGULATION<br />
SYSTEM<br />
DEVELOPMENT AND<br />
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT<br />
RAN Technical Regulatory<br />
System – Development and<br />
Implementation Project –<br />
An Update (Formally Project HELP)<br />
Background: An article in the February 2002 edition of the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Engineering Bulletin outlined the shortcomings of the Technical<br />
Regulation policy provided in DI (N) LOG 47-3 and its implementation.<br />
These shortcomings included:<br />
• A large variance in the<br />
implementation of the policy,<br />
• Poor understanding of the policy<br />
across all areas, and<br />
• Failure to control risks during<br />
design, construction and<br />
maintenance of <strong>Navy</strong> platforms,<br />
systems and equipment.<br />
As a consequence of these<br />
findings, Phase Two of Project<br />
HELP was initiated to develop<br />
and implement a comprehensive<br />
Technical Regulatory System<br />
(TRS) that provides instruction<br />
and guidance on how the policy<br />
is to be achieved. To avoid<br />
confusion and to more accurately<br />
reflect the aim of the Project, the<br />
name of the Project has been<br />
changed as reflected in the title<br />
of this article.<br />
The aim of this article is to<br />
provide an update on the status<br />
of the project.<br />
The RAN Regulatory Framework<br />
The Chief Naval Engineer (CNE) is<br />
the RAN's Technical Regulatory<br />
Authority. He is responsible to CN<br />
for the effective implementation<br />
of Technical Regulatory functions<br />
within an overall RAN Regulatory<br />
Framework established by the<br />
Director General Naval<br />
Certification, Safety and<br />
Acceptance (DGNCSA). This<br />
framework is displayed in<br />
Figure 1 below.<br />
The purpose of the overall RAN<br />
Regulatory Framework is to<br />
support the cost effective delivery<br />
of <strong>Navy</strong> capability through<br />
oversight and delivery of a<br />
regulatory, certification and<br />
acceptance system that ensures<br />
the safety, fitness for purpose and<br />
materiel integrity of <strong>Navy</strong><br />
platforms, systems and support.<br />
As can be seen in fig 1, the RAN<br />
Technical Regulatory Framework<br />
forms one pillar of the RAN<br />
Regulatory Framework. The other<br />
four pillars include safety,<br />
operations, environment and<br />
business (proposed). In<br />
developing the TRS, the Project<br />
Team must be cognisant of this<br />
overarching RAN Regulatory<br />
Framework by ensuring that any<br />
technical regulatory requirement,<br />
process or procedure developed<br />
by the Team ‘dovetails’ into this<br />
higher level construct.<br />
Figure 1: The RAN Regulatory Framework<br />
As outlined in the February<br />
edition, the Technical Regulatory<br />
System will be designed to<br />
control the risks during design,<br />
construction and maintenance<br />
that effect fitness for purpose,<br />
safety and the environment. In<br />
determining technical regulatory<br />
requirements, the Project Team<br />
will focus on ensuring that <strong>Navy</strong><br />
systems are designed,<br />
constructed and maintained; to<br />
approved standards, by<br />
authorised organisations<br />
comprised of competent and
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
7<br />
authorised individuals; and whose<br />
work is certified as correct.<br />
Common Regulatory<br />
Architecture<br />
Initial analysis of TRS<br />
requirements by the Project Team<br />
indicated eight functional areas<br />
requiring regulation:<br />
• Technical Risk Management;<br />
• Engineering Change Management<br />
(including Configuration Change<br />
Management);<br />
• Authorisation of Organisations;<br />
• Delegation of Engineering<br />
Authority;<br />
• Technical Data Management;<br />
• Unsatisfactory and/or Defective<br />
Materiel Management;<br />
• Technical Compliance (including<br />
Audits and Technical<br />
Investigations); and<br />
• Maintenance Management<br />
Systems.<br />
As the requirements were further<br />
refined, it became apparent that<br />
there were clear commonalities<br />
across these functional areas. At<br />
the higher functional level the<br />
commonalities are such that one<br />
functional stream cannot be<br />
differentiated from another. This<br />
led to the development of a<br />
Common Regulatory Architecture<br />
(CRA) for technical regulation<br />
within <strong>Navy</strong>. Each of the<br />
functional areas of Technical<br />
Regulation has inputs (these may<br />
be policy, standards, legal<br />
requirements and so on) and<br />
each must interact / interface<br />
with several other functional<br />
areas.<br />
The CRA provides a model for the<br />
development of a TRS and<br />
adherence to this CRA model is<br />
essential to the success of the<br />
project. The CRA has many<br />
benefits including, but not limited<br />
to:<br />
• Simplification of the TRS,<br />
• Standardising the format for the<br />
promulgation of Technical<br />
Regulation,<br />
• Simplification of training and<br />
education, and<br />
• Simplification of Quality and<br />
Change Management.<br />
When functionally decomposing<br />
the requirements of the TRS, the<br />
Team again found, at the core of<br />
each functional area, that a<br />
common structure could be<br />
applied. This core structure is<br />
illustrated at Figure 3 below using<br />
Technical Risk Management as an<br />
example.<br />
The other seven Technical<br />
Regulatory components follow the<br />
same pattern as Risk<br />
Management when detail is<br />
abstracted to this level. It is not<br />
until one ‘drills’ down to the<br />
level(s) of detail below this before<br />
genuine differentiation occurs.<br />
Methodology<br />
Having identified the functional<br />
areas of Technical Regulation,<br />
and established the CRA, the<br />
Team must now answer two<br />
questions, viz:<br />
1. What are the technical regulatory<br />
requirements of each functional<br />
area?, and<br />
2. How are these requirements to be<br />
managed?<br />
To achieve this, the Team will<br />
initially focus on one functional<br />
area, Technical Risk Management.<br />
A series of interviews will be<br />
conducted with SPOs, SMOs,<br />
FEGs, MHQ Staff, FIMAs, DGTA<br />
and platforms to gather data<br />
relating to the following:<br />
• What technical risk management<br />
practices and processes are<br />
currently being applied to <strong>Navy</strong><br />
materiel?,<br />
• What is ‘world’s best’ technical<br />
risk management practice (if<br />
A fundamental principle of<br />
Technical Regulation is that<br />
risk is a component in all<br />
engineering decisions.<br />
such a thing exists)?,<br />
• What regulatory requirements are<br />
currently in place for technical<br />
risk management?, and<br />
• What regulatory requirements<br />
should be in place?<br />
The findings of this research will<br />
then be synthesised into a<br />
‘prototype’ of the Technical Risk<br />
Management function of the TRS<br />
and presented to the Project<br />
Board for approval. Once the<br />
Board endorses the prototype, it<br />
will form the basis for the<br />
development of the remaining<br />
seven functions of the TRS.<br />
Why Start With Technical Risk<br />
Management?<br />
A fundamental principle of<br />
Technical Regulation is that risk is<br />
a component in all engineering<br />
decisions. These engineering<br />
decisions may be as simple as<br />
deciding to defer a planned<br />
maintenance item to ‘drawing the<br />
line’ on a maintenance package<br />
where the funds run out, to the<br />
risks associated with bringing a<br />
new technology into service.<br />
Figure 3: The Management of Technical Risk Management<br />
As stated earlier, Technical<br />
Regulation is all about controlling<br />
the risks, during design,<br />
construction and maintenance, to<br />
fitness for purpose, safety and
8 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
the environment. Technical<br />
Regulation seeks to manage<br />
these risks to an acceptable level<br />
by ensuring work is undertaken to<br />
approved standards, by<br />
authorised organisations<br />
comprised of competent and<br />
authorised personnel whose work<br />
is certified as correct.<br />
In short, risk management is<br />
fundamental to Naval<br />
Engineering.<br />
Our reviews of engineering<br />
practice to date have shown that<br />
although there are OH&S risk<br />
programs, there is little evidence<br />
of documented and systematic<br />
approaches to managing the risks<br />
of the technical decisions<br />
personnel are making. Extremely<br />
conservative practices and<br />
processes have been adopted<br />
that might be appropriate for very<br />
high-risk decisions but are<br />
inefficient elsewhere. In other<br />
cases personnel are making<br />
technical decisions with no<br />
appreciation of the technical risk.<br />
These observations highlight the<br />
need to change our approach.<br />
The Immediate Future<br />
The Project Team commenced the<br />
research phase of the Technical<br />
Risk Management function in May<br />
2002, with prototyping of the<br />
Technical Risk Management<br />
function scheduled for<br />
completion by the end of August<br />
2002. All members of the RAN<br />
Engineering Community are<br />
strongly encouraged to contribute<br />
to this research. The Project<br />
Director, CMDR Bob Horsnell, can<br />
be contacted directly on (02)<br />
6266 2652 or by e-mail:<br />
robert.horsnell@defence.gov.au.<br />
Information / ideas can also be<br />
passed directly to the Team<br />
through the generic e-mail<br />
address:<br />
NAVYTRS@defence.gov.au.<br />
RIGHT A PREVIOUS TIME
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
9<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Engineering<br />
Professional Development<br />
Program – The Institution<br />
of Engineers, Australia’s<br />
Perspective<br />
BY MS SHARYN TURNER<br />
IEAUST MANAGER - GRADUATE<br />
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM<br />
The Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust) and the <strong>Navy</strong> have entered<br />
into a formal agreement to develop the RAN's ME and WE engineering<br />
team. CDRE Joseph, CNE and Mr John Boshier, CEO of IEAust formally<br />
signed this agreement on 12 February 2002.<br />
Professional Development<br />
The professional development<br />
program is a structured program<br />
designed to assist engineers<br />
obtain the relevant<br />
competencies to become<br />
recognised as Chartered<br />
Engineers. Chartered status is<br />
acknowledged not only in<br />
Australia but also overseas as<br />
recognition of a current<br />
competent and independent<br />
practitioner in engineering.<br />
Chartered status is the brand by<br />
which members of the Institution<br />
promote their status to the<br />
engineering community and to<br />
the general public both in<br />
Australia and overseas. It is a<br />
means for the RAN to promote<br />
its engineering team as being<br />
assessed by an external body,<br />
providing a benchmark both for<br />
the RAN as an organisation, and<br />
for individuals to mark their own<br />
status as engineers.<br />
The program provides sailors and<br />
officers with a mechanism for<br />
identifying opportunities, which<br />
enhance work experiences and<br />
career development. It is the<br />
varying work environments which<br />
provide the sailor and officer with<br />
the opportunity to develop and<br />
demonstrate the required<br />
competencies to gain Chartered<br />
Status. The program is structured<br />
around the continuous<br />
assessment of the participants<br />
Career Episode Reports (CERs).<br />
The career episode reports are<br />
written and submitted to the<br />
IEAust Accredited Assessors<br />
(located in each state and<br />
territory) by the participants. The<br />
Assessors endorse the<br />
competencies evidenced in the<br />
career episode report and provide<br />
feedback for each report<br />
submitted.<br />
As part of the program each<br />
participant is to have a Mentor.<br />
Mentors are an important<br />
element in the professional<br />
development of the participant;<br />
the mentor will provide support<br />
and guidance to the participant<br />
on the program. Mentors do not<br />
need to be members of IEAust<br />
however it is encouraged that<br />
Mentors be senior engineers with<br />
experience in the participants<br />
organisation and/or field of<br />
engineering. Mentors need to be<br />
selected prior to forwarding an<br />
application to join the program.<br />
As part of the program each<br />
participant is to have a<br />
Mentor.<br />
Benefits<br />
What are the benefits of being<br />
part of the program?<br />
You gain:<br />
• membership of a professional<br />
body, which includes the member<br />
benefits program,<br />
• opportunities for networking,<br />
• a credential and postnominals<br />
that are nationally and<br />
internationally recognised,<br />
• recognition which enhances<br />
career opportunities,<br />
• an external benchmark for<br />
professional formation and<br />
recognition (chartered status),<br />
• continuous assessment of career<br />
episode reports,
10 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
• access to regular<br />
workshops/seminars and<br />
technical events, provided by<br />
IEAust Divisions located in every<br />
state and territory,<br />
• access to Continuing Professional<br />
Development (CPD),<br />
• access to membership of<br />
technical societies and interest<br />
groups and<br />
• Cost free participation. The RAN<br />
pays for all fees associated with<br />
the program.<br />
Under the terms of the<br />
RAN/IEAust agreement the IEAust<br />
will continue to provide ongoing<br />
assessment of reports, workshops<br />
and seminars on report writing<br />
and also workshops for Mentors<br />
and Supervisors.<br />
Pathways to gaining Chartered<br />
Status<br />
There are two pathways to<br />
achieving Chartered Status:<br />
• Participate in a graduate<br />
development program and submit<br />
regular career episode reports for<br />
endorsement. The accumulated<br />
career episode reports form what<br />
is called the Engineering Practice<br />
Report (EPR). The completed<br />
engineering practice report is<br />
submitted for assessment. Once<br />
the engineering practice report<br />
has been assessed the<br />
successful applicant is then<br />
required to attend a Professional<br />
Interview (PI). The professional<br />
interview is the verification of the<br />
work the applicant has done and<br />
if successful at the interview,<br />
Chartered Status is awarded. The<br />
program virtually guarantees that<br />
the participant will achieve<br />
chartered status as the<br />
competencies have been<br />
endorsed continuously over the<br />
period of development or<br />
formation. Whilst the<br />
demonstration of competencies is<br />
not time based, the majority of<br />
engineers take from 3 to 6 years<br />
to demonstrate the 3 compulsory<br />
and 2 elective competencies (5<br />
in all) for chartered status.<br />
• Experienced engineers normally<br />
write about their career episodes<br />
in a retrospective way. There is<br />
no need to undertake continuous<br />
assessment as the Engineering<br />
Practice Report can be written<br />
and submitted for assessment<br />
once the engineer is sure that all<br />
competencies can be adequately<br />
addressed. There is no guarantee<br />
that they will have their report<br />
endorsed, as they have not been<br />
involved in any continuous<br />
assessment. However, if the<br />
report is not assessed as having<br />
met all the necessary<br />
competencies the applicant is<br />
given feedback and invited to<br />
address any deficiencies before<br />
resubmitting the report and<br />
qualifying for an interview.<br />
From the above it is clear to see<br />
that it is easier to record your<br />
experiences as they happen<br />
rather than trying to recall history.<br />
However in the RAN you have a<br />
distinct advantage. As sailors<br />
and officers you have records of<br />
postings, performance reports,<br />
competency logs and course<br />
records. All of which forms a rich<br />
source of data that can be<br />
utilised to write an excellent<br />
report.<br />
Entry requirements<br />
The agreement encourages<br />
participation at all levels (sailors<br />
and officers). The minimum entry<br />
requirements for membership of<br />
the IEAust and entry into the<br />
program are based on the<br />
attainment of educational<br />
qualifications in Engineering at<br />
AQF6 (Advanced Diploma) or its<br />
equivalent Rate Level Diploma.<br />
For those sailors/officers who<br />
are interested in the program but<br />
are not sure of their educational<br />
qualifications please contact<br />
LCDR Dean Manning, Staff<br />
Officer NPTC-C, Phone (02)<br />
62664361, fax (02) 62664361<br />
or email dean.manning@<br />
cbr.defence.gov.au for further<br />
advice.<br />
Under the terms of the<br />
IEAust/RAN agreement, the RAN<br />
will pay for all program<br />
participation fees, membership<br />
fees and assessment fees whilst<br />
the member remains in service.<br />
For information regarding<br />
admission to the program please<br />
contact the <strong>Navy</strong> coordinator<br />
LCDR Tom Munneke Phone (02)<br />
6266 3443 or email<br />
Tom.Munneke@cbr.def.gov.au.<br />
Need more information?<br />
For further information regarding<br />
the IEAust please see our Website<br />
www.ieaust.org.au or contact Ms<br />
Sharyn Turner, Manager Graduate<br />
Development Program (02)<br />
62706559 or email<br />
sturner@ieaust.org.au
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
11<br />
HMAS Tobruk Issued with<br />
A Certificate Of Class<br />
On 14th May 2002, the RAN was issued with a Certificate of Naval<br />
Classification for HMAS Tobruk by Lloyds Register of Shipping (LR). This<br />
certifies that the ship has been assessed for acceptance into class in<br />
accordance with the Lloyds Register Rules and Regulations for<br />
Classification of Naval Ships and therefore represents a fairly significant<br />
milestone in the certification program of the Amphibious and Afloat<br />
Support (AAS) vessels. This certification verifies that RAN ships do meet<br />
commercial standards as indicated by a world class, independent third<br />
party verification process and reflects positively on the standard of RAN<br />
maintenance procedures.<br />
BY MS JULIE HABASHY<br />
AMPHIBIOUS AND AFLOAT<br />
SUPPORT SYSTEMS PROGRAM<br />
OFFICE<br />
For a vessel greater than twenty<br />
years of age, having only been built<br />
to an approved Lloyds design, yet<br />
not constructed under survey, nor<br />
maintained under any classification<br />
society rules, the attainment of a<br />
certificate of class at this stage of<br />
the vessel’s life is significant. An<br />
ongoing survey program by Lloyds<br />
will ensure that the RAN's<br />
performance is continuously<br />
benchmarked against world best<br />
practice.<br />
An extensive survey program<br />
initiated by Lloyds in August 2000<br />
has seen all relevant parts of the<br />
hull and machinery inspected,<br />
tested or surveyed and all<br />
modifications since July 2000 have<br />
been submitted for design review<br />
and approval.<br />
HMAS Tobruk has been assigned the<br />
class: 100A1 NS2 SA1 LMC<br />
Amphibious Assault Ship. These<br />
notations are defined as follows:<br />
100 – indicates that the vessel is<br />
considered suitable for sea-going<br />
service for LR Hull Naval Class<br />
A – recognises that the vessel is<br />
accepted into class in accordance<br />
with LR’s Rules and regulations and<br />
is maintained in a good and efficient<br />
condition<br />
1 – indicates that the vessel has on<br />
board and in good efficient<br />
condition anchoring and mooring<br />
equipment in accordance with the<br />
rules.<br />
NS2 – covers ships that have a front<br />
line role that may operate<br />
independently or as part of a task<br />
force and are usually designed and<br />
constructed for worldwide operation.<br />
SA1 – covers ships having<br />
unrestricted worldwide operations<br />
LMC – indicates that the propelling<br />
and essential auxiliary machinery<br />
has been tested and found<br />
acceptable to LR.<br />
Further notations will be added to<br />
the certificate of class over the next<br />
few months to incorporate fire safety<br />
arrangements, pollution prevention,<br />
tonnage measurements, safety<br />
equipment and ballast water<br />
management. This will see HMAS<br />
Tobruk being issued with a Loadline<br />
Certificate and certificates indicating<br />
compliance with International<br />
Maritime Organisation (IMO)<br />
Regulations of SOLAS (Safety of Life<br />
at Sea) and MARPOL (Marine<br />
Pollution Prevention for oil, sewage<br />
and garbage)<br />
What is Classification<br />
Over the last year, the Amphibious<br />
and Afloat Support Systems<br />
Program Office (AASSPO) has<br />
placed contracts with three<br />
classification societies, namely<br />
Lloyds Register of Shipping, Bureau<br />
Veritas and Det Norske Veritas. The<br />
involvement of these classification<br />
societies within the SPO is<br />
increasing to align with the<br />
progressive implementation of the<br />
RAN’s new Technical Regulatory<br />
Framework.<br />
Each ship availability represents
12 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
an opportunity for survey work by<br />
the relevant classification society.<br />
In addition, these societies are<br />
being provided with detailed<br />
design packages for design<br />
approvals, consulted on repair<br />
proposals and contacted for<br />
general technical advice. However,<br />
with classification being a fairly<br />
new process, the involvement of<br />
these societies may not be fully<br />
understood and may appear to<br />
some to be additional cost and<br />
overhead without adding value.<br />
In broad terms, a classification<br />
society’s main role is to issue<br />
Certificates of Class. These<br />
certificates indicate compliance with<br />
a rule set relevant to the ship type.<br />
These rules provide for the structural<br />
strength and watertight integrity of<br />
the hull, the operation and<br />
functioning of machinery and<br />
associated systems on board as well<br />
as the effectiveness of other defined<br />
features and systems built into the<br />
ship to establish and maintain basic<br />
conditions on board.<br />
Ships can either be built to class,<br />
that being they are constructed in<br />
accordance with the classification<br />
society rule set, or existing ships can<br />
be brought into class while in<br />
service. The owner is then to decide<br />
whether the ship will be maintained<br />
in class, and if so, assign a survey<br />
program to do so.<br />
Other than the basic Certificate of<br />
Class, classification societies also<br />
have the authority to issue statutory<br />
certificates on behalf of the Flag<br />
state. Statutory certificates indicate<br />
compliance with International<br />
Maritime Organisation (IMO)<br />
regulations, which include Safety Of<br />
Life At Sea (SOLAS) and Marine<br />
Pollution (MARPOL) regulations.<br />
Since the RAN is its own flag state,<br />
classification societies issue<br />
certificates of compliance on behalf<br />
of the RAN.<br />
In addition certain classification<br />
societies, such as Lloyds have<br />
developed specific rule sets for<br />
“Naval classification” which allows<br />
Navies to be freed from the<br />
limitations of statutory requirements,<br />
and are far less constrained and so<br />
able to address the requirements of<br />
navies and naval ships in a flexible<br />
yet authoritative way. Indeed,<br />
experience to date has certainly<br />
demonstrated a good level of<br />
flexibility by all class societies in<br />
order to accommodate for the<br />
unique nature and function of naval<br />
vessels.<br />
Classification vs. Certification<br />
The driver for implementing a<br />
classification process stems from<br />
RAN policy as set out in ABR 5454<br />
RAN Regulatory Framework and<br />
Certification Manual and DI (N) LOG<br />
47-3 Technical Regulation of <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Materiel. These documents refer to<br />
‘Certification’ as meeting a<br />
‘Certification Basis’ which is the suite<br />
of certificates identified as being<br />
necessary to deem a ship is safe,<br />
environmentally compliant and fit for<br />
purpose. This suite of certificates<br />
includes the certificate of class and<br />
any statutory certificates which when<br />
issued by a third party can be used<br />
as objective evidence that the<br />
vessels meet the requirements.<br />
Therefore the classification process<br />
is the initial step in attaining overall<br />
Certification.<br />
DI(N) LOG 47-3 is based on 6 key<br />
points, one of which states “the<br />
RAN is to benchmark performance<br />
against world best practice,<br />
adopting, as far as practicable,<br />
the standards and processes<br />
used in comparable civilian<br />
circumstances and developing,<br />
adapting or adopting the best of<br />
international civilian and military<br />
practice”, this is where<br />
classification societies come into<br />
play bringing with them merchant<br />
shipping expertise. This is<br />
particularly important for the<br />
AASFEG vessels due to the lack of<br />
a defined functional baseline, and<br />
therefore the ability to ensure<br />
‘design integrity’ as required by<br />
the DI (N). Also as external<br />
agencies, the RAN ensures the<br />
integrity of an independent third<br />
party verifier.<br />
Progress of Classification within<br />
AASPO<br />
AASSPO is currently utilising<br />
classification societies to bring<br />
existing ships into class, some of<br />
which have had no classification<br />
society type rules applied in<br />
either their construction or on<br />
going maintenance. As a result,<br />
there will be significant noncompliances<br />
with classification<br />
rules of which some have already<br />
been identified. In this case, the<br />
class society has been tasked<br />
with assessing the risk to be<br />
posed by the non compliance<br />
and the decision is then passed<br />
on to the RAN to accept the risk<br />
or take measures to rectify the<br />
non-compliance. In this way the<br />
RAN moves to align with more<br />
commercial standards and is<br />
able to benchmark against<br />
world’s best practice while still<br />
maintaining overall authority in<br />
the process.<br />
The current status of the<br />
classification process within the SPO<br />
is as follows:<br />
• WESTRALIA: built and maintained to<br />
class with Lloyds Register<br />
• TOBRUK: Recently issued with<br />
Certificate of Class by Lloyds<br />
Register.<br />
• SUCCESS: Currently under survey<br />
with Bureau Veritas anticipated<br />
Certificate of Class to be issued in<br />
July 2002<br />
• LPAs: Currently under survey by Det<br />
Norske Veritas anticipated<br />
Certificates of Class to be issued by<br />
end 2002<br />
• LCHs: 4 are in class with Lloyds<br />
Register, the remaining two to be in<br />
class by end of 2002.<br />
• Young Endeavour: Currently under<br />
survey by Lloyds Register anticipated<br />
Certificate of Class by October<br />
2002.<br />
About the Author<br />
An Engineer who joined DMO in 1999 under<br />
the Graduate Acquisition Trainee Engineer<br />
program. Currently working for the Amphibious<br />
and Afloat Support Systems Program Office<br />
within the Major Surface Ships branch, and is<br />
the Certification Manager for the vessels within<br />
the SPO. She has previously worked as Project<br />
Engineer with the RAAF Hornet Upgrade and F-<br />
111 Simulator projects.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
13<br />
Legal Liability Of<br />
Commonwealth Employees<br />
Exercising Engineering<br />
Authority<br />
BY CDRE TIM BARTER<br />
CHIEF NAVAL ENGINEER<br />
A number of inquiries have been received regarding the legal liability of<br />
naval engineers and the requirement for professional indemnity<br />
insurance. The following advice is provide and is based on information<br />
provided in RAAF technical regulatory manuals and is equally applicable<br />
to Naval engineers. This advice will be included in <strong>Navy</strong> Technical<br />
Regulatory manuals being developed under project HELP.<br />
Naval technical personnel may be<br />
delegated specific authority to<br />
make engineering decisions.<br />
Currently there are short comings<br />
in the instructions that detail the<br />
process of assigning engineering<br />
authority in the RAN and<br />
associated requirements such as<br />
requirements to record<br />
engineering decisions. However,<br />
any person making an<br />
engineering decision should<br />
recognise that they are<br />
accountable for their decisions or<br />
the decisions of staff who make<br />
decisions on their behalf. This,<br />
raises the question of the legal<br />
liability of these employees.<br />
Force Discipline Act for ‘negligent<br />
performance of duty’, or<br />
• the liability (civil or criminal) of<br />
staff employed by contractors .<br />
Legal Liability of Commonwealth<br />
Employees<br />
Negligence<br />
Negligence is the failure to<br />
exercise the degree of care that is<br />
required by law in the particular<br />
circumstances. The purpose of<br />
the law of negligence is to enable<br />
a person who has suffered<br />
damage (personal injury, property<br />
the claim (the plaintiff) must<br />
show that ‘it is more likely than<br />
not’ that the defendant’s act or<br />
omission was a cause of their<br />
injuries. In summary, a person will<br />
only be liable for negligence if the<br />
following conditions are met:<br />
• the law requires a degree of care<br />
to be exercised in the particular<br />
circumstance; and<br />
• the person fails to exercise this<br />
degree of care; and<br />
• their failure to exercise the degree<br />
of care results in damage (loss)<br />
to another person.<br />
This article provides an overview<br />
of the law relating to negligence<br />
and civil liability as it applies to<br />
Commonwealth employees who<br />
exercise engineering authority<br />
(EA) by way of making<br />
engineering decisions. This<br />
includes both members of the<br />
ADF and civilian employees of the<br />
Department of Defence.<br />
Specifically, it does not address:<br />
• actions that may be taken under<br />
the relevant Crimes Act for<br />
‘criminal negligence’,<br />
• charges that may be preferred<br />
under section 35 of the Defence<br />
Negligence can occur by<br />
either an act or an omission.<br />
damage or economic loss)<br />
through another person’s<br />
negligence to receive<br />
compensation to recoup that<br />
loss.<br />
Negligence can occur by either an<br />
act or an omission. Whether<br />
particular conduct amounts to<br />
negligence depends on the facts<br />
of each particular case. To prove<br />
negligence the person bringing<br />
Vicarious Liability<br />
In general, a person is legally<br />
responsible for damage that results<br />
from their acts or omissions.<br />
However, it is an established<br />
principle of law that where an<br />
employee, acting in the normal<br />
course of their duties, is negligent<br />
and causes damage giving rise to<br />
an action, it is the employer, not the<br />
employee, that the courts will hold
14 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
liable. This is called the vicarious<br />
liability of the employer and has<br />
been developed by the courts<br />
based on the principle that the<br />
employer exercises control over the<br />
duties performed by the employee<br />
and is thereby responsible for the<br />
actions of the employee. A<br />
secondary practical consideration<br />
is that the employer is in a better<br />
position than the employee to meet<br />
the liability for damages.<br />
The fact that the employer (ie the<br />
Commonwealth) is vicariously liable<br />
does not mean that the employee<br />
escapes liability. The plaintiff may<br />
choose to sue either the<br />
Commonwealth, the employee or<br />
both parties. Similarly, if the<br />
Commonwealth alone is sued, then<br />
it may seek a contribution from the<br />
employee to meet all or part of any<br />
costs and damages awarded.<br />
Financial Direction 21/18<br />
If an employee alone is sued, then<br />
he or she is able to join the<br />
Commonwealth as a codefendant<br />
or to counterclaim against the<br />
Commonwealth. Alternatively, the<br />
Commonwealth may, in accordance<br />
with Finance Direction 21/18 and<br />
Guideline 21/5 to Finance<br />
Directions, pay the costs associated<br />
with arranging an employee’s<br />
defence and any damage awarded<br />
against that employee. Finance<br />
Direction 21/18 is applicable to<br />
both current and former<br />
Commonwealth employees.<br />
The indemnity offered by Finance<br />
21/18, however, is certainly not<br />
open-ended. If a person acts<br />
irresponsibly or maliciously with<br />
culpable negligence or disregard of<br />
the Commonwealth’s interest, then<br />
the Commonwealth may not<br />
provide assistance under Finance<br />
Direction 21/18 and may in turn<br />
seek contribution and indemnity<br />
from the employee.<br />
Nevertheless Commonwealth<br />
employees should view the<br />
protection offered by Finance<br />
Directive 21/18 as roughly<br />
equivalent to that provided by<br />
professional indemnity insurance.<br />
Summary<br />
As long as Commonwealth<br />
employees act in good faith and<br />
within the scope of the duties<br />
expected of them, then the likely<br />
outcome of any claim of negligence<br />
will either be that:<br />
• the courts will find the<br />
Commonwealth vicariously liable for<br />
any actions arising, or<br />
• if an employee alone is sued for<br />
negligence, the Commonwealth will<br />
meet any expenses incurred in<br />
defending the claim and damages<br />
awarded, in accordance with<br />
Finance Directive 21/18.<br />
This level of protection should be<br />
seen as adequate for all<br />
Commonwealth employees who<br />
exercise EA.<br />
Although this guidance has been<br />
reviewed by The Defence Legal<br />
Service (TDLS), information is only<br />
intended to provide a general<br />
overview of the civil liability of<br />
Commonwealth employees in<br />
relation to claims of negligence<br />
arising from the exercise of EA and<br />
should not be relied upon for a<br />
particular instance. Questions of a<br />
specific nature should be directed<br />
to local legal staff at ADF<br />
establishments for further<br />
guidance.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
15<br />
The Impact Of Erika On<br />
Australia’s Ability To<br />
Support Joint And<br />
Combined Operations<br />
Outside <strong>Australian</strong> Waters<br />
BY LCDR ROBERT GISHUBL<br />
HMAS WARRAMUNGA<br />
Introduction<br />
On 12 December 1999 a small commercial tanker, Erika, broke in two in<br />
heavy seas off the coast of Brittany, France. Although the crew were<br />
saved 14,000 tonnes of its 30,000 tonne cargo of heavy fuel oil were<br />
spilled causing 100 miles of Atlantic coastline to be polluted. This<br />
disaster caused significant public pressure to accelerate the phase out<br />
of single-hulled tankers contained in the 1992 MARPOL amendments i .<br />
Tightening Environmental<br />
Standards<br />
Since the Public outcry from<br />
members of the EU demanding<br />
improved protection against oil<br />
spills, the International Maritime<br />
Organisation (IMO), through<br />
MEPC 46 amended the<br />
International Convention for the<br />
Prevention of pollution from<br />
Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78).<br />
This resolution effectively<br />
accelerated the phase out of<br />
single hulled oil tankers<br />
compared to the program<br />
adopted on 6 March 1992 ii .<br />
Under the 1992 resolution, HMAS<br />
WESTRALIA needed to be retired<br />
from international operations by<br />
2009 with HMAS SUCCESS being<br />
unaffected due to her smaller<br />
size iii . The Erika amendments are<br />
not as lenient and affect both of<br />
the <strong>Navy</strong>’s tankers.<br />
The larger of the <strong>Navy</strong>’s Tankers,<br />
WESTRALIA, was first<br />
commissioned into the RFA 1 in<br />
1979 and has a deadweight 2 of<br />
33,595 tonnes. The recent<br />
amendments require her to<br />
comply with double hull<br />
construction no later than 2006 iv .<br />
The smaller tanker, SUCCESS, has<br />
a full load displacement of<br />
17,933 tons but carries over<br />
5000 tons of diesel is classified<br />
as a Category 3 oil tanker under<br />
the new amendments v . Being<br />
commissioned in 1986 SUCCESS<br />
has until 2012 vi to comply with<br />
the double hull requirements.<br />
The dates for compliance pose<br />
some difficulty for the <strong>Navy</strong>, as<br />
the existing project to maintain<br />
the afloat support capability SEA<br />
1654 has yet to progress beyond<br />
Phase 1, Project Definition Study.<br />
Phase two is the replacement of<br />
WESTRALIA and has a proposed<br />
in service date of 2009 with the<br />
year of decision scheduled for<br />
2004/05. The replacement of<br />
SUCCESS is Phase 3 of the<br />
project with a Year of Decision<br />
2007/08 and a proposed in<br />
service date of 2015 vii . With the<br />
nearer phase out dates for single<br />
hulled tankers imposed by the<br />
Erika amendments there will be a<br />
gap of three years between the<br />
proposed in service dates and<br />
the phase out for each of the<br />
existing tankers.<br />
Although Australia can claim<br />
Sovereign Immunity to avoid<br />
compliance it could pose<br />
significant operational limitations<br />
with nations able to refuse entry<br />
to ships that do not comply with<br />
MARPOL regulations. In any case<br />
the UN Convention on the Law of<br />
the Sea requires signatories<br />
“such vessels or aircraft owned or<br />
operated by it, that such vessels<br />
or aircraft act in a manner<br />
consistent, so far as is<br />
reasonable and practicable, with<br />
this Convention.” viii . In addition<br />
the latest Defence Environmental<br />
Policy states “Sustainable<br />
environmental management must<br />
be our hallmark to ensure that we<br />
Notes 1 ‘RFA’ is the <strong>Royal</strong> Fleet Auxiliary of<br />
the United Kingdom and is comprised of<br />
support ships such as tankers and<br />
transport ships manned by the Merchant<br />
Marine.<br />
2 “Deadweight” (DW) is the difference in<br />
metric tons between the displacement of a<br />
ship in water with a specific gravity of<br />
1.025 at the load waterline corresponding<br />
to the assigned summer freeboard (ie full<br />
load displacement) and the Lightweight of<br />
the ship. Lightweight is the displacement of<br />
a ship in metric tons without cargo, fuel,<br />
lubricating oil, fresh and feed water in<br />
tanks, consumable stores, and passengers<br />
and crew and their effects.
16 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
minimise our footprint on the<br />
environment” ix . As such although<br />
the <strong>Navy</strong> is not legally bound to<br />
comply with the regulations it is<br />
morally obligated to ensure every<br />
effort is made to comply with the<br />
Erika amendments to MARPOL.<br />
If Australia wishes to maintain its<br />
Afloat Support capability for use<br />
in international operations the<br />
timetable for Project Sea 1654<br />
needs to be accelerated.<br />
Although the modern trends in<br />
the building of auxiliary naval<br />
vessels to commercial standards<br />
can reduce construction times,<br />
building ships still takes<br />
considerable time.<br />
The Strategic Implications<br />
The Defence White Paper details<br />
Australia’s Commitment to the<br />
support of regional and world<br />
stability. This requires the ability<br />
to support <strong>Australian</strong> Forces<br />
Offshore and cooperation with<br />
allied forces, in particular the<br />
United States of America x . Also<br />
Australia’s Maritime Doctrine<br />
indicates our forces may be<br />
required to operate far from<br />
Australia “ sea control operations<br />
will be required whenever<br />
Australia’s national freedom of<br />
action at sea is threatened” xi .<br />
Due to Australia’s geographic<br />
location “practically every<br />
conceivable operation must be<br />
conducted at considerable<br />
distances from shore bases and<br />
which will therefore require<br />
reach." xii An essential element of<br />
reach is the ability to re-fuel and<br />
re-supply ships at sea which<br />
requires an afloat support<br />
capability. The utility of afloat<br />
support is not limited to ships at<br />
sea but also to land and air units<br />
deployed from established bases.<br />
This is particularly so in the initial<br />
deployment before the single<br />
service logistic support units are<br />
fully deployed and established xiii .<br />
As has been detailed above<br />
Afloat Support is essential to<br />
Australia’s strategic objectives.<br />
Where operations are undertaken<br />
uni-laterally Australia will require<br />
its own Afloat Support capability.<br />
Should this capability not comply<br />
with international standards set<br />
down in MARPOL it may make it<br />
more difficult to establish forward<br />
logistic support. Neighbouring<br />
States will be able to deny entry<br />
to the Afloat Support ships on the<br />
grounds of non-compliance with<br />
MARPOL while still offering their<br />
full support to Australia’s military<br />
objectives. The inability to<br />
establish forward support bases<br />
would substantially increase the<br />
logistic lead time and reduce the<br />
ability of the <strong>Navy</strong> to maintain a<br />
presence in an operational area<br />
remote from Australia.<br />
In addition with decommissioning<br />
of the last Destroyers the <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />
anti-air combat power has been<br />
seriously degraded. Although<br />
still able to make a significant<br />
contribution to lower level<br />
operations such as the current<br />
sanction enforcement operations<br />
in The Gulf, Australia is not<br />
capable of the same level of<br />
support to higher level<br />
operations. Should there be<br />
another conflict of similar<br />
intensity to the 1990/91 Gulf<br />
War, where there was a perceived<br />
air threat, <strong>Australian</strong> units would<br />
not be able to contribute to the<br />
air defence effort of the United<br />
States carrier battle groups as<br />
was achieved in 1990/91. As<br />
with all capabilities the<br />
competency of the people is as<br />
important as the hardware. Once<br />
this capability is lost it will take<br />
years after the hardware is<br />
available again to regain the<br />
same level of proficiency.<br />
The provision of logistic support<br />
is one area where Australia can<br />
contribute meaningful to a<br />
coalition effort for higher level<br />
conflict in the near term.<br />
However even this will be beyond<br />
Australia’s ability if the support<br />
ships do not comply with the<br />
double hull requirements of<br />
MARPOL. In modern conflict,<br />
where diplomacy is as vital as<br />
combat power non-compliance<br />
with minimum international<br />
standards is likely to cause much<br />
hindrance to the movements of<br />
the ship. A claim of sovereign<br />
immunity will probably do more<br />
harm to the diplomatic effort than<br />
it contributes to the combat<br />
power of the coalition.<br />
The National Interest<br />
Not only does this issue effect<br />
military matters but also other<br />
areas of national interest such<br />
as environmental protection,<br />
particularly the Great Barrier<br />
Reef Marine Park. Australia’s<br />
Oceans policy states “ Australia<br />
will continue to take a<br />
leadership role in the<br />
International Maritime<br />
Organisation (IMO) to develop<br />
and promote a strong<br />
international regulatory<br />
framework for ship safety and<br />
the prevention of pollution.” xiv<br />
Australia’s case for<br />
environmental protection will be<br />
seriously hampered if the<br />
<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong> has ignored<br />
what is a very important<br />
environmental protection<br />
section of MARPOL 73/78 by<br />
continuing to operate single<br />
hulled tankers.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As a result of the pollution<br />
caused by the sinking of the<br />
Erika amendments to MARPOL<br />
73/78 were agreed to in April<br />
2001 which accelerated the<br />
phase out of single hulled<br />
tankers. The new amendment<br />
requires the withdrawal from<br />
international operations of the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong>’s two Afloat Support ships<br />
WESTRALIA and SUCCESS in<br />
2006 and 2012 respectively.<br />
A key requirement of Australia’s<br />
maritime doctrine is to be able<br />
to operate far from <strong>Australian</strong><br />
support bases. This requires<br />
the provision of forward logistic<br />
support of which the Afloat<br />
Support ships are essential. In<br />
addition the degradation of the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong>’s Air Warfare capability<br />
limits the ability to meaningfully<br />
support high-level coalition<br />
action other than by the<br />
provision of afloat support.<br />
However to maintain our<br />
international standing and<br />
prevent damage to other<br />
international objectives such as<br />
the strengthening of<br />
international pollution<br />
prevention agreements our<br />
Afloat Support ships need to<br />
comply with the Erika<br />
amendments to MARPOL<br />
73/78. To achieve compliance<br />
with the MARPOL requirements<br />
the Afloat Support project<br />
needs to be brought forward<br />
and fast tracked.<br />
Notes i IMO: Prevention of Pollution by Oil,<br />
www.imo.org/environment/mainframe.asp?<br />
topic_id=231<br />
ii ibid<br />
iii R.M. Gishubl, LEUT RAN, The Implications<br />
of Revised MARPOL Regulations on RAN<br />
Tankers, Naval Engineering Bulletin June<br />
2001 pp 63<br />
iv MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Regulation 13G<br />
as adopted 27 April 2001<br />
v MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Regulation 13G<br />
para 3(a) as adopted 27 April 2001<br />
vi MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Regulation 13G<br />
para 4 as adopted 27 April 2001<br />
vii Commonwealth of Australia: Defence<br />
Capability Plan 2001-2010 Public Version,<br />
www.dmo.defence.gov.au/id/dcp/dcp_publ<br />
ic.pdf, pp261-262<br />
viii United Nations Convention on the Law Of<br />
the Sea 1982, article 236<br />
ix Commonwealth of Australia, Defence<br />
Environmental Policy, December 2001<br />
x Commonwealth of Australia, Defence<br />
2000, Our Future Defence Force, para<br />
8.53-8.54 pp88<br />
xi Commonwealth of Australia, <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Maritime Doctrine, Defence Publishing<br />
Service Canberra ACT, pp 40<br />
xii Commonwealth of Australia, <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Maritime Doctrine, Defence Publishing<br />
Service Canberra ACT, pp100<br />
xiii Commonwealth of Australia, <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Maritime Doctrine, Defence Publishing<br />
Service Canberra ACT, pp85<br />
xiv Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s<br />
Oceans Policy, Environment Australia,<br />
pp 27<br />
Bibliography Commonwealth of Australia,<br />
Defence Environmental Policy, December<br />
2001<br />
Commonwealth of Australia, Defence 2000,<br />
Our Future Defence Force<br />
Commonwealth of Australia, <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Maritime Doctrine, Defence Publishing<br />
Service Canberra ACT<br />
Commonwealth of Australia: Defence<br />
Capability Plan 2001-2010 Public Version,<br />
www.dmo.defence.gov.au/id/dcp/<br />
dcp_public.pdf<br />
Gishubl R.M., LEUT RAN, The Implications<br />
of Revised MARPOL Regulations on RAN<br />
Tankers, Naval Engineering Bulletin June<br />
2001<br />
IMO, Prevention of Pollution by Oil,<br />
www.imo.org/environment/mainframe.asp?<br />
topic_id=231<br />
Janes Defence Weekly<br />
MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Regulation 13G as<br />
adopted 27 April 2001<br />
Marine Engineering Review, Institute of<br />
Marine Engineers London UK<br />
United Nations Convention on the Law Of<br />
the Sea 1982
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
17<br />
Comic Relief<br />
Home Based Naval Officer Training<br />
Naval Officer training is now available at home. All you have to do to<br />
become an Officer is complete the at-home training curriculum in the<br />
following pipelines:<br />
Navigator: Tie a brick around your neck and stare out the<br />
living room window for hours at a time. Call your father<br />
every time a car passes by your house.Take bearings on<br />
random streetlights.<br />
Ship XO: Muster the kids out in the backyard.Tell them to<br />
paint the house Ship's side grey.When your 10-year-old<br />
spills a litre of paint in the pool, reduce him in age to nine<br />
and cut his allowance.<br />
Aviator: Draw special shoes from stores that make<br />
"Wocca-wocca" noises while you walk. Target random<br />
passers-by and tell them how difficult flying is. Put in<br />
three hours practice a day by donning headphones (with<br />
Top Gun soundtrack) and mirror sunglasses and stare out<br />
of smallest window in the house.<br />
PWO: Turn off all the lights in the house and put the A/C<br />
on high. Put earmuffs on all the kids and make them sit in<br />
front of a blank TV screen for 8 hours at a time. Berate<br />
them when they can't figure out an SOA to get from the<br />
kitchen to the downstairs bathroom instantaneously.<br />
Resort to several years of intensive psychotherapy.<br />
WEEO: Strut around the house ranting to anyone you see<br />
in a rare form of ancient Gaelic.When they don't<br />
understand, chuckle and tell them that the toaster and the<br />
microwave "just aren't talking."<br />
DWEEO: Follow around WEEO. Randomly nod in<br />
agreement.<br />
MEO: Pour your lawn mower's fuel can into the pool. Run<br />
around the house three times, then throw 12 rolls of toilet<br />
paper into the pool. Finally, pull out the phone book and<br />
call every person in neighbourhood and tell them "it was<br />
only a cup's worth." Resort to heavy drinking.<br />
DMEO: Crawl into a sleeping bag and tie it off at its end.<br />
Have the kids beat you mercilessly with lead filled<br />
armaflex bats while your wife yells at you through a<br />
megaphone "Engineering Casualty, Engineering Casualty."<br />
Training Systems Officer: Enrol in a fairly useless degree.<br />
After joining <strong>Navy</strong>, acquire Big Book of Courses to carry<br />
around. Tell members of your family at random that the<br />
course they want is full, cancelled or they don't have the<br />
right pre-requisites. Enrol in another fairly useless degree.<br />
Offer QC, 360-degree feedback and counselling sessions<br />
to all of the members of your family.<br />
Gunnery Officer: Make the whole family shoot the family<br />
shotgun into the pool. Roll out the garden hose to the<br />
front lawn and spray any suspicious visitors including your<br />
neighbours and the mailman.Tell Grandma she can't<br />
come in to visit the kids because she's not on the access<br />
list.<br />
ASW Officer: About once every year, throw a cucumber<br />
into the pool. Put on a blindfold and tie your hands<br />
behind your back with a small garden hose. Dive in and<br />
try to find the cucumber using only your mouth. Have the<br />
kids fire green flares at you every ten minutes.<br />
Supply Officer: Walk from bedroom to bedroom with<br />
magical bottomless cup of coffee in hand. Skilfully bring<br />
fellow housemates' misfortunes to the forefront to steer<br />
conversation away from the fact that they are forced to<br />
use glad wrap as underwear while on deployment as the<br />
stores system cannot cope with more than three minor<br />
clothing orders during the SO's tenure.<br />
USN Exchange Officer: Follow around SO. Randomly nod<br />
in agreement. Every three months, receive in the post<br />
another ribbon to add to the four rows you already have.<br />
DSO: Follow SO and USN Exchange Officer<br />
around and nod in unison. Colour coordinate<br />
pens in top and side pockets of coveralls.<br />
Randomly bitch about SONPAS and why should<br />
they get paid $1000.00 per day to get someone<br />
else to calculate foreign currency rates since<br />
DSOs have been doing it since 1911 for bugger<br />
all. Casually remind Seaman Officers that even<br />
if you stay in until 55 you will only have to go to<br />
sea twice. In answer to every question remotely<br />
related to Public Money utter the phrase 'fill in a<br />
FA12 and get back to me'. Try to find out where<br />
the Pusser gets his bottomless brew mug from.<br />
Damage Control Engineer: Set your alarm clock to go off<br />
at random during the night, jump up and get dressed as<br />
fast as you can making sure you button up the top button<br />
on your shirt and stuff your pants into your socks. Close<br />
every door in the house, then run out into the backyard<br />
and uncoil the garden hose.<br />
Intelligence Officer: Tap your own phone. Inspect your<br />
own bank accounts.Take no note of unidentified $1000<br />
deposits every week. Interrogate the postman. Paint the<br />
door of the spare room green, refuse to let anyone into it,<br />
and once inside, write reports inside red folders and then<br />
burn them.<br />
Operations Officer: Climb to the highest point of the<br />
house and jump off headfirst into the driveway.Tell anyone<br />
who asks: "Trust me, it's better this way".<br />
Executive Officer/Navigator combo: Every so often, throw<br />
the cat in the pool and shout "Man overboard, starboard<br />
side".Then run into the house and sweep all the pots and<br />
dishes off the counter.Yell at the wife and kids for not<br />
having the kitchen "stowed for sea."<br />
CO: Refuse to answer the phone. Employ your oldest kid<br />
as COSEC. Throw everything off your desk except a folder<br />
entitled "Promotions". Admit your kids and the wife at<br />
three hourly intervals and tell them they need to lift their<br />
game. Meanwhile, surf the Net for opportunities to post<br />
out of this damned house.
18 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY WOATA BRUCE TUNNAH<br />
DIRECTORATE OF NAVY<br />
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS<br />
(E&L)<br />
Aviation Technician Issues<br />
Here in the Directorate of <strong>Navy</strong> Professional Requirements (Canberra),<br />
we are working hard alongside various other directorates and<br />
departments to balance the Aviation Technician workforce and projected<br />
personnel requirements against operational capability directives. While<br />
not a comprehensive list; some of the other agencies we work with on a<br />
regular basis to achieve this include the Naval Aviation Force Element<br />
Group capability managers (COMAUSNAVAIRGRP), career managers<br />
(DSCM), the Directorate General of Technical Airworthiness (DGTA), <strong>Navy</strong><br />
workforce planners (DNWP and DDE-N), the Training Authority (TA-AVN),<br />
the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the <strong>Australian</strong> National<br />
Training Authority (ANTA) to name but a few.<br />
BELOW WOATA BRUCE TUNNAH<br />
To the point, what are the main<br />
issues (from the cat-sponsor<br />
side of the house) that are<br />
taking up the majority of our<br />
time at the moment? Here<br />
goes:<br />
Pay<br />
For some years now we have<br />
been directly involved in the<br />
preparation of a Tri-Service pay<br />
review for <strong>Navy</strong>, Army and Air<br />
Force Aviation Technicians.<br />
We are not (necessarily)<br />
expecting any significant<br />
changes for <strong>Navy</strong> out of this<br />
individual case in that we are<br />
already well towards the top of<br />
the existing (current) pay<br />
scales. We will remain actively<br />
involved in this process and,<br />
similarly, keep in touch with<br />
the Directorate of Salaries and<br />
Allowances (DSA) on the<br />
overall issues of pay and<br />
allowances.<br />
Please note that we won’t<br />
attempt to pre-empt any<br />
outcome from the DFRT for<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> on this matter, but more<br />
advice will be promulgated as<br />
the case proceeds. So, watch<br />
this space!<br />
Occupational Analysis<br />
Once again on a Tri-Service<br />
basis and coordinated through<br />
DGTA, we will be conducting<br />
an occupational analysis (OA)<br />
for the ATA and ATV categories.<br />
A substantial number of you<br />
will be asked to become<br />
actively involved in the OA in<br />
the near future to assist in<br />
providing a valid picture of<br />
what we are doing. What is an<br />
occupational analysis? In<br />
brief, we need to re-establish<br />
the ‘profile’ for what work we<br />
do, where we do that work and<br />
at what level of depth and<br />
complexity. This information<br />
will be used to validate the<br />
training we provide for the<br />
categories now and into the<br />
foreseeable future. Similarly,<br />
there will also be a linkage<br />
between the OA and the DFRT<br />
consideration of the Tri-Service<br />
pay review.<br />
More on this one to come.<br />
Civil Accreditation<br />
The Category Sponsor,<br />
alongside TA-AVN and the<br />
accreditation cell (NPTC-<br />
Canberra) is actively involved<br />
in civil accreditation. Aviation<br />
Technicians who have<br />
successfully completed Initial<br />
Technical Training along with<br />
the corresponding Journal and<br />
having served a minimum of 4<br />
years from commencement of<br />
the Wagga course, can apply<br />
to the NSW Department of<br />
Training and Education for a<br />
Certificate of Aircraft<br />
Maintenance Engineering<br />
(VT26) in either the<br />
Mechanical (ATA) or Avionics<br />
(ATV) streams as appropriate.<br />
Application for the VT26 is<br />
through TA-AVN at HMAS<br />
ALBATROSS.<br />
For a further breakdown of the<br />
accreditation you can expect<br />
to receive during your career;<br />
see ABR27, Vol 1, Chap 10,<br />
Annex A as the reference.<br />
Changes to Promotion<br />
Prerequisites<br />
As part of the finalisation and<br />
implementation for changing<br />
our workforce from a ‘trade’<br />
focus to a ‘technical workforce’<br />
under competency based<br />
training and assessment<br />
(CBTA), the following changes<br />
are intended:<br />
• Following promotion to<br />
Leading Seaman, one of the<br />
prerequisites for promotion to<br />
Petty Officer will be the<br />
requirement to achieve<br />
Maintenance Quality Inspector<br />
(MQI) authorisation. The MQI<br />
authorisation will also be<br />
subject to having completed<br />
the LS-ATT Competency Log.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
19<br />
• Similarly, on promotion to<br />
Petty Officer, you will have to<br />
achieve authorisation as a<br />
Maintenance Manager (MM) to<br />
be considered eligible for<br />
promotion to CPO. Again, a<br />
prerequisite to MM<br />
authorisation will be the PO-<br />
ATT competency Log.<br />
BELOW OUR FOCUS - THE ‘SHARP’ END<br />
• Finally, on promotion to Chief<br />
Petty Officer, you will need<br />
FSMS authorisation as one of<br />
the eligibility requirements for<br />
promotion to Warrant Officer.<br />
Like MQI and MM, the FSMS<br />
will need to complete the CPO-<br />
ATT competency log before<br />
FSMS authorisation is granted.<br />
The fine detail of this policy is<br />
still under development in<br />
consultation with DSCM and<br />
TA-AVN. A formal policy<br />
statement along with an<br />
overview of the final shape of<br />
the ‘cradle to grave’ career<br />
profile will be released for<br />
wide promulgation in due<br />
course.<br />
Please note that this policy<br />
does not apply until such time<br />
that you see a formal signal<br />
promulgating the change,<br />
which will be followed up by<br />
appropriate amendment to<br />
ABR10.<br />
Summary<br />
The above are just some of the<br />
issues that we are working<br />
hard at, on your behalf, in<br />
Canberra. While I would<br />
encourage all personnel to use<br />
the Divisional System in the<br />
first instance, I can be<br />
contacted on (02) 6266 4584<br />
or, e-mail,<br />
Bruce.Tunnah@defence.gov.au<br />
if there is no other readily<br />
available way of satisfying the<br />
questions or issues you may<br />
have relating to Aviation<br />
Technician category<br />
sponsorship.
20 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY WOET S.D (SIMON) LUCK<br />
OIC CMC3<br />
DIRECTORATE SAILORS' CAREER<br />
MANAGEMENT<br />
Issues Affecting Career<br />
Management<br />
In the February 02 issue of the <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Bulletin, the article<br />
titled "Why is the Workforce Upside Down?" touched on one issue<br />
effecting the management of our sailors. In this article I will attempt to<br />
outline some of the other major issues facing our Career Managers, and<br />
why you may receive a posting that is not on your list of desirables.<br />
Firstly we quite commonly hear<br />
that our workforce numbers are at<br />
a critical level. So how short are<br />
we of Technical Category sailors I<br />
hear you ask? Based on total<br />
workforce numbers required by<br />
July 2002 we are short a total of<br />
230 ET sailors or approximately<br />
18% with the MT category slightly<br />
worse off, short 460 or<br />
approximately 22%. What these<br />
figures do not show, however, is<br />
that the majority of the shortages<br />
are at the LS/AB rank, for<br />
example ABET numbers are down<br />
by 166(38%) and ABMT down<br />
303(30%).<br />
Recent recruiting campaigns have<br />
targeted the ET category and very<br />
shortly you will see an increased<br />
focus on the MT category but<br />
despite the intense efforts by the<br />
recruiting agencies, we remain<br />
short of our targets with the ET<br />
category achieving 69% and the<br />
MT slightly better at 85%. I may<br />
point out that this is a huge<br />
improvement compared to 00/01<br />
figures. Unfortunately, it will take<br />
approximately 24 to 36 months<br />
before we realise the benefits of<br />
this increase, providing we can<br />
stabilise the current workforce<br />
numbers.<br />
With the current level of OP<br />
TEMPO and the vast array of<br />
competing priorities stemming<br />
from it, there is a huge demand<br />
placed on our sailors. A number<br />
of organisations would have<br />
experienced a rapid decline in<br />
their technical workforce and<br />
could feel that they are being<br />
unfairly targeted. While on the<br />
outside this may seem<br />
unreasonable, we must<br />
understand that our primary<br />
focus must always remain at the<br />
“Sharp End”. This is particularly<br />
highlighted after the tragic events<br />
...despite the intense efforts... we<br />
remain short of our targets...<br />
of Sept 11, DNOP/DSCM were<br />
forced to set out and define a<br />
priority structure that better<br />
aligned itself to the requirements<br />
for our personnel. Consequently<br />
DCN agreed to a set of 6<br />
priorities, shown in priority order:<br />
• directed Operations (such as OP<br />
SLIPPER / OP RELEX / OP<br />
CRANBERRY)<br />
• operation Headquarters<br />
• Training/Career<br />
Management/Recruiting<br />
• regular Operations (such as fleet<br />
units doing WUPE )<br />
• operation Support (MOTU, STG<br />
etc)<br />
• others (FIMA, DMO, SDD etc)<br />
These priorities have caused us,<br />
as a Career Management Agency,<br />
to reassess the disposition of<br />
many of our trained force,<br />
causing personnel to be posted<br />
at extremely short notice, posted<br />
to higher priority positions and in<br />
some cases geographically<br />
shifted from their preferred<br />
locality. It has also restricted our<br />
ability to successfully balance the<br />
needs of the individual against<br />
the requirements of the service<br />
resulting in some members being<br />
posted away from both their<br />
preferred locality and<br />
employment. Remembering that<br />
we must also take into account<br />
the priority of the position being<br />
considered.<br />
Above I touched on the subject of<br />
preferred locality but below are a<br />
sample of graphs that graphically<br />
depict the problems facing both<br />
DSCM and DNPR (E&L) in trying<br />
to get it right, and why it is not<br />
always possible for you to remain<br />
in the same locality? I have<br />
chosen to focus on the ANZAC<br />
community, as they are currently<br />
our fastest growing stream. The<br />
problems faced by the ANZAC<br />
community are not an isolated<br />
case, other platforms face the<br />
same problems but to a lesser<br />
extent. The following series of<br />
graphs provide a graphical<br />
representation of the current<br />
geographical disposition of<br />
ANZAC ET stream billets:
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
21<br />
ANZFCS SEA BILLETS<br />
ANZFCS SHORE BILLETS<br />
60%<br />
40% EAST<br />
35%<br />
WEST<br />
65%<br />
EAST<br />
WEST<br />
ANZFCS CPO BILLETS<br />
ANZFCS PO BILLETS<br />
29%<br />
14%<br />
21%<br />
36%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST<br />
15%<br />
23%<br />
15%<br />
47%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST<br />
ANZSENS SEA BILLETS<br />
ANZSENS SHORE BILLETS<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
EAST<br />
WEST<br />
25%<br />
75%<br />
EAST<br />
WEST<br />
ANZSENS CPO BILLETS<br />
ANZSENS PO BILLETS<br />
14%<br />
21%<br />
14%<br />
51%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST<br />
28%<br />
11%<br />
17%<br />
44%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST<br />
ANZWEAPS CPO BILLETS<br />
ANZWEAPS PO BILLETS<br />
43%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
14%<br />
14%<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
21%<br />
14%<br />
14%<br />
29%<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST<br />
51%<br />
SHORE EAST<br />
SHORE WEST<br />
SEA EAST<br />
SEA WEST
22 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
So as you can observe from the<br />
sample of graphs our ability to<br />
conform to CDF Directive 19,<br />
which requires back to back<br />
postings in the same locality is<br />
difficult at best. The ANZAC MT<br />
community is in a similar<br />
position, and while the movement<br />
of ACLO and TUASSC to Western<br />
Australia will go some way to<br />
alleviate this problem there is<br />
much still to be done.<br />
Discussions on Class Basing are<br />
ongoing and while this may result<br />
in some initial turmoil it would<br />
certainly alleviate some of the<br />
locality restrictions placed upon<br />
us, subject to the re-location of<br />
all support infrastructures with<br />
the relocated seagoing units.<br />
The current manpower shortages<br />
also affect our ability to provide<br />
suitable replacements or respite<br />
from the rigours of sea. Within the<br />
workforce structure there are 2<br />
factors built in to cover our<br />
Advanced Training Requirement<br />
(ATR) and our Training Ineffectives<br />
(TI) to try and provide a suitable<br />
number of personnel to fill both<br />
sea and shore positions and<br />
allow some additional fat to cover<br />
these 2 requirements.<br />
It can not, however, factor in<br />
those personnel that become<br />
ineffective due to a medical or<br />
compassionate circumstance.<br />
These issues place additional<br />
strain on the workforce and will<br />
lead to some members being<br />
returned to sea quicker than<br />
would normally occur. A graphic<br />
illustration of this is below, which<br />
looks at the ANZMT personnel at<br />
sea and ashore Vis the total that<br />
are available for sea:<br />
35<br />
ANZMTM Bodies @ Feb '02<br />
30<br />
25<br />
Personnel Personnel<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
ABM LSM POM CPOM<br />
RANK<br />
ANZMTE Bodies @ Feb '02<br />
SEA<br />
SHORE<br />
Shore 12m +<br />
Avail for Sea<br />
SEA<br />
SHORE<br />
Shore 12m +<br />
Avail for Sea<br />
5<br />
0<br />
ABE LSE POE CPOE<br />
RANK
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
23<br />
Regardless of this, no member<br />
will do more than 3.5 years at<br />
sea, unless they volunteer to<br />
forego shore service.<br />
To try and provide some further<br />
stability and respite, members<br />
posted ashore will receive 12<br />
months ashore, unless they<br />
volunteer to return early. They will<br />
still be required to provide up to<br />
91 days of Operational Sea relief<br />
within a 12 month period should<br />
the requirement exist, however, we<br />
will always endeavour to identify<br />
a volunteer from available<br />
members in the first instance.<br />
The issues discussed above are<br />
only the tip of the iceberg and<br />
over subsequent volumes of the<br />
Engineering Bulletin I will<br />
endeavour to highlight other<br />
problems facing us.<br />
Rest assured a lot of behind the<br />
scenes work is being carried out<br />
to try and improve our lot in life,<br />
some of the work which is<br />
currently being undertaken is:<br />
• FFG MT(E) review<br />
• Naval Engineering review<br />
• Class Basing<br />
• Review into geographic position<br />
locations for ANZAC ET/MT sailors<br />
• Review into Lateral Recruiting<br />
Process (LRP)<br />
• Re-Entry campaign (aimed at<br />
encouraging past members to<br />
rejoin)<br />
• Establishment of Skills<br />
Development Centres at FIMA<br />
Sydney and Perth<br />
• Enrolment with IEAUST<br />
• Introduction of the Electronic<br />
Technical Certificate of<br />
Competence (DI(N) PERS 75-43)<br />
While your Career Managers and I<br />
understand your frustration, we<br />
will continue to offer alternatives<br />
where possible, but I ask for your<br />
understanding in what is indeed<br />
a difficult period for us all. We are<br />
continuing to engage your<br />
category sponsor DNPR (E&L)<br />
and highlighting areas of<br />
concern. Any feedback or ideas<br />
are welcomed. Remember if you<br />
or your Ship/Establishment has<br />
not received the opportunity to<br />
speak with your relevant Career<br />
Manager then let us know so we<br />
can arrange a visit.<br />
In closing I would like to bring<br />
your attention to a number of<br />
signals that have been released<br />
lately that may have been<br />
overlooked:<br />
FROM SIC DTG SUBJECT<br />
ADHQ WAI 040120ZAPR02 Long Service Leave administration NAVY<br />
DGNPT WAA/WAC 110446ZJAN02 Outside Employment of ADF Personnel<br />
DEFENCE WAA 130321ZMAR02 New Policy – Recognition of DE FACTO Marriages in<br />
CANBERRA the ADF DI(G) PERS 53-1<br />
DGNAVSYS WBS/W3Y/W3I 120650ZFEB02 ME/WE Personnel Development Program Agreement<br />
between NAVY and IE-AUST<br />
DGNPT WAK/WHK/WAD 040449ZMAR0 Reporting/Recording of Competencies<br />
DGNPT WAK/WHK/WAD 260827Z MAR 02 Reporting /Recording of discretionary promotion<br />
prerequisites in PMKEYS<br />
DSCM CONTACTS<br />
1800 00 DSCM<br />
(1800 00 3726)<br />
MT (02) 6265 3305 ET (02) 6265 3300 AT (02) 6265 1577 or E-mail<br />
DSCM_Cell3@defence.gov.au (MT/ET inquiries)<br />
DSCM_Cell2@defence.gov.au (AT inquiries)
24 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Sailor Promotions<br />
NAME EMPLOYER ID PROMOTED TO SHIP/ESTAB<br />
KITT 8081661 CPOETANZFCS WATSON<br />
CARTWRIGHT 8084002 CPOETANZSEN CERBERUS<br />
HALE 8081655 CPOETAUXSEN MANOORA<br />
BEER 8074982 CPOETFFGSEN KUTTABUL<br />
JORGENSEN 8081382 CPOETFFGWEAP STIRLING/OVERSEAS<br />
GRANT M.A 8081837 CPOMTAUXE TOBRUK<br />
HOSKIN C.A 8070717 CPOMTAUXE HS WHITE<br />
BARTLEY G.R 8078175 CPOMTAUXM TARAKAN<br />
MARSH S.G 8087126 CPOMTAUXM GEELONG<br />
OKEEFE C.A 8086590 CPOMTAUXM GAWLER<br />
QUINN B.K 8087740 CPOMTAUXM WHYALLA<br />
KEILER S.W 8087979 CPOMTFFGM NEWCASTLE<br />
BALDACCHINO B.C. 8096498 LSATA MELBOURNE<br />
BEYER K.W. 8107122 LSATA 816 SQN<br />
CAVEY B.G. 8099548 LSATA NEWCASTLE<br />
COLLINS H.N. 8097738 LSATA ALBATROSS<br />
CROFT P.M. 8099552 LSATA NEWCASTLE<br />
GIRDLER B.W. 8099808 LSATA ALBATROSS<br />
HINDMARSH S.E. 8099598 LSATA ANZAC<br />
NICOL M. 8099858 LSATA ABATROSS<br />
REDDING A.S. 8099767 LSATA MELBOURNE<br />
STEWART C.W. 8107180 LSATA MANOORA<br />
SUBONJ D. 8106868 LSATA MANOORA<br />
VIERO D.J. 8097873 LSATA SUCCESS<br />
BUFFETT K.I. 8096876 LSATV MELBOURNE<br />
JAMES D. 8100120 LSATV ANZAC<br />
KNOX S.D. 8106953 LSATV ALBATROSS<br />
MOLLER R.B. 8100193 LSATV 805 SQN<br />
REAY N.P. 8100957 LSATV 817 SQN<br />
SACIUK A.P. 8100871 LSATV ALBATROSS<br />
SLOAN J.D. 8100961 LSATV CANBERRA<br />
SUTHERLAND P.L. 8100962 LSATV 723 SQN<br />
BALL 8100911 LSET HS BLUE<br />
BROCK 8100518 LSET KANIMBLA<br />
BROOKS 8098975 LSET HS RED<br />
BROUN 8107910 LSET STIRLING<br />
ELLIOTT 8108445 LSET MANOORA<br />
EVERETT 8107113 LSET WALLER<br />
GOODA 8106577 LSET WOOLLONGONG<br />
HARDY 8106901 LSET WATERHEN<br />
HAWKINS 8100352 LSET STIRLING<br />
HILL 8093622 LSET KUTTABUL<br />
HOLLIS 8106918 LSET KUTTABUL<br />
JOHANSEN 8101036 LSET MELBOURNE<br />
JOHNSON 8092154 LSET HAROLD E HOLT<br />
KUPKE 8108892 LSET ARUNTA<br />
LANKFORD 8099453 LSET STIRLING<br />
NAME EMPLOYER ID PROMOTED TO SHIP/ESTAB<br />
LAWRENCE 8110001 LSET BRISBANE<br />
LONG 8107213 LSET GASCOYNE<br />
LYON 8089139 LSET HARMAN<br />
MARKER 8109908 LSET CERBERUS<br />
METTAM 8108480 LSET STIRLING<br />
NICOL 8109909 LSET STIRLING<br />
OAKLEY 8099627 LSET WATERHEN<br />
PICK 8107118 LSET KUTTABUL<br />
ROBERTSON 8108503 LSET KANIMBLA<br />
ROSER 8108928 LSET ANZAC<br />
RUDDER 8108324 LSET WATERHEN<br />
SCALES 8098662 LSET KUTTABUL<br />
SHEPPARD 8100737 LSET ANZAC<br />
SMITH 8108481 LSET WARRNAMBOOL<br />
SUTTON 8100913 LSET STIRLING<br />
WENTWORTH 8108317 LSET STIRLING<br />
WHITE 8107213 LSET GASCOYNE<br />
WILESMITH 8106910 LSET ARUNTA<br />
WINNING 8106916 LSET KUTTABUL<br />
EASTER M.P. 8096112 LSETSM WALLER<br />
LAYTON .M 8100017 LSETSM SHEEAN<br />
ADAMS 8100845 LSMT WATERHEN<br />
ARGALL 8100727 LSMT BUNBURY<br />
BASSETT 8108623 LSMT GASCOYNE<br />
BISGROVE 8100516 LSMT BRISBANE<br />
BUHLMANN 8108477 LSMT ARUNTA<br />
CLARK 8108489 LSMT HAWKESBURY<br />
COSTIN 8108081 LSMT ADELAIDE<br />
CRABTREE 8099415 LSMT SUCCESS<br />
CULLEN 8099260 LSMT SUCCESS<br />
DALY 8106726 LSMT MELBOURNE<br />
DANIELS 8100692 LSMT BENDIGO<br />
DE HAMER 8097176 LSMT KANIMBLA<br />
DUNLOP 8106969 LSMT STIRLING<br />
DUNN 8109275 LSMT STIRLING<br />
DUNSTAN 8100085 LSMT STIRLING<br />
EDEN 8100916 LSMT WOLLONGONG<br />
ELLIOTT 8092360 LSMT<br />
ERIKSEN 8109979 LSMT NEWCASTLE<br />
GOSLING 8099501 LSMT BRISBANE<br />
GRUNDY 8107844 LSMT HUON<br />
HAZELWOOD 8100389 LSMT SHEPPARTON<br />
HORNE 8091557 LSMT FARNCOMB<br />
IDANGGA 8096228 LSMT BRISBANE<br />
KEUR 8108478 LSMT KUTTABUL<br />
LEY 8092139 LSMT CANBERRA<br />
MATTHEWS 8107762 LSMT SUCCESS
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
25<br />
Sailor Promotions (continued)<br />
NAME EMPLOYER ID PROMOTED TO SHIP/ESTAB<br />
MCPARLAND 8108452 LSMT KUTTABUL<br />
MEADE 8108061 LSMT WATERHEN<br />
MORETTI 8108062 LSMT DARWIN<br />
MOWBRAY 8100584 LSMT WATERHEN<br />
NILSEN 8106553 LSMT HS BLUE CREW<br />
NOBLE 8107526 LSMT CAIRNS<br />
PEARSON 8100129 LSMT KUTTABUL<br />
PHILLIPS 8101068 LSMT NEWCASTLE<br />
RALPH 8108436 LSMT ARUNTA<br />
ROBINSON 8108311 LSMT KUTTABUL<br />
ROBINSON 8107684 LSMT TOBRUK<br />
ROBISON 8109267 LSMT WARRAMUNGA<br />
ROGERS 8099983 LSMT SYDNEY<br />
SHEPHERD 8108247 LSMT WESTRALIA<br />
SIMPSON 8097046 LSMT TOBRUK<br />
STREETER 8107753 LSMT ADELAIDE<br />
TAYLOR 8108315 LSMT STIRLING<br />
TURNBULL 8109915 LSMT ARUNTA<br />
VERHOEVEN 8099263 LSMT BRISBANE<br />
YOUNG 8106980 LSMT KANIMBLA<br />
FLYNN B.M. 8100480 LSMTSM FARNCOMB<br />
WAPLES J.J. 8100953 LSMTSM WALLER<br />
COSENTINO 8099897 P/LSET NEWCASTLE<br />
MARTIN 8108500 P/LSET WATERHEN<br />
RIDLEY 8107176 P/LSET KUTTABUL<br />
SHANNON 8107750 P/LSET KUTTABUL<br />
TAYLOR 8110987 P/LSET DARWIN<br />
BLACK 8092527 P/POET SUCCESS<br />
LAHEY 8084032 P/POET WATERHEN<br />
RUXTON 8088461 P/POET KUTTABUL<br />
WAGHORN 8081297 P/POET STIRLING<br />
BAYNES S.J. 8082251 POATA 723 SQN<br />
BEAKE M.J. 8094411 POATA NHQ-STHQLD<br />
BEIER S.L. 8090957 POATA ALBATROSS<br />
BERGGY B.C. 8083830 POATA ALBATROSS<br />
ENGLAND A.J. 8083826 POATA 817 SQN<br />
FLORES E.P. 8092386 POATA ALBATROSS (NTC)<br />
GRAVES A.E.J. 8084815 POATA MANOORA<br />
SIMONS S.H. 8087561 POATA ALBATROSS (NTC)<br />
WHTBY S.A. 8089181 POATA ALBATROSS<br />
BAMENT K.J. 8094303 POATV ALBATROSS (RAAF)<br />
JONES M.H. 8084155 POATV NEWCASTLE<br />
BAKER 8092819 POET DARWIN<br />
BIRCH 8094124 POET TOBRUK<br />
BOHLE 8094163 POET STIRLING<br />
COOK 8093581 POET WATSON<br />
DYSON 8089779 POET KUTTABUL<br />
NAME EMPLOYER ID PROMOTED TO SHIP/ESTAB<br />
ENGLISH 8089862 POET BRISBANE<br />
FIELDING 8091802 POET KUTTABUL<br />
FOWLER 8085272 POET CERBERUS<br />
GREEN 8085205 POET KUTTABUL<br />
KILBURN 8092002 POET CERBERUS<br />
OLSON 8091692 POET STIRLING<br />
ROULSTON 8093717 POET STIRLING<br />
RYAN 8092700 POET ADELAIDE<br />
SCHILG 8092939 POET TOWNSVILLE<br />
TAYLOR 8088863 POET KUTTABUL<br />
DANIEL S.S. 8095299 POETSM STIRLING (NTC)<br />
LEACH N.S. 8093460 POETSM SHEEAN<br />
SCOBLE C.D. 8091980 POETSM STIRLING<br />
BANNISTER 8090474 POMT BRISBANE<br />
BROOKES 8078991 POMT STIRLING<br />
BROWN 8088469 POMT STIRLING<br />
DIGNAM 8094239 POMT CERBERUS<br />
EVANS 8108092 POMT HAWKESBURY<br />
GAVLIK 8074187 POMT FREMANTLE<br />
MATHER 8095266 POMT SYDNEY<br />
MURPHY 8093870 POMT SYDNEY<br />
SAMPSON 8083975 POMT KUTTABUL<br />
SYNNOTT 8093607 POMT CERBERUS<br />
BODDY S.P. 8094162 POMTSM DECHAINEUX
26 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY CMDR PHIL WHITE<br />
(PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW<br />
OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF LDA<br />
(MCCA) NOT TO HAVE HAD THE<br />
PLEASURE OF AN EXCHANGE<br />
POSTING WITH THE USN).<br />
All You Need to Know<br />
About Allowances<br />
It was one of those defining moments; after two and a half years<br />
reshaping the organisation previously known as MCCA, my Chief returned<br />
from a visit to DSCM to tell me that no more technical sailors would be<br />
posting in to replace those posting out. The reason quite seriously cited,<br />
was that LDA didn’t support the fleet! Clearly there was some mistake!<br />
An email to the technical category sponsor was immediately dispatched<br />
to sort out the issue. An action plan was needed to entice Technical<br />
Sailors to work in allowance determination – but more on that later.<br />
Not that long ago, I had been<br />
standing on the bridge of HMAS<br />
PERTH experiencing that<br />
wonderful feeling that occurs<br />
when a serious defect was<br />
averted by the provision and<br />
successful installation of the<br />
correct spare. Without the item<br />
the ship couldn’t conduct<br />
operations and the Commanding<br />
Officer would be seriously<br />
disappointed in the Supply<br />
System. As the principal<br />
representative of the system on<br />
the ship, I never enjoyed the visit<br />
to the bridge with the news that<br />
the spare was not available for<br />
instant URDEF rectification.<br />
A posting to the organisation<br />
responsible for the provision of<br />
spares to ships has provided the<br />
opportunity to completely<br />
understand the process that<br />
enables Fleet units to deploy and<br />
sustain operations. It’s not sexy,<br />
mostly misunderstood and<br />
overlooked by many of the big<br />
wheels in logistics. But if you<br />
don’t have the right bit at the<br />
right time you may as well pack<br />
up and go home.<br />
The purpose of this article is to<br />
provide some insight into the<br />
system, the products and the<br />
future of Allowance Determination<br />
in the RAN.<br />
LDA – Logistics Data and<br />
Analysis (nee MCCA)<br />
LDA resides in the Defence<br />
Materiel Organisation to<br />
contribute to the development<br />
and maintenance of capability<br />
and operational readiness of the<br />
Fleet and ADF by providing:<br />
• Quality logistics support<br />
information and analysis, used to<br />
identify equipment and items,<br />
and<br />
• Authorised allowances of repair<br />
parts and equipage.<br />
LDA does allowance<br />
determination, allowance review<br />
and configuration audits through<br />
life support. It also provides<br />
logistic support data analysis and<br />
logistic data management. The<br />
figure above illustrates this.<br />
NAVALLOW 101<br />
One of the main systems used by<br />
LDA to do its job is NAVALLOW.<br />
This database resides on the<br />
SDSS mainframe and can be<br />
accessed from any terminal with<br />
access to SDSS. This powerful<br />
and complex database holds all<br />
the level A configuration data,<br />
assembly parts lists and<br />
technical data required to run the<br />
RAN’s allowance determination<br />
tool of choice VFLSIP (Variable<br />
Fleet Logistic Support<br />
Improvement Program).<br />
NAVALLOW and the VFLSIP have<br />
origins in the Coordinated<br />
Shipboard Allowance List<br />
(COSAL) system introduced to the<br />
USN in 1965 and still in use.<br />
The key theme to this philosophy<br />
is centralisation. The USN<br />
develops a spares package once
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
27<br />
per equipment and then uses it<br />
often. The USN remains<br />
committed to this system that<br />
links ship’s configuration to<br />
spares. Unfortunately many RAN<br />
logisticians do not show a similar<br />
level of understanding and or<br />
commitment!<br />
Following the introduction of the<br />
DMO and the concept of<br />
supporting ships by System<br />
Program Office, NAVALLOW is now<br />
required to record the cross FEG<br />
configuration status account<br />
(view). This is essential for<br />
interoperability issues, as a<br />
conduit to the USN logistics<br />
system, and to allow logistics<br />
comparisons across SPO<br />
boundaries. The best example of<br />
this is the use of NAVALLOW to<br />
conduct RAN sustainability<br />
modeling and its role in DSTO’s<br />
supportability project.<br />
Other Systems<br />
LDA also uses the Common<br />
Management Code Management<br />
Information System (CMC MIS) to<br />
provide a hierarchical breakdown<br />
of systems by ship, assemblies /<br />
configuration item and Span data<br />
including location, serial number<br />
and additional identification data.<br />
The Assembly Parts List Creation<br />
and Tracking Expert System<br />
(APLCRATES) is used by LDA and<br />
In Service Support Contractors to<br />
develop APLs and produce<br />
codification reports for new<br />
equipments introduced to the<br />
RAN. It is also used to capture<br />
and transfer USN logistics<br />
information to the RAN. Most<br />
readers would be aware of the<br />
NAVCMC CD, which represents the<br />
aggregation of information<br />
contained in these logistics data<br />
repositories and SDSS.<br />
LDA is a Service Provider<br />
LDA is a unique logistics Service<br />
Provider in today’s <strong>Navy</strong> as it<br />
works on a <strong>Navy</strong> wide view unlike<br />
the FEGs and SPOs. LDA also<br />
has commitments to other Navies<br />
and provides advice to capability<br />
developers. The following LDA<br />
activities support DMO<br />
Generation activities:<br />
• Building acquisition configuration<br />
baseline for <strong>Navy</strong><br />
• Codification coordination,<br />
• Recommended Initial spares buy<br />
for 90 days and in country<br />
support and onboard Spares<br />
determination, and<br />
• Quality Assurance on contractor’s<br />
advice and services.<br />
Support to DMO through life<br />
support activities include:<br />
• spares assessments for<br />
configuration changes and<br />
requests for allowance review,<br />
• Field Teams to check physical<br />
configuration, and<br />
• Quality Assurance checks on<br />
contractor products for example<br />
MHC spares buy, ANZAC / TENIX<br />
ILS deliverables.<br />
Other DMO support activities are<br />
to aggregate data for Mission<br />
Response Option and<br />
Sustainability logistics analysis<br />
and provide data for Balanced<br />
Scorecard. Outside of the DMO,<br />
LDA provides Activity Based<br />
Costing Data, Ad Hoc Logistic<br />
Data Reports, the NAVCMC CD,<br />
Base, Mission Critical and Task<br />
Group allowance modeling.<br />
Internationally, LDA provides<br />
assistance to the RNZN and<br />
Maintenance of equity lists for<br />
the USN.<br />
LDA Positioning for the Future<br />
Logistics Support, information<br />
technology, and Defence and<br />
Industry practices are everchanging.<br />
To keep apace in this<br />
environment, LDA has undertaken<br />
extensive business process<br />
improvements to reorganise into<br />
multi tasking teams to support<br />
customers. Additionally, policy<br />
has been rewritten, risk<br />
management strategies put in<br />
place and a greater effort put into<br />
updating hardware and software<br />
to support future logistic data<br />
requirements. A pretty good<br />
effort for an organisation with<br />
more than 25% of its Service and<br />
Civilian Billets gapped by<br />
financial and manpower<br />
constraints! LDA has a<br />
commitment to providing support<br />
to the ships.<br />
So what does it all mean?<br />
Put simply, MCCA changed its<br />
name to LDA and positioned itself<br />
to provide better support to <strong>Navy</strong><br />
in its new FEG structure. Our<br />
core products include the<br />
NAVCMC CD, Ship / Depot /Task<br />
Group Allowances and Logistics<br />
data for Sustainability Modeling.<br />
HMAS STIRLING and CAIRNS<br />
have recently had warehouse<br />
holdings reviewed which in the<br />
case of CAIRNS generated<br />
considerable savings in space<br />
and stock management effort.<br />
AMPS FMMS is being rolled out<br />
across the fleet and LDA<br />
provides initial data, cross FEG<br />
pollination and support to this<br />
activity. LDA is also assisting with<br />
improving the NSN re-referencing<br />
process.<br />
For a more detailed insight into<br />
Allowance Determination, NSM<br />
10 is highly recommended<br />
reading and is available on the<br />
DEFWEB. An updated ABR 5774<br />
(NAVCMC policy) will also shortly<br />
be available. If you don’t have<br />
time to read these books please<br />
consider the importance of <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />
Cross FEG view of logistic data<br />
and accurate configuration<br />
control. Because at the end of<br />
the day on the ship, allowances<br />
are everybody’s business if you<br />
want the bit when it counts!<br />
POST SCRIPT - IF YOU ARE AN<br />
ENGINEERING SAILOR PLEASE<br />
READ THIS!<br />
The following comments have<br />
been provided by LDA ‘Techos’ in<br />
an effort to improve
28 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
communications between LDA<br />
and engineering sailors<br />
everywhere and to entice<br />
personnel to ask to be posted to<br />
LDA. Guess, which paragraph<br />
came from the Chief Tiff!<br />
“Technical sailors have to be<br />
made aware that they can<br />
contact LDA whenever they have a<br />
codification or allowance problem<br />
onboard their ship. LDA has all<br />
the currently available logistics<br />
tools: SDSS, NAVALLOW, FED LOG<br />
(USN Federal Logistics<br />
Information System), GDAPL<br />
(USN General Distribution<br />
Assembly Parts Lists), NMCRL<br />
(NATO Master Cross Reference<br />
Listing) at their disposal and is<br />
available to assist the sea going<br />
sailor to maintain their<br />
equipment. LDA has the<br />
understanding and ability to alter<br />
allowances, or to investigate and<br />
obtain the necessary information<br />
to arrange codification of any<br />
piece of equipment (given<br />
adequate information).” AND<br />
clerk. That is not the case at all in<br />
the LDA.” FINALLY<br />
“I could not think of a job in<br />
which I have learnt more on the<br />
support of equipment throughout<br />
the Fleet. If I were to be posted<br />
back to sea, the knowledge that I<br />
have obtained from the posting to<br />
LDA would put me in a much<br />
better position to logistically<br />
support equipment under my<br />
charge, specifically in relation to<br />
codified /non codified items,<br />
configuration management and<br />
allowances for ships. Once again,<br />
the mind set of LDA being a<br />
boring place with mundane work<br />
is only the perceived view of<br />
others and the vocal ignorant<br />
minority who have not been<br />
posted to LDA in the past and<br />
who have not seen the value and<br />
importance of the work.”<br />
“ If young ‘go-getters’ want a job<br />
that will provide them with<br />
knowledge that will really assist<br />
them in becoming ‘Super Techos’,<br />
then there is no better posting<br />
than to LDA. Petty Officers who<br />
have recently been promoted<br />
must realise that the promotion<br />
signals an end to their ‘swinging<br />
off the end of spanners’ days and<br />
a start to their problem solving,<br />
managing, delegating and<br />
advising days. LDA provides<br />
technical sailors with a valuable<br />
insight into onboard stores<br />
assessing and equipment<br />
breakdown, while developing a<br />
solid understanding of the APL<br />
system and the CMC. If they<br />
have aspirations of becoming<br />
effective Technical CPOs then this<br />
education is vital. A real problem<br />
is attracting sailors and their<br />
families to Canberra. One<br />
perception in Sydney and the<br />
Fleet is that Canberra is the<br />
domain of officers, and that other<br />
ranks are not welcome here.<br />
Apparently, the best work you can<br />
hope for is brew boy or mail
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
29<br />
ANZAC DAY 2002 – A<br />
Personal View From the<br />
Arabian Gulf<br />
It is 0430 on the 25th of April 2002, I am awoken from my slumber not<br />
by the sound of gunfire or the terrible sounds of war; no I am awoken by<br />
a sense of pride. It is ANZAC Day and time for us to pay respect to those<br />
who have gone before us and given us what is ours to protect. I look<br />
around to see my messmates readying themselves for their own time of<br />
reflection. You see, today we are holding our own dawn service, one<br />
where there are no words spoken, or prayers to be said, one in which<br />
each person can go up to the flight deck, grab their bit of space and<br />
reflect on the past in the way that they want to. The official<br />
commemorative service will be held later in the morning.<br />
I take my place on the port side<br />
and prepare to reflect when I look<br />
around to see my shipmates<br />
taking up their places around the<br />
outside of the flight deck. Each<br />
person with their own agenda and<br />
their own thoughts. Not everybody<br />
is here, some people are still on<br />
watch, others are in different<br />
locations around the ship, and for<br />
some the official ceremony is the<br />
time that they will pay their<br />
respects. You see the ship is at<br />
war itself, it may not be the same<br />
style of war as the one we are all<br />
here to remember but it’s a war<br />
all the same, it’s the war against<br />
terrorism.<br />
As I look out to the horizon I can<br />
see ships of the coalition force<br />
through the light fog, I see the<br />
orange glow of the sun as it rises.<br />
There is an eerie calmness, the<br />
sea is flat and there is a slight<br />
chill in the air. I can see a smoke<br />
haze settling on the horizon, it<br />
looks as if something was on fire<br />
but in actual fact it is just the<br />
exhaust from the ship. The flag is<br />
flying proudly from the main mast<br />
and I start to reflect. I think to<br />
myself, that had it not been for<br />
the heroes of the past we would<br />
not even have had that flag. They<br />
fought under a different flag, but<br />
did so, so that we could become<br />
the proud nation that we are<br />
today. I think of the sacrifices that<br />
they made to give us what we<br />
have. I wondered to myself how<br />
much the freedoms that they<br />
provided were taken for granted.<br />
Then as I look around and see<br />
the looks on everyone else’s face,<br />
the look of deep thought, true<br />
reflection on the past, I realise<br />
the respect that everyone still<br />
holds for those heroes.<br />
Everybody is remembering in their<br />
own way and even without a<br />
single word spoken, you can see<br />
that there is the common thread<br />
that bought us all to this point. It<br />
is the respect that we all hold for<br />
the ANZAC’s, their spirit, and the<br />
values and traditions that they<br />
stood and died for. It is a hard<br />
concept to grasp, to really know<br />
what they went through. I don’t<br />
think anyone will ever know the<br />
true sacrifices and feelings they<br />
experienced, unless they were<br />
one of them.<br />
The chilling silence is broken by<br />
the sound of aircraft flying<br />
overhead, some people move to<br />
report it, most just look to the<br />
sky. It reminds me of where we<br />
are, why we are here and not at<br />
home commemorating this day<br />
with our families. I look up to see<br />
the Close In Weapon System fully<br />
loaded and ready to go, and think<br />
of how warfare has changed. How<br />
quite often now it is a faceless<br />
enemy, weapons are fired from<br />
miles away, and it is now a<br />
technological battle. The incident<br />
passes and I go back to my<br />
reflection on the past. I continue<br />
to look around at the flag and the<br />
others, no one wishes to leave.<br />
Everyone is still deep in thought<br />
paying his or her respects.<br />
After about 15 minutes of silent<br />
reflection, people start to leave.<br />
Unlike a normal dawn service,<br />
there is no gunfire breakfast to<br />
eat or tots of rum to be drunk. We<br />
won’t be playing ‘two-up’ at the<br />
local RSL or watching the parade.<br />
We all shuffle off back to our<br />
work place or respective messes<br />
and await the official ceremony.<br />
We have work to do today, but it<br />
was good to just get our chance<br />
to thankyou in whatever way we<br />
wanted to.<br />
The question is often asked if we<br />
honour the fallen heroes and<br />
survivors of past wars enough. Do<br />
we pay them enough tribute? Well<br />
my answer to these questions is;<br />
can we ever!<br />
LEST WE FORGET!<br />
BY CPOET MARK BALLHAUSE<br />
HMAS NEWCASTLE
30 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY MIDN DAMIEN GOODBUN<br />
PHOTO BY SBLT CADERYN OKELY<br />
Recognition of Academic<br />
Excellence<br />
The <strong>Navy</strong> students at the <strong>Royal</strong> Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)<br />
have been recognised for their academic excellence whilst undergoing<br />
their four year engineering degree courses.<br />
For their achievements during<br />
2001 the students have<br />
received certificates of<br />
Academic Commendation from<br />
Director General <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Personnel & Training, CDRE<br />
Hart and the Director of Naval<br />
Officers’ Postings, CAPT<br />
Ferguson. CAPT Craig Kerr,<br />
Director of <strong>Navy</strong> Professional<br />
Requirements (Engineering and<br />
Logistics) presented the<br />
certificates, at a ceremony in<br />
Melbourne on 11 March 2002.<br />
CAPT Kerr took the opportunity<br />
to make the awards whilst he<br />
and his team were in<br />
Melbourne to conduct Engineer<br />
Officer Selection Boards. “Your<br />
application and dedication<br />
toward your studies have<br />
brought credit to yourself and<br />
the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>,”<br />
concluded the commendations.<br />
Many of the <strong>Navy</strong> students had<br />
attained distinctions and high<br />
distinctions in their various<br />
areas of engineering studies<br />
during the year. Overall, 40 out<br />
of the total 61 students<br />
received commendations for<br />
gaining Distinction and High<br />
Distinction averages. For some<br />
this was their first year at RMIT,<br />
for others it was their last<br />
before posting to Application<br />
Courses.<br />
SBLT Craig Lavers, who<br />
completed his second year of<br />
studies in 2001, was the top<br />
student with an average of<br />
97% pass mark. He is currently<br />
studying to become a Bachelor<br />
of Engineering-<br />
Communications. “The <strong>Navy</strong><br />
students are highly respected<br />
by the lecturers, staff and<br />
fellow civilian students on<br />
campus,” said a proud LCDR<br />
Daryl O’Rourke, the<br />
Supervising Officer at RMIT<br />
(SORMIT).<br />
LEFT CAPT CRAIG KERR PRESENTS AN<br />
ACADEMIC COMMENDATION TO SBLT CRAIG<br />
LAVERS, THE TOP STUDENT AT RMIT FOR<br />
2001
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
31<br />
A Patrol Boat Sailor<br />
Account<br />
BY LEADING SEAMAN<br />
CHRISTOPHER SPIRO<br />
Hello reader, I’m a Marine Technician and I joined the <strong>Navy</strong> in February<br />
1995 and after HMAS CERBERUS, in May 1996, joined the patrol boats.<br />
After three years in a Cairns based boat I spent 9 months at the Fleet<br />
Intermediate Maintenance Activity in Cairns and then joined HMAS<br />
WHYALLA in June 2000. That’s where I am today writing this article. The<br />
purpose of this article is not to place other classes of ships in a bad<br />
light, but to let you know what it’s like on a Fremantle Class Patrol Boat<br />
(FCPB) and to see if it interests you.<br />
At the moment patrol boats are<br />
in an 8 weeks out, 8 weeks in<br />
cycle which isn’t a long time to<br />
be at sea. It also means that<br />
you’re home for at least 8 weeks<br />
as well which if you ask any of<br />
the older patrol boat sailors is<br />
fantastic, as they used to be out<br />
for 6 weeks back for 2-4 weeks.<br />
And that’s where I am right now<br />
three weeks into an 8-week patrol<br />
around the top end of Australia.<br />
Our main role is to patrol the<br />
<strong>Australian</strong> Exclusive Economic<br />
Zone (AEEZ) which surrounds our<br />
coastline, in search of illegal<br />
fishermen and illegal immigrants.<br />
A lot of these fishermen are from<br />
Indonesia and I don’t mind<br />
saying quite brave especially<br />
when you see the types of boats<br />
they sail down in. Some of them<br />
are only a few feet wide and have<br />
the water lapping over the sides.<br />
But not to worry, they have the<br />
‘state of the art’ bilge pump<br />
which consists of a piece of PVC<br />
tube with a stick shoved into a<br />
piece of rubber to draw a suction.<br />
So they are quite safe (sure they<br />
are). There is a bit of a saying<br />
amongst patrol boats that “ you<br />
can smell the fishing boats<br />
before you see them”, that’s not a<br />
word of a lie. Considering most of<br />
the boats we catch are small<br />
‘shark boats’ where all they do is<br />
cut off the shark fins to dry them<br />
out and then ditch the rest over<br />
the side, they don’t really have<br />
the need for a fridge or the<br />
space. So you can only imagine<br />
the smell of three-day-old shark<br />
fin drying in the sun until you<br />
actually get there.<br />
Anyway, once we spot one of<br />
these fishing boats, it’s my job to<br />
drive the boarding party to the<br />
fishing boats. And I must say<br />
that that’s one of my favorite<br />
jobs, because everyone loves to<br />
drive things flat out especially a<br />
4.7m RHIB with a 70hp outboard<br />
on the back. It’s not as good as<br />
the bigger 7.4m RHIBs but it will<br />
still do 25 knots, so it’s not too<br />
bad.<br />
As a Leading Seaman onboard a<br />
patrol boat you are also the<br />
Engineer of the Watch. In the<br />
main engine room with only one<br />
other, an Able Seaman. You also<br />
get to take charge of doing a lot<br />
of the work on the main engines.<br />
As a Leading Seaman or even an<br />
Able Seaman or Seaman you are<br />
involved in about 95% of the<br />
work that is required on the main<br />
engines. This could be top end<br />
overhauls, rebuilds, or change<br />
outs. I’m also in charge of the<br />
propulsion planned maintenance<br />
and the small boats maintainer.<br />
So there is no chance that I will<br />
be doing the same job day in day<br />
out.<br />
The engineering crew onboard a<br />
patrol boat is one Chief Petty<br />
Officer as the Ships Technical<br />
Officer (STO or ‘Charge’), one<br />
Petty Officer (‘Second’) who is the<br />
second engineer, three Leading<br />
Seaman and four Able Seaman.<br />
However, of the two Able Seaman,<br />
one is an Electronics Technician<br />
Weapons (ETW) and the other is<br />
a Marine Technician Electrical<br />
(MTE), so we really only have two<br />
Marine Technicians as such. It’s<br />
only a small department but<br />
that’s one of things about FCPBs<br />
that appeal to me.<br />
It’s not such a big thing anymore,<br />
but as a Seaman the idea of<br />
talking to the Captain either<br />
meant you were in trouble or you<br />
had just saved the world all on<br />
your own and he wanted to thank<br />
you. Whereas on a patrol boat<br />
you can be walking past his cabin<br />
and have them say good morning<br />
to you and even using your first<br />
name. You’re treated a little<br />
different on patrol boats, the<br />
perception is that you are no<br />
longer a number but an actual<br />
person.<br />
The idea of having a lot of<br />
responsibilities at sea can be a<br />
bit daunting but the limitless<br />
amount of opportunities far<br />
outweighs anything else. OK, the<br />
patrol boats don’t get the ‘up top’<br />
trips that major warships do. So if<br />
you want to see the world patrol<br />
boats aren’t for you. We do get to<br />
see a great deal of Australia
32 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
(especially the northern part!),<br />
parts of the Southwest Pacific or<br />
from time to time we travel to<br />
Southeast Asia. We do get to<br />
have a lot of time to ourselves,<br />
that’s if you can find a quite<br />
place to sit, as there’s not a lot of<br />
spaces to hide on a ship which is<br />
only 42m long and 7m wide. Our<br />
normal day consists of doing<br />
continuation training during the<br />
forenoon, but other than that if<br />
you are not on watch the time is<br />
yours. At least until you come<br />
across the illegal fishermen, but<br />
hey that’s life onboard a FCPB.<br />
We also do quite a bit of fishing<br />
ourselves with the Captain and<br />
the Navigator always looking for a<br />
new shoal we can troll over, with<br />
around half the crew having at<br />
least a couple of hundred dollars<br />
worth of fishing gear on board.<br />
The other jobs you can expect to<br />
do as a Leading Seaman on<br />
board a patrol boat are things<br />
like In Charge of the attack party<br />
or support party. Having to keep<br />
watches on the helm or as look<br />
out, and even take charge of a<br />
towing evolution as a technical<br />
sailor. Remembering that there<br />
are only sixteen junior sailors on<br />
board a patrol boat. So you have<br />
to be willing to do every other<br />
person’s job if the time arrives.<br />
This may even mean you have to<br />
get in the galley and cook if the<br />
chefo is sick in his rack (which<br />
can occur).<br />
So if you think that you’re up to a<br />
challenge then get in contact with<br />
your friendly poster and get<br />
yourself on to a Fremantle Class<br />
Patrol Boat. The work is fun, hard<br />
and very, very rewarding.<br />
BELOW LS SPIRO ON THE JOB. ‘ONE THAT<br />
DIDN’T GET AWAY’.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
33<br />
Dubai Dry Dock Incident<br />
The attached photograph depicts an incident in April 2002, which was a very black day for safety in the UAE as a gate partially collapsed on the main<br />
dry dock at Dubai port in the United Arab Emirates. The dock itself is 500 meters long by 100 metres wide, with a dredged depth of 11 metres at<br />
entrance, apparently the world’s largest dry-dock, built originally to service supertankers that were on the drawing boards. Supertankers were never built<br />
but the dock was completed regardless and has been in operation since 1983.<br />
"Official" release of facts are that a barge was moved a week before the accident into the docks for renovation. During the move it made contact with the<br />
north gate. The gate was closed and divers went down to inspect the damage. Divers apparently only found minor damage. A week later the gate<br />
"tragically" collapsed with loss of life.
34 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY CMDR ROSS WENDT, RANR<br />
FLEET ENVIRONMENT AND<br />
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND<br />
SAFETY OFFICER<br />
In previous editions of the Bulletin the work of the Fleet Marine and Hull Engineering sections and the FIMA<br />
organisation were addressed.<br />
This article aims to give the reader an insight into changes to Commonwealth Environmental Legislation and how<br />
that change will be managed in the Maritime Command.<br />
All Environmental matters in the Maritime Command are coordinated within the Engineering Division by the Fleet<br />
Environment and Occupational Health and Safety Coordinating Officer (FEOHSCO)<br />
Sustainable Environmental<br />
Management in the<br />
Maritime Command<br />
The regulatory framework in which the <strong>Navy</strong> must manage the<br />
environmental aspects of its activities has undergone considerable<br />
change in recent years. The most significant change is the introduction of<br />
the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity<br />
Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999. That Act places a much greater<br />
emphasis upon the avoidance of environmental harm (both intentional<br />
and inadvertent) and the requirement to develop plans and obtain<br />
approvals in order to minimise the risk of injunctions and criminal<br />
prosecution of individual members (which can involve significant fines<br />
and/or imprisonment). The EPBC Act also addresses a much broader<br />
spectrum of environmental factors than previous legislation in the way of<br />
any interaction with marine biota and ecosystems. It will even change<br />
the way that Defence organisations will conduct and manage operations<br />
and exercises in the future.<br />
Notable Biota of Concern to naval<br />
and amphibious activities is all<br />
species of Whales, Dolphins,<br />
Dugongs, Turtles, Penguins,<br />
Migratory Waterfowl and<br />
Seabirds, Seagrass Meadows and<br />
Mangroves.<br />
Physical features of concern are<br />
Beaches, Coral Reefs, Tidal<br />
Banks, Sea Mounts, Deepwater<br />
Canyons and Trenches.<br />
Social and Economic Concerns<br />
are Commercial Fishing Areas,<br />
Shipping Routes, Commercial Air<br />
Routes, Oil Exploration and<br />
Production Leases, Tourism and<br />
Recreational Activities (eg. Whale<br />
watching, recreational fishing,<br />
boating, SCUBA diving), Native<br />
Title Claim Areas and Marine<br />
Reserves.<br />
The Act places a requirement on<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> to obtain prior Ministerial<br />
approval to conduct any<br />
operation that it considers has,<br />
will have or is likely to have a<br />
"significant" impact on the<br />
environment. The word significant<br />
is very loosely defined in the Act<br />
and therefore any proposed<br />
activity must be carefully<br />
considered and any likely impact<br />
risk assessed to determine if it is<br />
manageable or in need of referral<br />
to higher authority. Any referral<br />
will need timely preparation to<br />
enable passage through the<br />
approval corridors up to the<br />
Environmental Minister. Such<br />
approvals will be sought utilising<br />
the Environmental Certificate of<br />
Compliance (ECC) approval<br />
procedure.<br />
A great deal of change has<br />
occurred in the regulatory<br />
framework since naval activities<br />
first commenced in Australia, and<br />
in environmental terms, most of<br />
this happened in the last 25<br />
years or so. Thus, activities which<br />
the RAN has been conducting for<br />
decades and which may be<br />
considered as "ongoing", may<br />
nevertheless fall within the scope<br />
of the EPBC Act and require a<br />
reassessment of potential
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
35<br />
adverse environmental outcomes.<br />
The above-mentioned period has<br />
also seen incremental<br />
improvement in scientific<br />
awareness of potential adverse<br />
effects upon marine ecosystems<br />
from routine naval activities. (Eg.<br />
Effects of sonar transmissions<br />
upon marine biota, risk of ship<br />
collisions with large marine<br />
mammals, pollution of harbours<br />
and seaways etc.) Also, that<br />
same period of change has been<br />
coupled with a substantial<br />
increase of awareness of marine<br />
environmental issues and<br />
expectations by the general<br />
public. In fact, the EPBC Act<br />
conveys unprecedented powers<br />
upon all members of the public<br />
to seek injunctions against naval<br />
activities if it is considered that<br />
the requirements of the Act are<br />
not being satisfied.<br />
Some other examples of where<br />
significant environmental<br />
regulatory change has occurred<br />
are contained in the following:<br />
• MARPOL 73/78, the international<br />
benchmark for the control of<br />
pollutant discharges from ships.<br />
• The London Convention on sea<br />
dumping.<br />
• AQIS (<strong>Australian</strong> Quarantine and<br />
Inspection Service) has<br />
introduced regulations controlling<br />
the exchange of ballast water in<br />
<strong>Australian</strong> ports.<br />
• AMSA (<strong>Australian</strong> Maritime Safety<br />
Authority)<br />
• Regulations pursuant to the<br />
Exports and Imports of Hazardous<br />
Wastes Act 1989 and extension<br />
of these to Defence. These<br />
regulations address the<br />
movement of Hazardous Wastes<br />
and their disposal.<br />
The Maritime Command intends<br />
to manage these Environmental<br />
legislative requirements by the<br />
development of Environmental<br />
Management Plans (EMPs) for all<br />
maritime exercise areas and also<br />
Generic and Class Specific<br />
Environmental Management Plans<br />
to provide guidance to the FEGs<br />
and individual Fleet units involved<br />
in world wide activities.<br />
Gazetted Maritime Exercise Areas<br />
are as follows:<br />
• Cairns Inner and Outer Reefs<br />
• Cape Moreton (QLD)<br />
• Cape Schanck (VIC)<br />
• EAXA, WAXA, NAXA, NWAXA, SAXA<br />
• Harvey Bay (QLD)<br />
• Jervis Bay Range Facility<br />
(Incorporating Beecroft Weapons<br />
Range)<br />
• Lancelin NGS Range (WA)<br />
• Lizard Island (Nth QLD)<br />
• Pyramid Rock - Undersea Area (in<br />
Bass Straight)<br />
• FBW Degaussing Range, JB<br />
Sound and Magnetic Measuring<br />
Range, Sydney Degaussing<br />
Range, WA Underwater Tracking<br />
and Sound Range.<br />
• South Brunny Island (South Coast<br />
of Tasmania.)<br />
• Dangerous Reef, Thistle Island<br />
(South Australia.)<br />
As can be seen, Maritime<br />
Exercise Areas cover virtually all<br />
of the marine biogeographical<br />
regions of Australia and<br />
encompass a wide range of<br />
physical environments and biota<br />
including endangered and<br />
migratory species and tropical,<br />
temperate and cold water biota.<br />
Each plan will have Risk<br />
Management guidelines attached<br />
to enable ongoing evaluation of<br />
every activity. If the risk<br />
assessment process indicates an<br />
unacceptably high risk an ECC<br />
must be raised and the proposed<br />
activity deferred until Ministerial<br />
approval is obtained. The aim of<br />
the EMPs is to demonstrate how<br />
ADF activities (<strong>Navy</strong>, Army, Air<br />
Force and DSTO activities<br />
controlled by <strong>Navy</strong>) will be<br />
conducted in a manner (by<br />
effective planning and<br />
management) which is<br />
compatible with the areas of<br />
environmental concern and other<br />
users. Each EMP will contain a<br />
blanket clearance to conduct all<br />
known activities that have been<br />
conducted previously, in an<br />
environmentally safe manner plus<br />
those planned for the future.<br />
Environment Australia will be<br />
requested to endorse those plans<br />
before introduction into use. The<br />
final outcome is intended to be<br />
simple to follow guidelines that<br />
will assist with compliance with<br />
all Environmental Legislation.
36 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Biographical Notes Commander WENDT<br />
joined the RAN as a Junior Recruit at<br />
HMAS LEEUWIN in July 1961 and after<br />
undertaking his initial engineering training<br />
at sea completed a Mechanician Fitter and<br />
Turner apprenticeship at HMAS NIRIMBA.<br />
He then returned to sea progressing<br />
through the ranks to Chief Petty Officer<br />
(Mechanician).<br />
Highlights of his non commissioned career<br />
were service in Veitnam waters onboard<br />
HMAS PERTH in 1970/71 and then during<br />
1975 when he was responsible for the<br />
coordination of the hull and mechanical<br />
aspects of the half life refit / conversion of<br />
HMAS PERTH in the Long Beach Naval<br />
Shipyard in the USA.<br />
He was commissioned in 1977 and after<br />
undertaking engineering courses in the UK<br />
completed his Marine Engineer Officer<br />
training on HMAS STALWART and HMAS<br />
PERTH.<br />
Ross has subsequently been posted as the<br />
Marine Engineer Officer of HMAS PERTH,<br />
JERVIS BAY and TORRENS.<br />
His significant shore postings have been<br />
OIC of Darwin Naval Base and FIMA<br />
DARWIN, OIC of the Ordering Authority for<br />
Ship Repair in Western Australia, Platform<br />
Manager of Surface Ships at Naval Support<br />
Command and OIC of the Ship Repair<br />
Contract Office Eastern Australia Area.<br />
Ross discharged from the PNF on his 55th<br />
birthday with over 39 years service. He is<br />
currently a part time reserve officer filling<br />
the position of Fleet Environment and<br />
Occupational Health and Safety Officer at<br />
MHQ.<br />
The ultimate users of the EMPs<br />
will be personnel involved with<br />
the planning and conduct of<br />
activities in the maritime exercise<br />
areas. To that end the EMPs will<br />
be prepared in a format that:<br />
• is simple to use.<br />
• provides clear guidance on what<br />
activities may have adverse<br />
environmental outcomes.<br />
• identifies the risk of those<br />
adverse outcomes occurring, and<br />
the circumstances in which those<br />
risks may be increased or<br />
reduced.<br />
• details procedures to be<br />
employed to avoid, reduce or<br />
mitigate the risk of adverse<br />
outcomes.<br />
• advises any associated<br />
monitoring and / or reporting<br />
requirements.<br />
• is simple to revise or amend<br />
when legislative changes occur so<br />
that it remains a living and<br />
relevant document.<br />
Activities to be included in the<br />
EMPs for blanket clearance are<br />
as follows:<br />
• Gunnery, Missile & Torpedo<br />
firings. (Practice and Warshot)<br />
• Fixed and Rotary Winged Aircraft<br />
Gunnery & Missile shoots,<br />
Torpedo Drops & Bombing.<br />
• Supersonic & Low Level Flying<br />
and Combat Manoeuvring.<br />
• Use of KALKARA & TERRIER Aerial<br />
Target Vehicles.<br />
• Use of active sonar, sonarbuoys,<br />
underwater telephones, NIXIE’s,<br />
marine sound signals, smoke<br />
floats, submarine launched flares<br />
and other pyrotechnics, EMATTs,<br />
XBTs, SSXBTs, lasers, noise making<br />
decoys, NULKA, SRBOC etc.<br />
• HULKEXs and SMASHEXs.<br />
Minelaying and Mine<br />
Countermeasure exercises.<br />
• Demolition activities on the open<br />
sea.<br />
• Various seamanship activities<br />
including: Jackstay transfers, RASs,<br />
VERTREPs, full power and high<br />
speed manoeuvring and trials, OOW<br />
manoeuvres, Close ship steaming<br />
etc.<br />
• Amphibious Warfare activities.<br />
• Routine waste discharges<br />
(covering aspects such as types<br />
[bilge water, greywater, sewage,<br />
garbage] sources, typical<br />
quantities and discharge<br />
procedures)<br />
• Fuel and oil transfers.<br />
• RAN, DSTO, RAAF and Army trials of<br />
weapons, equipment and explosives.<br />
If you can identify any others<br />
please pass the information to<br />
CMDR Ross WENDT the Fleet<br />
Environment and OH&S<br />
Coordinating Officer (FEOHSCO)<br />
at MHQ on 02 9359 4397.<br />
ECC submissions are to be<br />
submitted to FEOHSCO on Form<br />
AB081 that is available on the<br />
DEFWEB or at http://pubsdb.cbrdps.defence.gov.au/wfs/<br />
Further information on the EPBC<br />
Act can be found at the following<br />
web sights:<br />
www.ea.gov.au/epbc/assessappr<br />
ov/referals/significanceguide.<br />
html<br />
www.ea.gov.au/epbc/about/index<br />
.hmtl<br />
Further information on<br />
Environmental Management in<br />
Defence and the RAN can be<br />
found in the following;<br />
• DI (G) ADMIN 40-1 [DI (N)<br />
ADMIN 39-1] - Environment and<br />
Heritage Protection.<br />
• Fleet Generic Environmental<br />
Management Plan (GEMP)<br />
located in Defence Managers<br />
Toolbox.<br />
• ABR 6111 Parts 1 and 2<br />
• AFTP 1 Chapter 30<br />
The Maritime Command intends<br />
to be a leader in Sustainable<br />
Environmental Management. This<br />
however, will only be possible<br />
with the cooperation of all<br />
stakeholders and total<br />
compliance by all Fleet units with<br />
Environmental Legislative<br />
requirements and developed<br />
EMP's.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
37<br />
Defence Engineering &<br />
Maintenance Systems<br />
Scoping Study (DEMSSS)<br />
BY LTCOL ANDREW MONRO<br />
DIRECTORATE OF MATERIEL<br />
INFORMATION SYSTEMS<br />
PLANNING<br />
Introduction<br />
The move to align the many disparate systems into corporate<br />
information management (IM) solutions within Defence has been no<br />
coincidence. There are many drawbacks in having too many systems<br />
(across the individual Service domains) performing similar functions.<br />
These include the lack of a common language within Defence domains,<br />
high maintenance costs for information system support, increased<br />
training requirements with accompanying reduced flexibility of<br />
employment of personnel, and extreme difficulty/cost in providing<br />
information for management beyond the individual system level.<br />
Additionally, a large number of information systems create the need for<br />
an excessive number of interfaces between systems, which usually<br />
results in minimal numbers of automated interfaces and high levels of<br />
manual interfaces. These all contribute to degraded overall performance<br />
of Defence management functions.<br />
The former charter of the Joint<br />
Logistics Systems Agency (JLSA)<br />
to improve the efficiency and<br />
effectiveness of the logistics<br />
business processes and related<br />
information systems within the<br />
ADO has now been transferred<br />
within the DMO to Management<br />
Information Systems Division<br />
(MISD). This new Division was<br />
formed with the purpose of<br />
providing Defence with an<br />
information environment that<br />
supports Acquisition and Through<br />
Life Support. Amongst other<br />
things, MISD will support the<br />
Defence vision for logistics<br />
systems (as endorsed by the<br />
Defence Logistics Board), which<br />
is:<br />
Defence logistics will be<br />
supported by a well aligned<br />
suite of information systems<br />
that provides a high level of<br />
automated support for the day<br />
to day operation of people and<br />
processes involved in the<br />
conduct of, or in support of,<br />
military operations. The systems<br />
will be standard (for common<br />
functions) across Defence, but<br />
will cater for essential<br />
differences of functionality<br />
required by individual Services<br />
and circumstances. The<br />
systems will satisfy essential<br />
requirements and use standard<br />
Defence logistics language.<br />
Duplication of function and data<br />
will be minimised to that which<br />
is essential for effective military<br />
operations. The systems will<br />
readily accommodate<br />
enhancements. Access to the<br />
systems and data will be limited<br />
to those requiring it for<br />
legitimate Defence purposes.<br />
Where appropriate, they will be<br />
used by Defence contractors<br />
and coalition nations, and will<br />
inter-operate with their<br />
automated information systems.<br />
What does all of this have to do<br />
with engineering and<br />
maintenance (E&M), you ask? In<br />
the past, individual Services<br />
within Defence have acquired<br />
logistic systems to support their<br />
own technical equipment,<br />
generally without any formal<br />
requirement to consider possible<br />
multi-service application or the<br />
existence of systems in another<br />
service addressing similar<br />
requirements. Although there is<br />
more scrutiny in the present day,<br />
individual Service initiatives<br />
persist. This has resulted in a<br />
range of information systems<br />
supporting similar E&M functions<br />
across the Services, which<br />
potentially wastes Defence<br />
resources. It also makes decisionmaking<br />
from a corporate/Defence<br />
perspective very difficult because<br />
individual Service E&M data is<br />
difficult or impossible to<br />
aggregate.<br />
There are over 90 different E&M<br />
applications currently in use<br />
across the Services to support
38 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Defence materiel. The Defence<br />
Logistics Board 1 (DLB)<br />
recognised the degree of diversity<br />
of E&M systems across the<br />
Services and tasked JLSA with<br />
conducting an in-depth study. The<br />
aim of the Study is to determine<br />
if standardisation of systems is<br />
achievable (and to what level)<br />
and whether it would be cost<br />
effective to do so. JLSA (now<br />
MISD) has since gained the<br />
endorsement of the other DMO<br />
Divisions and the Technical<br />
Regulatory Authorities from each<br />
Service for the Defence<br />
Engineering and Maintenance<br />
Systems Scoping Study<br />
(DEMSSS) with the aim of<br />
determining the scope for<br />
rationalisation of E&M systems<br />
across Defence.<br />
Tasks of the DEMSSS<br />
E&M functional analysis. A<br />
major obstacle to assessing the<br />
feasibility of increased<br />
standardisation of E&M systems<br />
is the lack of a common<br />
language across the Services for<br />
E&M functions. The main task of<br />
the DEMSSS will be to gain input<br />
from experts in E&M and<br />
technical equipment<br />
management from each of the<br />
Services and DMO Divisions in<br />
order to:<br />
• Refine the current list of E&M<br />
functions and their definitions in<br />
a tri-service perspective;<br />
• Identify the key activities and<br />
interfaces within each function,<br />
their data elements and<br />
dependencies to other<br />
activities/functions;<br />
• Make these assessments based<br />
on current systems, current<br />
policy, current projects and any<br />
past relevant E&M studies; and<br />
• Ensure the principal<br />
considerations for standardisation<br />
are addressed – equipment<br />
complexity, operational and<br />
technical environment, level and<br />
implications of contractor<br />
support, and data distribution<br />
requirements/limitations.<br />
E&M systems model. Figure 1<br />
represents the JLSA perspective<br />
of the current E&M systems<br />
environment for the Through Life<br />
Support (TLS) of technical<br />
equipment in Defence. The<br />
second major deliverable of the<br />
Scoping Study will be to refine<br />
and/or amend this proposed<br />
systems model to illustrate the<br />
strategic plan for the future<br />
generation of E&M systems. The<br />
key elements of the proposed<br />
systems model will be discussed<br />
in greater detail later in this<br />
article.<br />
Corporate information<br />
requirements. The DEMSSS will<br />
also review how the<br />
rationalisation of E&M systems<br />
could improve our ability to<br />
aggregate information for better<br />
decision-making at the corporate<br />
level in Defence. Specifically, the<br />
Scoping Study will seek to<br />
identify how a more focussed triservice<br />
E&M system might better<br />
serve the corporate E&M<br />
information requirements within<br />
the higher management echelons<br />
of the DMO and the ADF<br />
Capability Management process.<br />
Review of international DoD<br />
E&M initiatives. The ADF is not<br />
alone in dealing with these<br />
information management<br />
problems or E&M systems issues.<br />
The Scoping Study will seek high<br />
level input from the Canadian, UK<br />
and US Armed Forces on similar<br />
E&M initiatives, policies and<br />
system solutions that may assist<br />
our own developments.<br />
Market survey. A market survey<br />
will also be conducted to provide<br />
an overview of commercially<br />
available COTS/MOTS<br />
systems/applications that may<br />
fulfil a substantial level of the<br />
E&M functionality required within<br />
the ADO. The Scoping Study will<br />
combine our understanding of<br />
current E&M systems capacities,<br />
known future requirements being<br />
delivered by projects in progress,<br />
and COTS/MOTS<br />
systems/applications in order to<br />
identify any gaps/shortfalls in<br />
covering as many of the E&M<br />
disciplines of the proposed<br />
systems model for through life<br />
support of technical equipment<br />
as possible. Best-of-breed E&M<br />
systems currently in use by the<br />
Services will also be identified for<br />
potential adoption / adaption by<br />
the other Services / DMO<br />
Divisions. The main purpose of<br />
this market survey is to better<br />
inform the business case for<br />
rationalisation of Defence E&M<br />
systems.<br />
Scoping Study Report. The<br />
conclusions and<br />
recommendations resulting from<br />
the DEMSSS will be presented to<br />
the DLB for consideration and<br />
further action. Using the<br />
functional analysis of Defence<br />
E&M requirements, the Scoping<br />
Study will incorporate the topdown<br />
corporate information<br />
requirements with the collective<br />
experience of other Armed Forces<br />
in comparison with commercially<br />
available systems to determine a<br />
way ahead for E&M systems. The<br />
systems model will illustrate this<br />
strategic plan for E&M systems<br />
for the Through Life Support of<br />
Defence technical equipment.<br />
Proposed Systems Model for<br />
Through Life Support<br />
A brief explanation of the E&M<br />
systems model proposed by JLSA<br />
at Figure 1 is warranted in that a<br />
clearer understanding of our<br />
current environment is mandatory<br />
if we are to accurately establish a<br />
strategic plan for the future. Four<br />
key systems ‘disciplines’ have<br />
been identified as follows:<br />
Logistics Support Analysis<br />
Record. The Aviation SPOs<br />
seem to be the only Defence<br />
organisations that maintain an<br />
LSAR for the Through Life<br />
Support of their equipment (ie.<br />
aircraft). Whilst LSARs are<br />
mandatory for all major<br />
acquisition projects for all three<br />
Services, <strong>Navy</strong> performs their<br />
required LSA functions using the
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
39<br />
capabilities of a Configuration<br />
Management tool and the<br />
integration of the necessary<br />
systems engineering toolsets<br />
(eg. RAM & spares<br />
optimisation) with AMPS (Asset<br />
Management Planning System).<br />
LSD does not consider<br />
maintaining LSAR databases as<br />
being relevant for the Through<br />
Life Support of most Army<br />
equipment. Having established<br />
the functional E&M<br />
requirements within each<br />
Service, the DEMSSS will seek<br />
to establish what scope /<br />
alternatives exist to rationalise<br />
the different E&M systems<br />
approaches for Logistic Support<br />
Analysis within Defence.<br />
progressing a significant project<br />
in this regard (called the<br />
Technical Data Management<br />
Capability Project) which<br />
Defence could potentially<br />
leverage off once the functional<br />
requirements across Defence<br />
are known.<br />
Maintenance Management.<br />
The maintenance management<br />
systems adopted by each of the<br />
Services are uniquely different<br />
in complexity, although there is<br />
likely to be significant overlap in<br />
functionality. ASD has expended<br />
considerable resources into the<br />
development of CAMM2. Several<br />
issues have prevented its timely<br />
rollout across Air Force. MIMS<br />
Maintenance Module (MMM) is<br />
currently being rolled out across<br />
Army for the management of all<br />
Land assets. MMM is also being<br />
considered as a suitable tool for<br />
maintenance management of<br />
aviation ground support<br />
equipment and aviation ground<br />
telecommunications equipment.<br />
MSD is currently rolling out<br />
FMMS (Facility Maintenance<br />
Management System), fully<br />
integrated within AMPS, across<br />
most of the surface fleet. The<br />
submarines are, of course,<br />
locked into their own system<br />
known as SIMS-SIS.<br />
Configuration Management.<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> has been using a MIL-STD-<br />
973 (EIA 649) compliant CM<br />
tool called Sherpa through<br />
integration into AMPS. The OEM<br />
no longer supports Sherpa so<br />
MSD (in consultation with<br />
ESD/MISD) is in the process of<br />
assessing several COTS<br />
products to select a suitable<br />
replacement. CM in LSD / Army<br />
is generally a manual paperbased<br />
system; whereas, ASD /<br />
RAAF relies on several data<br />
repositories (WSDB, Emerald,<br />
CAMM/CAMM2 and<br />
LOAS/ADAASS) to manage<br />
aircraft configuration. Again, the<br />
DEMSSS purpose is to better<br />
define the scope to standardise<br />
CM systems in the interests of<br />
efficiency and effectiveness of<br />
E&M management across<br />
Defence.<br />
THE ‘AS IS’ SYSTEMS MODEL FOR TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT THROUGH LIFE SUPPORT<br />
Technical Document<br />
Management. This is an area<br />
where all three Services agree<br />
that significant improvement is<br />
required. The need to shift to<br />
neutral file formats (CAL<br />
standards) combined with the<br />
requirement to manage legacy<br />
hard copy publications and<br />
drawings has introduced several<br />
challenges, particularly when<br />
confronted with the requirement<br />
to distribute the information<br />
electronically. LSD / Army are
40 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Conclusion<br />
Based on the functional<br />
requirements analysis determined<br />
in the initial task, the DEMSSS will<br />
seek to identify best-of-breed<br />
systems/products for adoption<br />
(and/or potential adaptation) to<br />
suit tri-Service requirements rather<br />
than continue down the stovepiped<br />
path of single-service<br />
systems. Similarly, best<br />
commercial-practice systems will<br />
also be sought that fulfil the range<br />
and scale of E&M functions<br />
required by Defence.<br />
Consideration of similar E&M<br />
initiatives in other Armed Forces<br />
will be tailored beside the<br />
corporate E&M requirements<br />
within the DMO and the potential<br />
for improved visibility in ADF<br />
capability management to<br />
determine the scope for<br />
rationalisation of E&M systems in<br />
Defence.<br />
The results of the DEMSSS will be<br />
tabled in a report to the DLB<br />
embodying a range of conclusions<br />
and recommendations for the<br />
future of E&M systems in Defence.<br />
If specific areas for<br />
standardisation are found to be<br />
feasible, a business case and<br />
proposed project mandate will be<br />
documented for consideration by<br />
the DLB. The ultimate outcome of<br />
the DEMSSS should be a much<br />
better understanding of the current<br />
E&M systems environment in<br />
Defence and a clearer assessment<br />
of the way-ahead for E&M systems<br />
in the future.<br />
FIMA & MOTU Support for OP-<br />
SLIPPER “Where and When Needed”<br />
BY WO Greg Martin<br />
FIMA PERTH<br />
Following the tragic events of 11<br />
Sep 2001 the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong><br />
<strong>Navy</strong> was committed to a<br />
coalition maritime force to further<br />
enforce sanctions against Iraq<br />
and stem the flow of illegal goods<br />
between ‘rogue’ countries. In<br />
October 2001 FFG’s HMA Ships<br />
ADELAIDE and SYDNEY together<br />
RIGHT MYSELF ON 'CREW-GUARD' OF<br />
APPREHENDED OIL TANKER<br />
BELOW ABMT ROLES AND EDWARDS (FIMA<br />
SYDNEY) WELDING BRACES TO WATER<br />
TIGHT HATCH ONBOARD KANIMBLA<br />
with the amphibious ship HMAS<br />
KANIMBLA were dispatched to<br />
take up station in the North<br />
Arabian Gulf.<br />
Maritime Commander Australia<br />
recognised the additional<br />
engineering workload required by<br />
deployed vessels and activated a<br />
dedicated team of technical<br />
personnel. The specialist team<br />
was drawn from personnel at<br />
Fleet Intermediate Maintenance<br />
Activity (FIMA) PERTH, SYDNEY<br />
and Mobile Operational Technical<br />
Unit (MOTU) East and West. Led<br />
by WOET Gregory Martin from<br />
FIMA PERTH and totalling<br />
seventeen technicians, the<br />
Deployed FIMA Action Group<br />
(DFAG) sailed from Sydney in<br />
October 2001 embarked on<br />
HMAS KANIMBLA. DFAG offered<br />
additional specialist technical<br />
skills to the coalition maritime<br />
force, including FFG SSDG and<br />
LM 2500 maintenance, high<br />
pressure welding, metal<br />
fabrication, lagging, machining,<br />
ADRAC, gauge calibration, high<br />
power and FFG weapons<br />
maintenance. The DFAG mission<br />
was simple: “assist coalition<br />
ships in engineering defect<br />
rectification, thereby affording<br />
ship’s company the least impact<br />
on watch keeping routines and<br />
time off and maximising the time<br />
on station of the coalition forces”.<br />
On taking up station in mid-<br />
November it was soon realised<br />
the mission was to become<br />
somewhat more multi-role than<br />
what was initially intended. DFAG<br />
personnel soon found themselves<br />
forming NBCD decontamination<br />
teams, DC assessors, conducting<br />
force protection duties and<br />
manning of Seaworthy<br />
Acceptance Teams (SAT) Alpha<br />
and Bravo. This latter duty<br />
required DFAG personnel to be<br />
trained and qualified in the use<br />
of ASP batons, 9mm pistols and<br />
12 gauge shotguns. SAT duties<br />
often had DFAG personnel<br />
deploying from KANIMBLA at very<br />
odd hours and for extended<br />
periods, indicative of the flexibility<br />
of deployed FIMA personnel.<br />
Not withstanding the<br />
requirements of the above duties,<br />
the group was able to meet the<br />
requests for engineering<br />
assistance from coalition ships.<br />
At times DFAG had personnel<br />
deployed to three different<br />
platforms concurrently - as well<br />
maintaining a presence onboard<br />
KANIMBLA. The shortest time<br />
deployed to a coalition ship was<br />
four days while the longest was<br />
three weeks. In the three months<br />
the task force spent on station,<br />
DFAG personnel completed 16<br />
URDEF’s, 75 TM 200’s and 37<br />
AMPS tasks, and in the course of<br />
this achievement 229 man-days<br />
were spent deployed away from<br />
KANIMBLA.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
41<br />
We live In an Increasingly<br />
Complex World<br />
BY PETER NAGLER<br />
FIMA NATIONAL<br />
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE<br />
(FNAO) TECHNICAL LIBRARY<br />
As our personnel move between the many and varied fleet elements and<br />
shore establishments during their naval careers, there exists a<br />
requirement to keep pace with the operation, preventative and corrective<br />
maintenance of the latest in naval engineering. Of equal importance as<br />
the latest current and emerging technology, is the need to retain<br />
corporate knowledge built up over the past decades for the leading edge<br />
technology of yesteryear utilised in our assets of more mature age.<br />
In our <strong>Navy</strong> we rely on vast<br />
amounts of technical information<br />
about our fleet units. This<br />
information comes from many<br />
sources ranging from recruit<br />
school through to on-the-job<br />
training aboard ship. After initial<br />
training for items of equipment in<br />
recruit school or the Skills<br />
Development Centre, there may<br />
be a long time until the skills<br />
learned are required to work with<br />
Collections of technical<br />
publications exist in various<br />
locations – aboard our fleet units<br />
and at shore establishments<br />
around the country. The FIMA<br />
National Administration Office<br />
(FNAO) Technical Library is one of<br />
three technical libraries located<br />
at Garden Island in Sydney. The<br />
Library is easily accessible to all<br />
personnel and normally operates<br />
Monday through Friday between<br />
In our <strong>Navy</strong> we rely on vast<br />
amounts of technical<br />
information about our fleet<br />
units.<br />
dealing with most aspects of the<br />
Marine Technical and Electro<br />
Technical world are held,<br />
including, but not limited to:<br />
• <strong>Australian</strong> Books of Reference<br />
(ABR’s)<br />
• British Books of Reference (BR’s)<br />
• US <strong>Navy</strong> Technical Manuals<br />
(NAVSEA’s)<br />
• Technical Equipment Manuals<br />
(TEM’s)<br />
• Miscellaneous Books of<br />
Reference (MBR’s)<br />
• Technical Acquaints (TM180)<br />
the equipment aboard or in <strong>Navy</strong><br />
workshops such as Fleet<br />
Intermediate Maintenance<br />
Activity.<br />
There are many different systems<br />
and a large amount of<br />
information for each. Multiply<br />
this by the number of fleet units a<br />
sailor can be posted to and add<br />
the effects of frequent or crash<br />
posting and it is easy to see that<br />
all of this makes it difficult to<br />
‘keep up’ with everything that<br />
there is to know about the various<br />
equipment for which our sailors<br />
are responsible. Technical<br />
manuals provide <strong>Navy</strong> with the<br />
foundation upon which technical<br />
skill and experience is built.<br />
0800 and 1530. The FNAO<br />
Library provides a number of<br />
services to members of all fleet<br />
units, shore establishments,<br />
training facilities and defence<br />
contractors.<br />
The Library stocks and maintains<br />
or has access to a wide range of<br />
Defence specific technical<br />
publications, microfiche,<br />
standards, specifications and<br />
various reports mostly pertaining<br />
to FBE homeported surface ships.<br />
Library items are available for<br />
view or short-term loan (up to 30<br />
days). Longer loan periods may<br />
available upon request.<br />
Many technical publications<br />
• Technical Directives (TM181)<br />
• Master Equipment Lists, COSAL’s<br />
and other listings<br />
In addition, some technical<br />
material that has been<br />
superseded, cancelled or<br />
withdrawn is held in an archive to<br />
keep the wealth of corporate<br />
knowledge that has been, in<br />
many cases, diluted by the<br />
release of new editions. These<br />
items are available for<br />
information purposes only but<br />
they provide much valuable<br />
information for personnel to<br />
augment information from the<br />
current publications. These<br />
historical publications have been<br />
BELOW PETER NAGLER AT WORK
42 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
utilised by many units including<br />
Fleet Legal and the Skills<br />
Development Centre at Garden<br />
Island NSW.<br />
Over the years, many publications<br />
have been received from units<br />
such as HMAS KANIMBLA,<br />
Maritime Headquarters (East),<br />
MDIP, DNW and the ADI Technical<br />
Information Centre. Similarly, all<br />
units are encouraged to contact<br />
the Library if they have technical<br />
publications they have duplicate<br />
copies of, or are no longer<br />
required or are obsolete that can<br />
be added to this valuable archive.<br />
Other Services<br />
The Library also provides:<br />
• Research services<br />
• Microfiche reading and copying<br />
• Binding of manuals and reports<br />
• Laminating<br />
Locating and contacting the<br />
FNAO Library<br />
IC FNAO Library:<br />
Peter Nagler<br />
Address: FNAO Technical Library<br />
FIMA National Administration<br />
Office<br />
Building 103<br />
Garden Island<br />
NSW 2011<br />
Telephone: (02) 9359 2923<br />
Fax: (02) 9359 3152<br />
E-mail:<br />
peter.nagler@defence.gov.au
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
43<br />
In the last edition of the NEB, CAPT Paul Field, CSO (E), wrote about the role of engineering and naval<br />
engineers within the context of our current <strong>Australian</strong> Maritime Doctrine. In the attached article CAPT Toff<br />
Idrus whom until very recently was the MEO of HMAS ANZAC (and promoted), reminds us of how tangible<br />
that role is, and that irrespective of technology, the need for naval engineers in the application of naval<br />
engineering is more an intrinsic part of naval warfare today than ever before<br />
Naval Engineering Is All<br />
About Combat Readiness<br />
BY: CAPT TOFF IDRUS, OAM<br />
DIRECTOR SUBMARINE<br />
SUSTAINMENT<br />
Introduction<br />
CAPT Field’s article in the last NEB provided a succinct strategic insight<br />
into not only the role of naval engineering within the context of today’s<br />
maritime doctrine but more so into how we must view that role to remain<br />
relevant in a modern naval fighting force.<br />
In that same NEB, my past fellow<br />
ZACman, CMDR Rob Elliot, recited<br />
the story of his WE department’s<br />
exploits in our deployment to the Gulf<br />
last year. In this article I attempt to<br />
synergise the two and talk to the<br />
philosophy that engineering is more<br />
than just a role in naval warfare; that<br />
the two are inextricably linked and<br />
how both engineers and warfare<br />
officers must learn to implicitly<br />
understand the other so that we<br />
maximise our ability by knowing how<br />
to optimise the capability we have;<br />
part of the knowledge edge<br />
espoused in the <strong>Australian</strong> Maritime<br />
Doctrine. As operational engineers,<br />
we must adopt the mindset that<br />
naval engineering is not about<br />
technology, it is about the use of it<br />
and about how we as professional<br />
engineers use our skills and<br />
qualifications and ingenuity, to<br />
manipulate that technology for one<br />
thing and one thing only ‘to get to<br />
the fight when called upon, and to<br />
take us home every time’ 1 .Naval<br />
engineering IS all about Command<br />
Aims; it IS all about combat<br />
readiness.<br />
Forget the Past – At our Peril<br />
Too often these days, we as naval<br />
engineers become seduced by the<br />
wonders of the technology before us.<br />
We revel in projects as they represent<br />
the future and of shiny things to<br />
come, and we may forget that in all<br />
this there remains an end. That end<br />
is the design, development,<br />
production, operation and<br />
maintenance of a beast which has<br />
only one final purpose; to go out to<br />
seek and beat an opponent whom<br />
means our national security and<br />
sovereignty harm. ‘Sea control<br />
operations will be required whenever<br />
Australia’s national freedom of action<br />
at sea is threatened’ 2 .<br />
While our most basic aim as a navy<br />
is to go into combat, we do so<br />
implicitly reliant on our engineering<br />
specialists to prepare the beast, to<br />
maintain it, to stroke it and then to<br />
ensure it unleashes its power upon<br />
Command. This is our job as<br />
operational naval engineers; the<br />
Captain turns to no other to ensure<br />
that he is able to physically get to<br />
where he must be, to sustain his<br />
technical integrity while in the fight<br />
and to ensure his material safety to<br />
get home. As naval engineers there<br />
should be no other ultimate focus.<br />
With this in mind then, all facets of<br />
procurement, in service support and<br />
operational cycles must be geared to<br />
optimise our inherent engineering<br />
capability at sea; from design<br />
through to tools and spares.<br />
Engineers must always strive to meet<br />
operations, whether they are for the<br />
conduct of CASEXs off friendly waters<br />
or in readiness for the War against<br />
Terrorism far from home. Our<br />
constant tenor and mindset must<br />
allow the capable transition from the<br />
former to the latter, without shock.<br />
We have in recent times and in the<br />
procurement of our latest ships,<br />
submarines and aircraft, been<br />
underpinned by two main principles;<br />
minimum manning and cost<br />
rationalisation. In both instances we<br />
have turned to technology and the<br />
industries which support them, to<br />
provide us with the answers. In both<br />
cases and from lessons learnt from<br />
the COLLINS and the ANZAC<br />
experiences, we have yet to get it<br />
right. Add to the complications of<br />
striking a new Order of Battle, we<br />
have systematically since 1992 in<br />
the technical world, tampered with<br />
our core principles and methods in<br />
which we train and prepare our<br />
troops. In the process we have<br />
disenfranchised those whom may<br />
have otherwise had the experience<br />
and knowledge to assist us in<br />
making the technological transition<br />
successfully, and we have denuded<br />
our skills at sea to the point where<br />
we lay vulnerable and over-reliant on<br />
an industry whom is only just coping<br />
with their new-found national<br />
responsibilities. It has been a<br />
decade since the introduction of TTP<br />
1 The motto for the ME department coined<br />
by the author as a focus as to why we<br />
exist.<br />
2 ‘<strong>Australian</strong> Maritime Doctrine’ RAN<br />
Doctrine 1, 2000.
44 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
and we have yet to get over the<br />
shock. We fight hard to retain any<br />
deep skills we may have, and must<br />
fight even harder to get back the<br />
skills which we need at sea.<br />
We proceeded down this path<br />
because we predicted (wrongly) that<br />
with the advanced technology<br />
promised in our new vessels, the<br />
need for deep maintenance<br />
specialists was no longer a sound<br />
argument for the apparent overtraining<br />
and expense in building<br />
trades-competent sailors.<br />
Additionally, we also incorrectly<br />
presumed that we could trim the<br />
manpower bill especially in the face<br />
of dwindling recruiting numbers.That<br />
with in-built redundancies and<br />
systems designed to degrade<br />
‘gracefully’, we would be able to<br />
make it home and then have the<br />
subject matter experts (SMEs) fix our<br />
problems. However this would<br />
presume fighting an opponent whom<br />
would allow us to get home, or that<br />
we would be deployed in an AO<br />
convenient to our own logistics lines.<br />
Neither may be true; just look at<br />
where our ships are today.<br />
In the end, and no matter how smart<br />
our ships may get, or “sophisticated”<br />
the design, the craft of engineering<br />
and the art of warfare are entwined,<br />
and the need for our engineers and<br />
engineering sailors to be suitably<br />
armed with the capability to<br />
diagnose and fix at sea and away<br />
from home, remains as relevant<br />
today as ever before. Should we<br />
forget the engineering lessons of the<br />
past, of the need to ensure our<br />
engineering capability (and capacity)<br />
goes no lower, or be seduced in<br />
believing in the argument that<br />
technology dispenses with the need<br />
to have specialists at sea, we do so<br />
at our peril.<br />
Warfare Engineering<br />
It is true that naval engineers practise<br />
a very non-descript type of<br />
engineering. We are leaders,<br />
planners and managers, and find it<br />
difficult to equate to any civil<br />
counterparts. We do not manage<br />
production lines, nor are we purely<br />
maintenance bent and we certainly<br />
have long forgotten how to hold a<br />
slide-rule let alone use one at the<br />
design table. We are however meant<br />
to apply our engineering know-how<br />
and facilitate between the limitations<br />
and operating parameters of our<br />
beasts to meet the operational<br />
requirements of Command. We<br />
engineer the plant for warfare ends.<br />
The last NEB provided insight into the<br />
links between naval engineering and<br />
the characteristics of maritime power.<br />
All of these characteristics were<br />
spoken to, however the ones which<br />
demonstrate most powerfully those<br />
links, and which our engineering<br />
sailors still today display great<br />
tenacity at, despite the woes of TTP<br />
or inadequate systems engineering,<br />
are flexibility, adaptability, poise &<br />
persistence, and most certainly<br />
resilience.<br />
In 107 days on station in the North<br />
Arabian Gulf (NAG) last year, the<br />
whole ship displayed all these<br />
characteristics. A fine crew, which<br />
tackled the weeks of uncertainty that<br />
followed September 11th in their<br />
stride. From my perspective as the<br />
MEO, it was with unending pride to<br />
witness the best display of<br />
operational engineering<br />
determination and effort I had the<br />
privilege of being a part of. But what<br />
this operational environment also<br />
served to do was expose and<br />
quicken the understanding of the<br />
engineering limitations and its<br />
impact on the ship’s warfare posture.<br />
Granted that while our task of<br />
intercepting oil smugglers may<br />
appear far removed from traditional<br />
naval warfare, the methodologies,<br />
principles and approach used to<br />
conduct MIO (maritime interception<br />
operations) in a threat environment,<br />
are in fact the building elements of<br />
traditional warfare outputs. The<br />
elements of stealth, deception,<br />
tracking and target analyses, tactical<br />
picture compilation, navigation,<br />
surprise, ROE, intelligence, C2,<br />
surveillance, speed and engagement,<br />
are all cornerstones of naval warfare,<br />
and were crucial skills employed and<br />
practised in our operations. The<br />
difference is that instead of missiles<br />
and shells ultimately being delivered,<br />
it was our boarding parties, inserted<br />
by either RHIB or fast rope. The<br />
science and engineering to support<br />
either warfare ends remains the<br />
same however.<br />
A Case in Point<br />
During the fourth patrol conducted<br />
by ANZAC last year in the Gulf (the<br />
second patrol after September<br />
11th), the ship displayed that<br />
engineering flexibility and adaptability<br />
so crucial in ensuring that the US 5th<br />
Fleet could still effectively execute the<br />
MIO mission. With the need to<br />
release Tomahawk capable units<br />
from MIO in support of initial strikes<br />
in the War against Terror,ANZAC<br />
found herself being the sole<br />
remaining MIO platform in the NAG.<br />
While faced with this responsibility,<br />
ANZAC suffered a catastrophic failure<br />
of the port diesel engine main<br />
exhaust system.A circumferential<br />
crack some 5mm wide around the<br />
main uptake meant that running the<br />
port PDE was both dangerous in<br />
terms of CO production in the space,<br />
and also pointless given the loss of<br />
exhaust back pressure and load<br />
output. The primary mode of<br />
propulsion for an ANZAC (DE Mode)<br />
was now denied Command. While<br />
Gas Turbine mode and Starboard<br />
ECO mode (starboard main engine<br />
driving both shafts) remained<br />
available, further defects ensured<br />
that the use of the remaining<br />
propulsion redundancy would be<br />
severely hampered.<br />
At about the same time as the port<br />
diesel exhaust defect, the HP air<br />
compressor also suffered a<br />
catastrophic failure of the 1st stage<br />
cylinder which upon intrusive<br />
inspection revealed the need for a<br />
complete top end re-build; spares for<br />
which are not catered for under the<br />
ANZAC COB inventory. Spares had to<br />
be ordered under URDEF action from<br />
Australia. Despite the outstanding<br />
logistics replenishment infrastructure<br />
of the USN in area, lead times for<br />
stores from home meant that we<br />
were also denied the use of the HP<br />
air compressor for the time being.<br />
Given the requirement for at least<br />
170 bar of air to start the GT and
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
45<br />
then to ensure reasonable motoring<br />
capability during its operation in the<br />
event of an emergency shutdown, the<br />
need for sustaining HP air was<br />
uncompromising.A fall back option<br />
was then to cross-connect the<br />
electric diving air Baueras to the HP<br />
air wingman, however this was shortlived<br />
as in order to maintain diving<br />
air quality the operation of the<br />
Bauers mandated the use of the<br />
associated Securus moisture and<br />
contaminant filters. The performance<br />
of these filters under continuous use<br />
was below that expected and hence<br />
the change out rate was such that<br />
after only 72 hours, the full<br />
complement of Securus filters was<br />
consumed. HP air availability was<br />
now mission critical as GT mode<br />
relied upon it. To exacerbate matters<br />
our remaining diesel engine mode<br />
(starboard ECO) was also faltering as<br />
it has since leaving Australia owing to<br />
unreliable power transmission<br />
through a fluid coupling which was<br />
slipping. Command’s propulsion<br />
flexibility was now well under threat<br />
as reliable diesel propulsion and GT<br />
sprint availability could not be<br />
guaranteed. Throughout all of this,<br />
ANZAC still represented as the only<br />
viable interception vessel in the NAG<br />
at a time of heightened oil smuggling<br />
activity out of Iraq.<br />
With little options remaining, the<br />
emergency diesel Bauer had to be<br />
connected in some way to the HP air<br />
system. Although not normally used<br />
with the ship’s fixed HP system but<br />
with a little ingenuity it was crossconnected<br />
to the breathing air<br />
system via the re-compression<br />
connection in the forward part of the<br />
hanger. Running the diesel Bauer in<br />
the hanger however posed some very<br />
real safety concerns particularly<br />
noting the intense aviation activity<br />
during the deployment. A makeshift<br />
exhaust trunk was established taking<br />
the diesel fumes from the Bauer to<br />
the flight-deck, but noting the<br />
distance and the slow exhaust flow, a<br />
DC ram fan was needed to assist in<br />
the extraction. All was set to ensure<br />
that at the very least GT mode could<br />
now be relied upon with the<br />
availability of a continuous HP air<br />
supply. However noting the lowpressure<br />
discharge of the diesel<br />
Bauer, it required to be run<br />
continuously to ensure the<br />
appropriate HP air in the GT air start<br />
bottles.This led to further needs such<br />
as watchkeepers (on a department<br />
already heavily burdened with<br />
contributions to boarding parties,<br />
security teams, steaming parties and<br />
not to mention continuous corrective<br />
maintenance on other systems) and<br />
vigilant monitoring and correction of<br />
the HP air system to ensure there<br />
was no loss to system leaks.<br />
The final blow came when the ram<br />
fan used for extraction seized. With<br />
only four carried on board, of which<br />
one was already unserviceable,<br />
another was required for heat<br />
extraction from the crane HPU<br />
compartment (another mission<br />
critical equipment for RHIB<br />
operations) and now a third having<br />
seized, the sole remaining ram fan<br />
was brought into use. With the port<br />
diesel engine down, the starboard<br />
diesel engine performance made<br />
unreliable because of a slipping fluid<br />
coupling and GT mode reliant on<br />
reduced HP air availability,<br />
Command’s propulsion flexibility and<br />
redundancy was severely degraded<br />
and down to effective dependence<br />
on a single DC ram fan.<br />
The situation was bleak. However the<br />
engineering resilience and<br />
determination to ensure HP air<br />
production, coupled with the<br />
continual ‘handraulic’ intervention in<br />
operating the starboard fluid<br />
coupling, meant that the ship could<br />
remain on station for a further three<br />
days until relieved by a US destroyer<br />
and hence completing the required<br />
patrol period. Meanwhile, the strip<br />
down of the HPAC and the insulation<br />
and cladding on the port diesel<br />
engine progressed in readiness for<br />
the imminent and much needed<br />
rectification period alongside Bahrain<br />
prior to a return to patrol.<br />
Good Dit But So What!<br />
The above is not recited to showcase<br />
our particular tenacity in ANZAC, for it<br />
is certain that similar stories can be<br />
told across the fleet in all ships. I tell<br />
it here as a poignant illustration of<br />
how the need to bear engineering<br />
skill, determination, persistence,<br />
flexibility, adaptability and solutions is<br />
very real at sea today as it has<br />
always been. The implicit<br />
understanding by engineers of the<br />
Command requirements and to<br />
focus engineering effort accordingly,<br />
and conversely the tactical<br />
adjustments by warfare officers to<br />
compensate for technical limitations,<br />
is what made ANZAC able to fulfil its<br />
obligation and maintain true to its<br />
mission. The fear is not in our will to<br />
do so, although much could be said<br />
about the feelings of some whom<br />
question that will, but in our<br />
remaining ability to carry out such<br />
actions and hence to meet our<br />
combat readiness even in the face of<br />
such adversity. Despite the smart<br />
technology, the embedded design<br />
redundancy and the sophistication of<br />
the ANZAC propulsion control<br />
system, the example demonstrates<br />
that total reliability will always<br />
depend on applied engineering and<br />
technical leadership at sea, to
46 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Emphasis of industry support and<br />
shore agencies in systems<br />
engineering, such that the lessons<br />
and deficiencies learnt from<br />
operations, is captured and used for<br />
improvements in design,<br />
maintenance routines and failure<br />
rates. This is where the corporate<br />
engineering knowledge of navy and<br />
industry can best serve combat<br />
readiness.<br />
recover and maintain safe functional<br />
integrity to meet operational<br />
demands.<br />
The situation in ANZAC need not<br />
have been so precarious.The answer<br />
lies in what I believe to be a<br />
triangular approach in the<br />
reinvigoration of operational<br />
engineering self-reliance:<br />
Review of maintenance provision<br />
by industry such that there is<br />
greater encouragement for<br />
uniformed involvement<br />
alongside. Knowledge gained<br />
alongside is a force multiplier at<br />
sea. <strong>Navy</strong>/Industry ‘marriage’.<br />
Review of the maintenance philosophy of the newer classes of ships such that<br />
logistics aspects such as COB inventory, special tools, test equipment, documentation<br />
and training, all lead to a harnessing of increased systems knowledge by our sailors<br />
& officers, rather than an monopolistic investment in contracted support.<br />
In order to realise the above, we all<br />
have a part to play. It requires the will<br />
of our hierarchy to allow such<br />
improvements to be made even if it<br />
means a more critical stand on nonperforming<br />
contract strategies and<br />
contractors; it mandates those in<br />
organisations responsible for the<br />
delivery of improved logistics support<br />
to focus not on processes alone but<br />
also on whether those processes<br />
directly impinge on the material<br />
requirements for us to meet<br />
operational demands (and if not,<br />
then dispense with them); it requires<br />
those engineers at sea to exercise<br />
their ingenuity and engineering<br />
leadership despite the lack of training<br />
or qualifications of their people or the<br />
dearth of equipment and spares to<br />
strive for optimal systems availability<br />
within the constraints of safety; it<br />
requires those same engineers at sea<br />
to exercise sound risk<br />
assessment/management and where<br />
deviations are required to capture<br />
them and advise others; it requires all<br />
naval engineers whether at sea or<br />
ashore to lead and mentor their<br />
young engineer officers and sailors to<br />
re-gain trust in their own abilities and<br />
skills and where able to practise their<br />
craft; it requires engineering policy<br />
makers to be wary of developing<br />
policies which look good on the<br />
surface in providing risk minimisation<br />
but in practise are difficult, costly,<br />
unwieldy, over-bureaucratic and disempowering<br />
in their implementation<br />
and finally it requires the meeting of a<br />
mutual and implicit understanding<br />
between engineers and warfare<br />
specialists in the engineering<br />
limitations of any given situation such<br />
that functional recovery can be made<br />
possible while still achieving the<br />
mission.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Many may say that what I offer in this<br />
article is no more than yearning for<br />
the past when navy engineers and<br />
navy engineering had a greater<br />
influence and input into its outcomes;<br />
however what’s wrong with that and<br />
what has changed to not make this<br />
still a viable and noble end point.<br />
Nothing. In fact what is stated in this<br />
article is further illustration of CNE’s<br />
words in the last NEB, when he states<br />
that “Engineers add value to <strong>Navy</strong> by<br />
optimising our capability and<br />
managing risk. We get the most out<br />
of what we have: equipment, people<br />
and money – afloat, submerged and<br />
ashore.” However we must do so with<br />
a very clear focus on the engineering<br />
contribution to operational<br />
effectiveness, combat readiness and<br />
warfighting at sea. All our skills,<br />
qualifications, processes, training,<br />
equipment, maintenance and effort<br />
has to have this as our sound basis.<br />
Only through this focus will we as<br />
naval engineers remain contributive<br />
and relevant to the changing and<br />
adaptable capabilities of our navy.<br />
‘Good Warriors seek effectiveness in<br />
battle from the force of momentum,<br />
not from individual people’ – Sun Tzu.<br />
Unlike other services where<br />
engineering may be considered as<br />
rear echelon, naval engineering and<br />
naval engineers are integral in any<br />
ship’s ability to provide force, and<br />
hence as long as ships need to fight,<br />
move and float, naval engineering<br />
must always be about combat<br />
readiness.<br />
As the first ADF unit committed to<br />
Operation Slipper, through<br />
circumstances and without warning,<br />
ANZAC’s engineers only had their<br />
sense and will of flexibility,<br />
adaptability, persistence and<br />
resilience. Such characteristics<br />
ensured that ANZAC could materially<br />
continue to meet an extended<br />
requirement for combat readiness in<br />
a newly hostile and uncertain<br />
operational environment.<br />
Acknowledgments:<br />
CAPT Nigel Coates, CO ANZAC, for his<br />
encouragement. LEUT Rachel Durbin, DMEO<br />
ANZAC, for her constructive criticisms. And to<br />
the men and women of the ME Department<br />
ANZAC for their tireless and determined efforts,<br />
recognised with the award of the Australia Cup<br />
for Marine Engineering Excellence, in 2001.<br />
About the Author CMDR (now CAPT) Toff Idrus<br />
served until recently as the MEO in HMAS<br />
ANZAC from Feb 2001, participating in two<br />
operational deployments during his tenure. He<br />
has since assumed the position of Director<br />
Submarine Sustainment within the Director<br />
General Submarines branch, DMO, responsible<br />
for the provision of all in-service materiel support<br />
to the Collins class submarines. Previous MEO<br />
charge appointments have included the Oberon<br />
submarines OXLEY and ONSLOW, and he has<br />
served within the Submarine Squadron as the<br />
Squadron MEO and later as the Squadron<br />
Engineer Officer and Principal Staff Officer<br />
(Engineering) within the new<br />
COMAUSNAVSUBGRP FEG. He joined the RAN<br />
as a Direct Entry Officer in 1985 having<br />
completed his engineering degree at Monash<br />
University.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
47<br />
Allied Maritime Tactical<br />
Wide Area Networking<br />
Over the last four years AUS-CAN-NZ-UK-US navies have been developing<br />
a capability to support C4I interoperability among the five navies. This<br />
new capability known as Allied Maritime Tactical Wide Area Networking<br />
(AMTWAN) promotes interoperability among allied forces through the<br />
adoption of industry standard networking protocol IP. Technologies<br />
supporting AMTWAN have been demonstrated and evaluated in a<br />
simulated environment provided by annual Joint Warfare Interoperability<br />
Demonstrations (JWID) in the last few years. In 2002 and 2003 a multiphase<br />
At Sea Trial will be conducted to validate AMTWAN in an<br />
operational environment.<br />
BY MR. VAN VU<br />
DNC4ISREW<br />
IP Networking at Sea<br />
AMTWAN is based on the US<br />
<strong>Navy</strong>’s Automated Digital Network<br />
System (ADNS). ADNS was<br />
developed to support the<br />
concept of Network Centric<br />
Warfare by transitioning unique<br />
and stovepipe C4I systems to a<br />
single integrated IP network.<br />
Traditional tactical systems<br />
require a dedicated portion of<br />
available bandwidth for a specific<br />
period of time. As dedicated<br />
bandwidth is rarely utilised to<br />
maximum capacity, significant<br />
waste of bandwidth occurs.<br />
Packet-based networks such as<br />
Figure 1 – AMTWAN Architecture<br />
IP provide a mechanism to make<br />
efficient use of the available<br />
bandwidth.<br />
However, while commercial IP<br />
networking products and IPbased<br />
information systems<br />
support interoperability and<br />
provide a large technological<br />
base and a cost-effective option,<br />
the IP protocol suite was<br />
designed around a land-based<br />
communications infrastructure<br />
that would be built on highly<br />
reliable, wideband and lowlatency<br />
transmission media such<br />
as copper wires or fibre optics.<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> mobile platforms operate<br />
on radio links of various forms<br />
including half-duplex and pointto-multipoint<br />
with limited number<br />
of radios and radio frequencies.<br />
Therefore IP networking over<br />
tactical radio links protected by<br />
military cryptographic equipment<br />
poses challenges that are<br />
additional to the traditional<br />
challenges faced by the<br />
commercial world. Another<br />
unique <strong>Navy</strong> requirement is the<br />
ability to operate under Emission<br />
Control (EMCON) condition in<br />
which RF emissions from ships<br />
are suppressed.<br />
AMTWAN Architecture<br />
The high-level architecture of the<br />
AMTWAN as shown in Figure 1<br />
provides a networked computing<br />
environment capable of<br />
supporting seamless information<br />
exchanges among members of<br />
Multi-national Naval Task Groups<br />
(MNTGs) and between the<br />
MNTGs and other Allied forces.<br />
The MNTG may include Multinational<br />
Marine Forces (MMF)<br />
and Maritime Air Groups (MAG).<br />
RF Links<br />
The AMTWAN is supported by a<br />
variety of commercial and<br />
military RF links including<br />
INMARSAT, SHF and UHF
48 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
SATCOM, HF BLOS (Beyond Line<br />
Of Sight), HF ELOS (Extended<br />
Line Of Sight) and VHF/UHF LOS<br />
as illustrated in Figure 2. An IP<br />
Interface known as Channel<br />
Access Processor (CAP) was<br />
developed to interconnect<br />
commercial IP routers over halfduplex<br />
and point-to-multipoint<br />
tactical RF links.<br />
Network Security<br />
The AMTWAN will operate at<br />
AUSCANNZUKUS SECRET System<br />
High. All communications links<br />
will be protected by military link<br />
encryption device KG-84 or<br />
equivalent.<br />
High-grade in-line network<br />
encryption devices such as KIV-<br />
21 and TACLANE KG-175 will<br />
also be used to enable national<br />
and allied IP networks to share<br />
the same communications<br />
circuit. This capability was<br />
demonstrated by<br />
AUSCANNZUKUS navies in JWIDs<br />
and will be deployed in the At<br />
Sea Trial Phase 2.<br />
Relays over Non-SATCOM<br />
Tactical Radios<br />
A new capability is being<br />
developed to support IP over UHF<br />
LOS at data rates up to 96Kbps.<br />
The new capability is expected to<br />
be ready for field trial in the<br />
second quarter of 2003.<br />
Figure 2 – Networking Topology<br />
The new capability will improve<br />
intra-TG information exchanges,<br />
reduce the ships’ reliance on<br />
SATCOM, support ships that are<br />
non-SATCOM capable, and<br />
enable the efficient use of<br />
communications assets by<br />
allowing a single frequency to be<br />
shared among a number of<br />
ships. When the network topology<br />
changes due to ships’ movement<br />
as shown in Figure 3, the new<br />
capability will enable IP traffic to<br />
be relayed more quickly, more<br />
efficiently and without user<br />
intervention.<br />
User Services<br />
Theoretically all Internet<br />
applications could be run on<br />
AMTWAN and all C2 applications<br />
available on strategic IP-based<br />
Allied networks could be<br />
extended to AMTWAN. However,<br />
due to constraints imposed by<br />
maritime tactical RF links, the full<br />
potential of some applications<br />
may not be realised.<br />
Applications integrated into<br />
AMTWAN so far include email,<br />
Common Operational Picture<br />
(COP) and Collaboration at Sea.<br />
These applications are still<br />
subject to further refinement to<br />
improve their performance in a<br />
low bandwidth environment. New<br />
applications will be incorporated<br />
into AMTWAN when they become<br />
available and validated.<br />
Multicast E-mail<br />
The standard Internet mail<br />
protocol Simple Mail Transfer<br />
Protocol (SMTP) is used to<br />
support intra TG email.<br />
Standard SMTP e-mail uses a<br />
unicast protocol. When a<br />
message is to be delivered to<br />
several recipients that are served<br />
by different mail hubs, SMTP<br />
establishes a connection and<br />
transfers the message to each of<br />
the mail hubs in turn. This is<br />
very inefficient in that several<br />
copies of the message may travel<br />
over the same link to reach their<br />
destinations. Multicast will<br />
conserve bandwidth, as it will<br />
allow only one copy to be sent<br />
over any particular link.<br />
The MNTG Network Operation<br />
Centre (NOC) will be the TG’s<br />
gateway interfacing the multicastcapable<br />
MNTG network to the<br />
standard unicast SMTP mail<br />
environment on shore. Mail<br />
originating from a shore network<br />
will be directed to the MNTG<br />
shore mail hub located at the<br />
MNTG NOC. The NOC will then<br />
multicast the mail over the TG’s<br />
network. Ship-shore mail will be<br />
sent from the ship to the NOC for<br />
onforwarding to its final<br />
destination.<br />
Multicast COP and OpNotes<br />
The COP is a fusion of<br />
information received from<br />
sensors, data links and other<br />
sources to provide near real time<br />
disposition of all forces within an<br />
area of interest.<br />
The shipboard Global Command<br />
and Control System Maritime<br />
(GCCS-M) or equivalent is used<br />
to present the COP and to<br />
support the exchange of<br />
OpNotes. Traditionally, the COP<br />
and OpNotes are disseminated<br />
over a communications system<br />
known as the Officer in Tactical<br />
Command Information Exchange<br />
System (OTCIXS), which is<br />
considered stovepipe because it
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
49<br />
Figure 3 – IP networking over UHF LOS<br />
requires a dedicated Satcom<br />
circuit. The GCCS-M is integrated<br />
into the AMTWAN and the<br />
dissemination of the COP and<br />
OpNotes within a TG using OTH-<br />
Gold messages is supported by a<br />
multicast mechanism. The NOC<br />
will act as a gateway between<br />
the TG’s multicast network and<br />
an external unicast shore<br />
network.<br />
Collaboration at Sea<br />
Collaboration at Sea is currently<br />
supported by the use of Lotus<br />
Domino and Sametime. Domino<br />
provides a means for information<br />
sharing through a Web interface.<br />
Figure 4 shows a typical Web<br />
page for the AMTWAN.<br />
Collaborative planning tools<br />
provided by Sametime include<br />
Text Chat, Whiteboarding<br />
(annotating to an image of a<br />
map or of a target), Voice and<br />
Video. The availability of some of<br />
the planning tools will depend on<br />
bandwidth available.<br />
Allied Communications<br />
Publication (ACP) 200<br />
Concepts of Operations,<br />
Standard Operating Procedures<br />
and Technical Operating<br />
Instructions for AMTWAN have<br />
been consolidated into a draft<br />
ACP 200. It is planned to present<br />
the document to the Combined<br />
Communications Electronics<br />
Board (CCEB) in late 2003 for<br />
ratification.<br />
ACP 200 will be a living<br />
document as it will be regularly<br />
reviewed and updated whenever<br />
a new capability is added to the<br />
AMTWAN.<br />
Figure 4 – A Typical AMTWAN Home Page
50 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY LCDR MIKE SIMPSON<br />
DNOP STAFF OFFICER<br />
ENGINEER 1<br />
DNOP News<br />
Poster’s Postings<br />
Most of you will be aware that Lieutenant Peter Dowton relieved Andrew<br />
Payne as Directorate <strong>Navy</strong> Officers’ Posting (DNOP) Staff Officer<br />
Engineering 2 on 27 May 2002; he can be contacted by telephone on<br />
02 6265 3276 (e-mail Peter.Dowton@cbr.defence.gov.au). Peter is an<br />
ex-Leading Seaman Systems who completed his degree through <strong>Royal</strong><br />
Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) in 1994. His most recent<br />
posting was as Deputy Weapon Electrical Engineer Officer in HMAS<br />
SYDNEY where he completed the operation OP SLIPPER Deployment and<br />
gained his Charge Qualification. Unfortunately Peter will only be with<br />
DNOP until September 2002 when he will take up an exchange posting<br />
with the USN in Panama City, Florida. Lieutenant Chris Miller will relieve<br />
Peter on 5 September 2002. He is currently serving as Deputy Marine<br />
Engineer Officer in HMAS MANOORA.<br />
Lieutenant Commander Phil Scott in<br />
December/January will relieve me;<br />
the actual dates will be dependent<br />
on HMAS MELBOURNE’s program<br />
and my next posting.<br />
Career Planning<br />
Many officers have already taken<br />
the opportunity to forward<br />
<strong>Australian</strong> Defence Force Career<br />
Preferences and Restrictions<br />
forms (Form AD 148) via e-mail.<br />
This method of delivery is quicker<br />
than mail and saves some paper.<br />
At present the data is being input<br />
manually to the personnel<br />
database PMKeys but in the near<br />
future we hope to have the<br />
electronic transfer working.<br />
Therefore, electronic (disc or e-<br />
mail) is the preferred delivery<br />
method. Once within PMKeys the<br />
Preference and Restriction Data<br />
is used to assist in posting<br />
planning using Position and<br />
Preference matching searches.<br />
Currently these types of searches<br />
are done manually and are very<br />
time consuming. When PMKeys<br />
is fully populated with current<br />
data automatic searches will<br />
provide a much less time<br />
intensive and more accurate<br />
solution.<br />
The new forms have no formal<br />
feedback area from the desk<br />
officer so we will be replying<br />
using e-mail or telephone.<br />
Revised preferences should be<br />
provided at least every 12<br />
months or whenever personal<br />
circumstances change. Also, if<br />
you are planning a visit to your<br />
desk officer with changed<br />
preferences, provision of a<br />
revised form in advance will give<br />
the desk officer an opportunity to<br />
arrive with a plan based on the<br />
new circumstances.<br />
Duty Statements<br />
Equally important to DNOP’s role<br />
is being able to correctly identify<br />
job descriptions, pre-requisite<br />
training and experience. For most<br />
positions we rely on correct and<br />
endorsed duty statements<br />
contained in PMKeys.<br />
Unfortunately the pace and scope<br />
of the organisational changes<br />
over recent times have seen<br />
erosion of duty statement<br />
accuracy to the point where some<br />
Did you know that Academic<br />
Qualifications (including<br />
IEAust Membership Grade)<br />
are not automatically<br />
updated for degree and post<br />
graduate courses – even if<br />
conducted by the RAN?<br />
now contain no job description or<br />
pre-requisites. These deficiencies<br />
degrade the accuracy of position<br />
matching searches and are<br />
resulting in officers joining<br />
positions without the correct<br />
training. Please check the<br />
accuracy of the duty statement<br />
for your position and if changes<br />
are required pass them up<br />
through the chain of Command.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
51<br />
Academic Qualifications<br />
Did you know that Academic<br />
Qualifications (including IEAust<br />
Membership Grade) are not<br />
automatically updated for<br />
degree and post graduate<br />
courses – even if conducted by<br />
the RAN? Responsibility for<br />
entering this information rests<br />
with NPTC-Canberra. Officers<br />
should forward certified true<br />
copies of degrees and<br />
postgraduate certificates to<br />
NPTC-Canberra for recording in<br />
PMKeys. This will ensure that<br />
all qualifications are accurately<br />
reflected in the <strong>Navy</strong> List and<br />
at promotion boards.<br />
Qualifications for courses and<br />
proficiencies conducted under<br />
the RAN training system are<br />
still recorded by the awarding<br />
authority (eg. certificate of<br />
Competency and billet prerequisites).<br />
DNOP Web Page<br />
The DNOP Web Master works<br />
hard to provide up to date<br />
information on current and<br />
emerging officer career issues<br />
on the DNOP web page<br />
(http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.<br />
au/dpednop/). Separate pages<br />
provide information regarding<br />
the new promotion system,<br />
AOPAS reporting systems,<br />
points of contact, ABR 6289,<br />
job advertisements and links to<br />
other useful career<br />
management references.<br />
While is it appreciated that<br />
DEFWEB access is not<br />
available to all officers all of<br />
the time please visit it when<br />
you have the opportunity to<br />
keep abreast of current and<br />
emerging issues and policy.<br />
Comic Relief<br />
Received the other day. Therefore I cannot vouch for accuracy.<br />
However provides a good read and insight into the minds of our<br />
engineering brethren. If you are bored or lack work feel free to verify,<br />
or otherwise.<br />
Think about it.......<br />
Does the statement, "We've always done it that way,"<br />
ring any bells?<br />
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between<br />
the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches.That's an exceedingly<br />
odd number. Why was that gauge used?<br />
Because that's the way they built them in England,<br />
and English expatriates built the US Railroads.<br />
Why did the English build them like that?<br />
Because the first rail lines were built by the same<br />
people who built the pre railroad tramways, and<br />
that's the gauge they used.<br />
Why did "they" use that gauge then?<br />
Because the people who built the tramways used the<br />
same jigs and tools that they used for building<br />
wagons, which used that wheel spacing.<br />
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd<br />
wheel spacing?<br />
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the<br />
wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long<br />
distance roads in England, because that's the<br />
spacing of the wheel ruts.<br />
So who built those old rutted roads?<br />
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in<br />
Europe (and England)for their legions. The roads<br />
have been used ever since.<br />
And the ruts in the roads?<br />
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which<br />
everyone else had to match for fear of destroying<br />
their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made<br />
for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter<br />
of wheel spacing.<br />
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet,<br />
8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications<br />
for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And<br />
bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are<br />
handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass<br />
came up with it, you may be exactly right, because<br />
the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just<br />
wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two<br />
war horses.<br />
Now the twist to the story ..<br />
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch<br />
pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to<br />
the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid<br />
rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by<br />
Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The engineers who<br />
designed the SRBs would have preferred to make<br />
them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by<br />
train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad<br />
line from the factory happens to run through a<br />
tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through<br />
that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the<br />
railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now<br />
know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.<br />
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is<br />
arguably the world's most advanced transportation<br />
system was determined over two thousand years ago<br />
by the width of a horse's ass.
52 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
Officer Promotions<br />
INCUMBENT RANK NAME DATE SHIP/ESTABLISHMENT<br />
CAPT ME SM Idrus T 01-Jul-02 Submarine Project<br />
CMDR WE SM Chesher GM 01-Jul-02 Capability Development<br />
CMDR WE Burningham DA 01-Jul-02 <strong>Australian</strong> Combined Services<br />
Staff Course<br />
CMDR ME Bourke GD 01-Jul-02 HMAS WESTRALIA<br />
CMDR WE Rossendell MA 01-Jul-02 <strong>Australian</strong> Combined Services<br />
Staff Course<br />
CMDR ME Richardson MA 01-Jul-02 HMS SULTAN, UK<br />
CMDR WE SM Chandler JW 01-Jul-02 <strong>Australian</strong> Combined Services<br />
Staff Course<br />
LCDR WEA Hanley DA 01-Jan-02 MHQ<br />
LCDR EA Patch SC 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
LEUT WEA Standen TJ 06-Jan-02 CTX<br />
LEUT (AE) Matthews DW 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
LEUT (AE) Reid NP 18-Mar-02 723 SQN<br />
LEUT (WE) Wren SJ 01-Jan-02 HMAS STIRLING<br />
SBLT (WE) Bettell DC 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Bishop SA 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Burns EL 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Burrows AG 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Cain IK 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Calvert M 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Crocker DA 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Franklin SM 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Gerrard DT 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Gillespie BD 06-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (AE) Goodson IM 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (ME) Hurst BJ 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Johnstone GA 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Kenny TJ 22-Jan-02 HMAS CRESWELL<br />
SBLT (AE) Lam TP 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (AE) Leraye DJ 01-Jan-02 HMAS STIRLING<br />
SBLT (ME) Llapitan WP 23-Jan-02 HMAS CRESWELL<br />
SBLT (ME) Majcherczyk AC 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (AE) Mchugh S 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (WE) Meredith KM 06-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Metcalf KL 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Moore ST 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (AE) Newhill GM 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (AE) Norsworthy RF 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (WE) Okely CH 06-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) O'Loughlin SS 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (AE) Semaan CS 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (AE) Sorensen AL 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
SBLT (WE) Stapleton DG 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Thompson EJ 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (ME) Thompson RJ 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (AE) Wallis DR 01-Jan-02 HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
INCUMBENT RANK NAME DATE SHIP/ESTABLISHMENT<br />
SBLT (WE) Wichmann DP 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
SBLT (WE) Yates TA 01-Jan-02 HMAS CERBERUS<br />
Officers Provisionally Selected for Promotion on 1JAN03<br />
CMDR ME Irwin, GJ to CAPT HMAS KUTTABUL (MHQ)<br />
CMDR ME Sippel, DP to CAPT HMAS HARMAN (UK)<br />
CMDR WE Uzzell MJ to CAPT HMAS HARMAN (MSD)<br />
LCDR ME Barnett RL to CMDR HMAS KUTTABUL (FIMA)<br />
LCDR WEA Burley PG to CMDR HMAS ALBATROSS<br />
(NAVSYSCOM)<br />
LCDR ME English SJ to CMDR HMAS COONAWARRA (PB FEG)<br />
LCDR WE Franklin AL to CMDR HMAS HARMAN (NAVSYSCOM)<br />
LCDR ME Fysh AW to CMDR HMAS HARMAN (ACSC)<br />
LCDR WE SM Lindsay AA to CMDR HMAS STIRLING (SM FEG)<br />
LCDR ME Rees RR to CMDR HMAS HARMAN (USA)<br />
LCDR WE Turner CR to CMDR HMAS NEWCASTLE<br />
LCDR WEA Wenzel DS to CMDR HMAS HARMAN (NAPO)<br />
LCDR EOE WE Woodcock RJW to CMDR HMAS KUTTABUL (JALO)<br />
LEUT WEA IT Banic G to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (UK)<br />
LEUT WEA WE Barnes AP to LCDR 817 SQN<br />
LEUT ME SM Barton D to LCDR HMAS SHEEAN<br />
LEUT ME Birch AM to LCDR HMAS KUTTABUL (FIMA)<br />
LEUT WE Coleman MA to LCDR HMAS CERBERUS<br />
LEUT WE Cormack MJ to LCDR HMAS KUTTABUL (MHQ)<br />
LEUT AE Cornish DJ to LCDR 723 SQN<br />
LEUT WE Dowton PR to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (NAVSYSCOM)<br />
LEUT WE EOE Drage LW to LCDR HMAS TOBRUK<br />
LEUT WE Duddy PJ to LCDR HMAS CERBERUS<br />
LEUT WE Durward D to LCDR HMAS ANZAC<br />
LEUT WE Elphick RG to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (UK)<br />
LEUT WE Kestel LL to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (USA)<br />
LEUT WEA King CJ to LCDR NHQ -SQ<br />
LEUT WE Mc Grann MJ to LCDR HMAS KUTTABUL (JALO)<br />
LEUT WE McLennan GC to LCDR HMAS WATERHEN<br />
LEUT ME Murfett ED to LCDR HMAS CRESWELL<br />
LEUT WE Paddison SR to LCDR HMAS CERBERUS (RAAF)<br />
LEUT WE Penney SM to LCDR HMAS KUTTABUL (MHQ)<br />
LEUT WE Price WM to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (CDSC)<br />
LEUT ME SM Radesich AA to LCDR HMAS FARNCOMB<br />
LEUT ME Ridgeway PF to LCDR HMAS CERBERUS<br />
LEUT ME Shawcross RB to LCDR HMAS STIRLING (SM FEG)<br />
LEUT WE Smith NJ to LCDR HMAS HARMAN (NAVSYSCOM)<br />
LEUT ME SM Spurling ANC to LCDR HMAS DECHAINEUX<br />
LEUT ME Walter DM to LCDR HS RED CREW<br />
LEUT ME Williams GF to LCDR HMAS SUCCESS
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
53<br />
An Attachment Onboard<br />
the MV Iron Monarch<br />
BY LEUT RAYMOND HOWE<br />
WESTRALIA MANAGEMENT<br />
OFFICE<br />
In November-December 2001, I experienced a three-week exchange<br />
onboard a BHP vessel, the MV Iron Monarch. The visit proved a valuable<br />
and eye-opening experience, highlighting some similarities and several<br />
differences between Merchant and RAN practices in all elements of ship<br />
operation, maintenance, logistic support, and onboard life. However,<br />
scope of this particular article is limited to a general description of the<br />
ship and its routines.<br />
Almost immediately upon joining<br />
the Iron Monarch, alongside at<br />
the BHP Steel Mill ro-ro wharf at<br />
Port Kembla, I made my first and<br />
perhaps most significant<br />
observation about life and routine<br />
aboard a merchant vessel. As<br />
three straddle vehicles worked in<br />
busy succession, climbing the<br />
Monarch’s stern ramp to deposit<br />
the 30 ton steel billets on the<br />
vehicle deck, all of the ship’s<br />
engineers sat in the sunshine,<br />
enjoying their knock-off beers.<br />
This is possible since, in the<br />
merchant world, it is the Deck<br />
Officers who control and<br />
supervise all cargo operations,<br />
and have responsibility for all<br />
ballasting and stability<br />
considerations, working in 1-in-3<br />
watches alongside!<br />
MV Iron Monarch is a 14,000 ton<br />
roll-on-roll-off (ro-ro) vessel;<br />
purpose built by BHP at Whyalla<br />
in 1975 for the transport of steel<br />
products between BHP’s various<br />
operations in Australia. The ro-ro<br />
design was selected to enable<br />
rapid loading and discharge of<br />
the steel cargo. Since the mid<br />
1980’s, the Monarch has been<br />
continually employed on the Port<br />
Kembla to Westernport run. The<br />
cargo of steel billets is off-loaded<br />
to BHP’s Hastings rolling mill.<br />
The vessel’s vehicle deck is<br />
transversely divided into three<br />
lanes; each serviced by an<br />
overhead gantry crane. The boom<br />
of each crane is fitted with a<br />
series of Electro-magnets to<br />
enable pick-up and release of the<br />
steel billets. A team of straddle<br />
vehicles is used to embark the<br />
billets via the stern ramp and<br />
door and stack them at the aft<br />
end of the vehicle deck. The cargo<br />
is then shifted and arranged<br />
using the gantries. The process is<br />
reversed for discharge. Shore<br />
stevedores operate all vehicles<br />
and ship’s gantries.<br />
Loading and unloading normally<br />
takes around 20 hours. The<br />
southbound passage typically<br />
takes 32 hours. The return<br />
journey unloaded takes only 30<br />
hours, cutting closer to the coast,<br />
utilising reduced vessel’s draft.<br />
The time and fuel thus saved is<br />
significant in the operation of<br />
such a ship. Economic<br />
considerations are further<br />
illustrated by the fuelling routines<br />
conducted. The ship embarks<br />
heavy-oil fuel at each visit to Port<br />
Kembla. However, the minimum<br />
fuel requirement is embarked on<br />
each occasion, sufficient for only<br />
for one return journey to<br />
Westernport, plus a small reserve<br />
for possible search and rescue<br />
and emergency situations. The<br />
ship sails as soon as practical<br />
following completion of cargo<br />
operations and the cycle repeats
54 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
continually. The company can illafford<br />
delays of any variety. Time<br />
is indeed money!<br />
The scheme of complement of<br />
the Iron Monarch is typical of<br />
that found on most of the<br />
merchant fleet in Australia and<br />
worldwide. The complement of 17<br />
consists of:<br />
Master<br />
1st, 2nd & 3rd Mates<br />
Chief Engineer<br />
1st, 2nd & 3rd Engineers<br />
Chief Integrated Rating (IR) -<br />
the Bosun<br />
6 IR’s<br />
Cook<br />
Chief Steward -victuals, messman<br />
The ship’s complement is<br />
employed in a six weeks on, six<br />
weeks off arrangement. Each sixweek<br />
period on is known as a<br />
‘swing’.<br />
The Engineers and Deck Officers<br />
are considered Officers, and the<br />
remainder ‘Ratings’ or ‘crew’.<br />
Though separate recreation-space<br />
arrangements remain, traditional<br />
separate messing has been<br />
abolished and all personnel,<br />
including the Master, take meals<br />
in the common ‘Duty Mess’. At<br />
the completion of the swing, all<br />
crewmembers hand over to their<br />
reliefs simultaneously. Officer<br />
hand-overs are staggered to<br />
ensure sufficient knowledge<br />
transfer.<br />
Marine Engineers’ careers<br />
normally begin at the <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Maritime College at Launceston<br />
in Tasmania. Here, a Bachelor in<br />
Technology (Marine Engineering),<br />
in addition to some requisite<br />
trade skills, are obtained before<br />
proceeding to sea as the 4th or<br />
5th Engineer for on the job<br />
training (and the unavoidable<br />
task book!). Upon being awarded<br />
a Watchkeeping Certificate,<br />
Engineers graduate to 3rd<br />
Engineer. It was interesting to<br />
discover that the 3rd Engineer<br />
had pursued entry for the same<br />
ADFA intake as I had, but instead<br />
accepted a BHP cadetship offer.<br />
Now earning effectively double<br />
my salary, and with a guaranteed<br />
6 months leave per annum, it<br />
seemed a reasonable decision!<br />
As the Iron Monarch operates an<br />
Unmanned Machinery Space<br />
(UMS), all Engineers are dayhands,<br />
with a 0800 to 1600h<br />
routine. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd<br />
Engineers alternate in performing<br />
the role of Duty Engineer every<br />
third day, which is known as being<br />
‘on the gear’. The Duty Engineer<br />
conducts rounds three times<br />
daily, at 0800, 1600 and 2100.<br />
A machinery alarm is fitted to all<br />
communal spaces and set to the<br />
Duty Engineer’s cabin. Upon<br />
activation of the alarm at any<br />
time within his/her 24-hour duty,<br />
the Duty Engineer must attend<br />
the Machinery Control Room<br />
(MCR) and acknowledge the<br />
alarm. On most UMS ships,<br />
though not in the Monarch, a set<br />
time limit is allowed for the Duty<br />
Engineer to acknowledge the<br />
alarm, before the alarm resounds<br />
throughout the entire ship<br />
- a costly error for the slow Duty<br />
Engineer! Interestingly, the<br />
propulsion control and UMS<br />
equipment onboard HMAS<br />
Westralia by far exceeds the<br />
capability of the equivalent on<br />
the Iron Monarch. Westralia’s<br />
remote watchkeeper alarm panels<br />
enable identification and gives<br />
the value/status of the alarm in<br />
question, whereas the Monarch’s<br />
does not identify the alarm.<br />
Onboard Engineering<br />
responsibilities are divided in a<br />
standard fashion throughout the<br />
fleet. The 1st Engineer has<br />
responsibility for the main<br />
engines, the 2nd Engineer the<br />
Diesel Alternators and the 3rd<br />
Engineer the purifiers,<br />
compressors and other<br />
auxiliaries. Each is occupied<br />
throughout working hours<br />
conducting Planned<br />
Maintenance routines and defect<br />
rectification. Additionally, one IR<br />
is assigned to the Engine Room,<br />
and performs tasks under<br />
direction of the 1st Engineer.<br />
This work normally involves such<br />
tasks as painting, cleaning or TA<br />
work. The Chief Engineer has<br />
responsibility for all engineering<br />
activities, and for arranging<br />
repairs alongside by contractor.<br />
BHP has a schedule of preferred<br />
subcontractors for both ends of<br />
the voyage. Thus eliminating any<br />
third party, the Chief Engineer<br />
has direct responsibility for<br />
contractor selection, acceptance<br />
of work, and certification<br />
requirements. The Engineering<br />
department is also responsible<br />
for its own spares and<br />
consumables acquisition and<br />
inventory control.<br />
Planned Maintenance is<br />
conducted in accordance with<br />
the job cards generated by the<br />
onboard system ‘Microplan’. Job<br />
sheets are produced at the<br />
commencement of each month<br />
and placed in a folder in the<br />
Engine room. Over the course of<br />
the month, the Engineers<br />
progress the jobs, returning the<br />
form to the Chief Engineer<br />
complete with any details,<br />
measurements, pre and post<br />
condition reports and stores<br />
consumed and remaining. Any<br />
adhoc maintenance<br />
(unscheduled) conducted is<br />
detailed on a form and<br />
forwarded to the Chief Engineer.<br />
This detail is added to<br />
‘Microplan’, thus providing the<br />
maintenance history of all<br />
maintainable items.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
55<br />
The Iron Monarch is maintained<br />
in-class under Lloyds Register, in<br />
a 60 monthly Continuous<br />
Machinery Survey (CMS),<br />
similarly to HMAS WESTRALIA.<br />
The Iron Monarch’s propulsion<br />
plant consists of two medium<br />
fixed speed Wartsilla diesels with<br />
pneumatic clutches, a single<br />
reduction gearbox driving a single<br />
propeller shaft and CPP, plus a<br />
shaft alternator, thus giving it a<br />
very similar configuration to<br />
WESTRALIA. Three Diesel<br />
Alternators are fitted for use<br />
alongside and during ‘standby’<br />
(the merchant version of RAN<br />
‘specials’), whereas the shaft<br />
alternator carries the cruising<br />
electrical load.<br />
The ‘Standby’ crew consists of<br />
the Chief and Duty Engineer<br />
closed up in the MCR, and the<br />
Master and 1st Mate on the<br />
Bridge. The on-watch deck officer<br />
will give the Duty Engineer one<br />
hour’s notice prior to departure<br />
or entering harbor. The flash-up is<br />
achieved in around 40 minutes.<br />
The ship is required to achieve<br />
an operational availability of<br />
98%. Allowable maintenance<br />
periods consists of one eight<br />
hour lay period at Port Kembla<br />
per month, an annual 4-5 day<br />
period and a 30-monthly 12 day<br />
docking. Thus it is imperative that<br />
the crew conduct the majority of<br />
the required work, with minimal<br />
shore support. Full advantage is<br />
taken of machinery redundancies<br />
to allow work to take place at<br />
sea, and all windows of<br />
opportunity during cargo<br />
operations. Much maintenance<br />
and repair effort of the cargo<br />
gantries is necessary to minimise<br />
disruption to cargo operations.<br />
Gantry call-outs are the least<br />
favourite of the Duty Engineer,<br />
particularly where operator error<br />
(by the wharfies) is blamed!<br />
Nevertheless, the speed with<br />
which the defect is rectified is<br />
particularly critical.<br />
With the availability focus,<br />
Engineers are not burdened with<br />
ancillary duties, and the Deck<br />
Officers shoulder a large share of<br />
other work. In addition to keeping<br />
four hour 1-in-3 watches at sea,<br />
Deck Officers keep eight hour<br />
cargo watches alongside, are<br />
responsible for ballasting, crew<br />
welfare and administration,<br />
maintenance and lead of<br />
damage control equipment and<br />
exercises, victuals and domestic<br />
supplies, shore water and<br />
telephone connections and ship’s<br />
husbandry.<br />
To conclude, the commercial<br />
shipping environment differs<br />
significantly from RAN practice,<br />
each organisation being driven<br />
by different requirements and<br />
with different stakeholders in<br />
each ship. There are however,<br />
several examples of improved<br />
means of doing business that<br />
would certainly be applicable to<br />
RAN vessels, the auxiliary ships<br />
in particular. The substantial<br />
detail necessary to support such<br />
an argument would constitute<br />
another article.<br />
Footnote:<br />
An opportunity exists for ME<br />
officers to undertake similar<br />
short-term secondments to a<br />
merchant vessel. This<br />
experience will be of most<br />
benefit to Officers with a<br />
minimum of MEOCC<br />
qualification. For further details<br />
see <strong>Navy</strong> Engineering Bulletin<br />
Issue 2 February 2002 (page<br />
13).<br />
About the Author LEUT Raymond Howe<br />
graduated from ADFA in 1999. Awarded<br />
an MEOCC onboard HMAS WESTRALIA in<br />
November 2001, he is currently posted as<br />
the WA Liaison Officer at AASSPO, and<br />
WESTRALIA Maintenance Manager.<br />
Brief details on Iron Monarch<br />
• Roll On - Roll off vessel<br />
• 14,885 dwt (deadweight tonnes - cargo carrying capacity)<br />
• 179.3m - length overall<br />
• 24.9m - beam<br />
• 17.4m - depth<br />
• 8.8m - summer loaded draft<br />
• 15.5 knots service speed - on 31.5 tonnes heavy fuel oil / day<br />
Propulsion<br />
• 2 x 12V32 Wartsila four stroke cycle diesel engines 10,900 BHP (8020kW) driving through a reduction<br />
gearbox to a single controllable pitch propeller.<br />
Electrics<br />
• 1 x 500kW - shaft alternator<br />
• 2 x 600kW - diesel alternators<br />
• 1 x 1450kW - diesel alternator<br />
Manning<br />
• Master and three deck officers<br />
• Chief Engineer and three engineer officers<br />
• Chief Steward<br />
• Cook
56 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY CPOET STUBBS<br />
HMAS NEWCASTLE<br />
Satellite TV - All at Sea<br />
Ah, kicking back after a hard day’s work with a good cup of coffee<br />
watching CNN, this is the life. Damn, those Iraqi’s are up to no good<br />
again I see. Somewhere in the Arabian Gulf they’re shooting up a<br />
smuggler vessel. Hang on, that looks like an Aussie ship in the<br />
background I think to myself, as I lean toward the 80cm Sony Trinitron<br />
for a better look. “Hands to action stations! Hands to action stations!”<br />
Damn, it is an Aussie ship, its MINE.<br />
Who would have thought a couple<br />
of years ago that the time would<br />
come when we could sit on a<br />
warship off the coast of a hostile<br />
country and monitor their goings<br />
on live via satellite TV. Well the<br />
day has come! On a coalition<br />
warship stationed in the Middle<br />
East we sit and watch as the<br />
anti-terrorist war machine rolls<br />
on. CNN, FOX, Sky News, BBC<br />
and Euro News all vying to give<br />
us the most up to date coverage<br />
available.<br />
In January 2001, a PerSat<br />
initiative saw the fitting and trial<br />
of the <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>’s first<br />
auto tracking Satellite TV at Sea<br />
systems on the FFG and FFH<br />
platforms. The trial ships HMAS<br />
NEWCASTLE and WARRAMUNGA<br />
were chosen to provide broad<br />
reference data across varied<br />
platforms in relation to<br />
performance and coverage<br />
issues.<br />
The platform restrictions<br />
necessitated the acquisition of<br />
1.2-meter Ku band systems that<br />
provided a signal AGC of 42.5<br />
dB, severely limiting the systems<br />
tracking and signal processing<br />
capability. However in spite of<br />
these restrictions the Ships<br />
Company have enjoyed many<br />
hours of entertainment in areas<br />
where TV reception was previously<br />
unobtainable.<br />
In October 2000, the ship pulled<br />
together a project management<br />
team consisting of CPOET Brian<br />
Poole and myself whom would be<br />
the driving force in bringing the<br />
now defunct PerSat initiative to<br />
fruition. The FFG Sustainment<br />
Management Office and Marine<br />
Nav Aids System (MNAS)<br />
representatives were assembled<br />
on board NEWCASTLE for the first<br />
of many project phase meetings<br />
to determine tangible, verifiable<br />
work products, with the major<br />
deliverables and system design<br />
specifications being the primary<br />
subject of discussion.<br />
The Sea Tel Model 4894<br />
Shipboard Satellite TV Receive-<br />
Only system was considered to<br />
best meet the specification and<br />
budgetary requirements of the<br />
RAN. This system consisted<br />
primarily of a gyroscopically<br />
stabilised 1.2 metre dome<br />
enclosed antenna, TAC-92<br />
Antenna Controller, Ku band quad<br />
feed Horizontal and Vertical LNB,<br />
Polycompact SPM1000<br />
modulator unit and 8 Digital<br />
Decoders.<br />
Delivery and fitting of the system<br />
was completed by 12 Jan 01 and<br />
the contract negotiations were<br />
entered into with FoxTel and<br />
Aurora for satellite TV access. On<br />
the 17th of January 2001 saw<br />
the first transmissions received by<br />
the newly fitted system and was<br />
well received by all. With some<br />
forward planning, the ship has<br />
been able to access TV services<br />
in most areas of operations and<br />
is rarely in an area where some<br />
sort of coverage is not<br />
achievable.<br />
The provision of services has<br />
seen the attainment of news and<br />
current affairs, movies, general<br />
entertainment and music<br />
channels over a variety of<br />
geostationary satellites. The Ku<br />
band satellite footprints now<br />
cover a vast majority of the <strong>Navy</strong>’s<br />
operational areas and coverage<br />
continues to grow on a daily<br />
basis as service providers acquire<br />
licences for larger audiences with<br />
subsequently increase<br />
transmission power and footprint<br />
size.<br />
Contractor support for the fitted<br />
system has been excellent. The<br />
use of a world-recognised<br />
manufacturer, with global agent<br />
support, has made maintenance<br />
and warrantee issues both<br />
efficient and timely. The Ships<br />
Company however who have<br />
grown accustomed to the<br />
services, see any outage as<br />
unacceptable and have given the<br />
system the pet name of “Unsat<br />
TV”. This is all tongue in cheek.<br />
When they sit in the café and<br />
watch their favourite Super 12’s<br />
Rugby game or the PGA live on<br />
the screen, there are very few<br />
faces without a smile.<br />
In relation to equipment up time<br />
and component failure, there<br />
have been several problems that<br />
are primarily attributed to the<br />
placement of the Commercial-offthe-Shelf<br />
(COTS) system. Due to<br />
space restrictions, the first<br />
problem encountered was the<br />
necessity to purchase a smaller<br />
dish than originally envisaged.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
57<br />
The preferred option being a 1.8-<br />
metre dish with enhanced signal<br />
gain. The next problem was<br />
location? The answer was aft of<br />
the main engine stack; port side<br />
opposite the INMARSAT antenna<br />
on the FFG’s. This was where all<br />
our problems began. If you have<br />
ever spent any time on a FFG, the<br />
aft section, due to vibration, is no<br />
place for sensitive electronic<br />
equipment, especially COTS<br />
sourced equipment!<br />
Subsequently, the system has<br />
had several failures in the<br />
antenna unit, the antenna control<br />
unit and the Polycompact<br />
modulator. Amazingly, to date no<br />
defects have occurred with the<br />
Digital Decoders. The positive<br />
aspects of these failures is that<br />
they are not re-occurring defects<br />
and the time for repair has been<br />
less than 30 minutes once<br />
spares were obtained.<br />
The final deliverable from the<br />
contractor was<br />
operator/maintainer training,<br />
which was completed in Jan 02.<br />
This saw MNAS technician Mr<br />
Brad Baker accomplished an in<br />
depth eight hour training program<br />
for nominated service members.<br />
Feedback from the students was<br />
positive with all walking away<br />
confident they had a better<br />
understanding of the complex<br />
issues relating to geostationary<br />
satellite tracking systems and<br />
digital decoder operations.<br />
The final project deliverable is<br />
ongoing, due to technology<br />
advances, and will only reach<br />
fruition on the cessation of a<br />
comprehensive project trial<br />
phase. The continued acquisition<br />
of system and services<br />
knowledge for feedback to<br />
WARRAMUNGA and FFGSMO,<br />
including such information as<br />
overseas support facilities,<br />
Foreign Service suppliers and<br />
system requirements for varied<br />
areas of operation has given rise<br />
to a worth while system.<br />
As the trial comes to closure and<br />
funding support and ultimately<br />
the system are removed, one<br />
must reflect on the joys this trial<br />
has bought so many in times of<br />
operational hardship. It will<br />
indeed be a sad day when the<br />
morale for the 21st century sailor<br />
is craned off with the Sea Tel<br />
Satellite TV System. In the words<br />
of Bart Simpson, “ We want our<br />
FoxTel”!
58 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY WOMT PETER DERBY<br />
FLEET CONDITION ASSESSMENT<br />
UNIT<br />
The RAN Spectrographic<br />
Oil Analysis Program<br />
Introduction<br />
CM programs that have been correctly implemented and managed in<br />
civilian industry have been attributed with increasing machinery plant<br />
efficiency and resulted in cost savings far in excess of CM program<br />
costs. Although the <strong>Navy</strong> is yet to embrace CM fully, there is already<br />
documented evidence of unscheduled breakdowns that have been<br />
prevented and cost savings that have resulted as a result of CM being<br />
adopted on a limited basis. Although hard to quantify, savings of several<br />
million dollars can be claimed through prevention of diesel breakdowns<br />
alone.<br />
Hourly rounds are in fact one of<br />
the most basic forms of CM and<br />
all Technical personnel in the RAN<br />
conduct Condition Monitoring<br />
(CM) on an almost daily basis.<br />
The Fleet Condition Assessment<br />
Unit (FCAU) is charged with<br />
managing and promoting CM in<br />
the RAN, and FCAU staff are<br />
currently involved in managing Oil<br />
and Vibration analysis programs<br />
for the fleet. FCAU also manages<br />
the Diesel tune, and a growing<br />
collection of Non Destructive<br />
Testing equipment.<br />
Lubricating oil, diesel fuel and<br />
material samples from all HMA<br />
Ships are tested at OILCHECK<br />
Laboratory in Sydney. However,<br />
the bulk of the testing is<br />
conducted on lubricating oil<br />
samples. Oil sampling and<br />
testing has been around for many<br />
years and therefore the majority<br />
of technical personnel would be<br />
familiar with the ‘hassles of<br />
flashing up a particular machine,<br />
collecting an oil sample, packing<br />
this sample into a suitable<br />
container and then dispatching<br />
the sample to the laboratory.<br />
Eventually receiving a test report<br />
that now has the laboratory<br />
diagnosis, description of analysis<br />
procedures and trending graphs<br />
instead of a sample rating<br />
between one and five. FCAU are<br />
continuing to investigate and
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
59<br />
implement cost effective<br />
improvements in the analysis of<br />
lubricating oil which will have<br />
beneficial effects on the life<br />
support of all HMA Ships.<br />
What Is Spectrographic Analysis<br />
Spectrographic Analysis involves<br />
heating a small amount of used<br />
oil till all the oil is burnt off<br />
leaving only trace elements.<br />
These trace elements are then<br />
electronically analysed and<br />
converted to particles of metal in<br />
Parts per Million (PPM). By<br />
plotting these metal counts, a<br />
picture of the condition of each<br />
machine at the time of sampling<br />
can be generated and assessed,<br />
and changes in condition of the<br />
machine over time can be<br />
monitored.<br />
Samples from different machines<br />
are subjected to tests other than<br />
Spectrographic Analysis in an<br />
effort to target particular oil<br />
properties that are indicative of a<br />
multitude of defects that may be<br />
present yet can not be detected<br />
by other means. In isolation<br />
many of the test results have little<br />
meaning, however when the<br />
results are plotted on a chart and<br />
oil consumption is factored in,<br />
what at first appeared to be<br />
insignificant may in fact be a<br />
dramatically rising metal count.<br />
This is indicative of a serious<br />
internal problem that will cause<br />
failure of the machine if<br />
corrective action is not<br />
implemented.<br />
The standard test certificate<br />
currently issued by the RAN<br />
contracted laboratory is divided<br />
into four sections:<br />
• The first section contains data<br />
supplied by the ship. This data is<br />
essential to the efficient and<br />
effective management of the<br />
Spectrographic Oil Analysis<br />
Program (SOAP).<br />
• The second section contains<br />
information of the oil that has<br />
been tested, such as viscosity,<br />
water content and the like.<br />
• The third section contains the<br />
Soap data, which details the<br />
amount of various wear metals<br />
present in the oil. and<br />
• The final section is devoted to<br />
hydraulic oil cleanliness and<br />
contains information about the<br />
number of particles of impurities<br />
of different sizes in the oil.<br />
Limitations<br />
The main limitation encountered<br />
by any oil-testing program is<br />
whether the sample being tested<br />
is truly representative of the bulk<br />
of oil circulating in the lubrication<br />
system. Ideally each sample<br />
should be collected from the<br />
same place and under the same<br />
operating conditions so as to<br />
provide repeatability of results.<br />
Poor sampling is one of the<br />
practices that must be eliminated<br />
if accurate results and predictions<br />
are to result from judicious use of<br />
any oil analysis program.<br />
Another limitation to the SOAP is<br />
that a laboratory may only be<br />
able to measure particles, which<br />
are within the 10-micron range,<br />
although some machines in use<br />
in other laboratories can identify<br />
particles up to 40 micron in size.<br />
In any event, these particles are<br />
much smaller than the particles<br />
that would initially be produced<br />
by internal wear or damage. All<br />
mating surfaces that move in<br />
relation to each other produce<br />
wear debris, which is eventually<br />
carried away by the lubricating<br />
medium. In some instances this<br />
wear debris is relatively large and<br />
therefore would not be detected<br />
using Spectrographic Analysis<br />
until the debris has been ground<br />
down into smaller particles. The<br />
corollary of this is that if<br />
lubricating oil samples from a<br />
machine begin to show a rapid<br />
rise in wear metal content than<br />
major damage may already be<br />
occurring.<br />
It is worth noting that all<br />
machines wear and normal wear<br />
is well suited for Condition<br />
Monitoring using SOAP. A<br />
machine operating normally will<br />
exhibit gradual and steady trends<br />
that indicate continued normal<br />
operation over time. As<br />
tolerances between mating faces<br />
become excessive, the wear rate<br />
will increase and the<br />
Spectrographic Analysis results<br />
will indicate this increased wear<br />
trend. Similarly, new machinery<br />
will show high trends as it ‘beds
60 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
in’. The high rise to the classic<br />
bathtub graph, which many<br />
technical personnel are familiar<br />
with. The high initial wear rates<br />
eventually flattening out for most<br />
of the machines life, then rising<br />
again near the end of its life. It is<br />
when machinery begins to climb<br />
out of the bathtub that action<br />
should be initiated.<br />
Why Bother To Sample<br />
It is well known that many<br />
Engineering Personnel are<br />
unaware of the true condition of<br />
the lubricating oil in the<br />
machinery in their charge. In fact<br />
there is a litany of documented<br />
examples where personnel have<br />
in fact been provided with<br />
erroneous information by the<br />
portable oil test kits, which were<br />
in service prior to the Kittiwake<br />
Oil Test Kit. Those oil test kits<br />
were totally inadequate, and just<br />
one that supports this assertion<br />
is that between 1996 and the<br />
introduction of the Kittiwake, the<br />
laboratory testing had detected in<br />
excess of 80 lube oil samples<br />
that exhibited fuel dilution greater<br />
than the maximum permissible<br />
level of 5%. Experience has<br />
shown that when fuel dilution<br />
exceeds 5% there is an<br />
unacceptable level of risk of<br />
catastrophic failure as a result of<br />
oil thinning and crankcase<br />
explosion. Tests are conducted<br />
onboard on a daily and weekly<br />
basis in order to detect the<br />
presence of excessive fuel<br />
dilution. However, it was<br />
apparent that the old test kits<br />
were unable to accurately<br />
determine the degree of fuel<br />
dilution and providing ship’s staff<br />
with false confidence in their<br />
machinery. FCAU staff process all<br />
samples that are suspected to<br />
suffer from fuel dilution with the<br />
upmost priority.<br />
During this period the laboratory<br />
testing also detected 25<br />
incidents of lube oil having<br />
excessive sodium contamination.<br />
The presents of sodium indicates<br />
salt water leaking into the<br />
machinery via the seawater<br />
cooling system. At the moment<br />
laboratory testing is the only way<br />
to detect early sodium<br />
contamination of lubricating oils.<br />
Routine laboratory testing of oil<br />
samples has also revealed many<br />
other simple problems ranging<br />
from the wrong oil being used,<br />
oils being contaminated with<br />
water, oils with expired life and<br />
frequently hydraulic oil is found to<br />
be heavily contaminated with<br />
particle matter.<br />
SOAP<br />
Spectrographic Analysis of<br />
lubricating oil has been<br />
undertaken on much equipment<br />
in HMA Fleet since 1982. The<br />
RAN SOAP has been in existence<br />
since 1992 and has proven to be<br />
cost effective and now enables<br />
Engineers and shore support<br />
organisations to more effectively<br />
manage maintenance with the<br />
view to increasing machinery<br />
reliability. FCAU staff have used<br />
the SOAP to detect a wide variety<br />
of major and minor defects thus<br />
enabling repairs to be conducted<br />
in a planned manner. It is<br />
common knowledge that reactive<br />
maintenance is expensive and<br />
that proper planning cuts direct<br />
and indirect costs, however what<br />
is alarming is that figures from<br />
civilian industry indicate that<br />
60% of maintenance is<br />
unplanned.<br />
Whilst FCAU has achieved many<br />
successes and saved millions of<br />
dollars through a reduction in<br />
unplanned maintenance and<br />
improved machinery reliability, it<br />
is not suggested that the SOAP is<br />
the panacea for defects on HMA<br />
Ships. Unexpected failures<br />
continue to occur for several<br />
reasons, namely, a lack of<br />
samples, poor quality sampling<br />
and the time it takes between<br />
taking a sample and receiving the<br />
results from the laboratory.<br />
In summary, it is true to say that<br />
oil sampling can help ship’s staff<br />
and support agencies. Sampling<br />
may be an embuggerance;<br />
however, it is the only way to<br />
really determine the quality of<br />
your oil. With regular careful<br />
sampling there is the real<br />
potential to reduce unnecessary<br />
maintenance and reduce the<br />
ships workload. Ship’s staff are<br />
encouraged to sample at the<br />
prescribed time. Whilst it is<br />
accepted that the system may<br />
not be perfect, it is being<br />
improved and its ultimate aim is<br />
to eliminate unplanned failures<br />
and the headaches and cost<br />
penalties applied to rectifying<br />
those defects.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
61<br />
ANZAC Class System<br />
Program Office – Our<br />
Function<br />
BY LEUT GILES WILSON<br />
ANZAC SYSTEM PROGRAM<br />
OFFICE<br />
Introduction<br />
In January 2002, the ANZAC System Program Office (ANZ SPO) opened<br />
its doors in Rockingham, Western Australia. Previously, this office<br />
(formerly known as the ANZAC SMO) had been split between the east (in<br />
Williamstown, Victoria) and the west (in HMAS STIRLING, Western<br />
Australia). With the home porting of three ANZAC Class ships at Fleet<br />
Base West (FBW), the decision was made to consolidate the ANZ SPO in<br />
one location.<br />
The ANZ SPO is responsible for the<br />
delivery of integrated logistic<br />
support products and services that<br />
modify, maintain and control the<br />
Product Baseline (PBL) of each<br />
vessel and shore installation from<br />
ship delivery. This is achieved using<br />
commercial in-service support<br />
contracts and in-house <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Defence Force resources.<br />
The opportunity to shift from<br />
Melbourne was taken by only a<br />
select few incumbents; the<br />
remainder opted to remain in the<br />
home of <strong>Australian</strong> Football League<br />
and umbrellas. The vacated billets<br />
were filled by an assortment of<br />
personnel, primarily from Western<br />
Australia.<br />
The purpose-fitted building at<br />
Chalgrove Avenue now houses the<br />
majority of the logistic support and<br />
products to support and sustain the<br />
ANZAC Class capability for the ADF.<br />
The geographic span of the<br />
organisation is now Rockingham in<br />
the west and Melbourne with some<br />
residual business functions still in<br />
Canberra. The business functions<br />
will soon move west and will report<br />
to Director General Major Surface<br />
Ships (DGMSS) branch<br />
headquarters by exception, leaving<br />
the SPO relatively autonomous.<br />
Additionally, the ANZ SPO is opening<br />
a shopfront in Sydney and will be<br />
co-located with the FFG SPO to<br />
support the home basing of HMAS<br />
STUART to Fleet Base East (FBE).<br />
This group will expand as more<br />
ships are based at FBE.<br />
ANZAC System Program Office<br />
Director<br />
The Director (SPO-D) is currently<br />
CMDR Chris Eggleton. This position<br />
is the single point of accountability<br />
for the provision of the ANZAC Class<br />
Platform Engineering capability and<br />
integrity to the Capability Element<br />
Manager (CEM) and through<br />
Commander <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Surface Combatant Group to the<br />
Maritime Commander. This includes<br />
maintenance of the various<br />
baselines; any change to these<br />
baselines (including major projects),<br />
all Integrated Logistic Services<br />
deliverables (with the exception of<br />
training) and control of all the<br />
baselines including classification<br />
certificates. The position is rated as<br />
a <strong>Navy</strong> Captain / Executive Level 2<br />
level but is likely to revert to a<br />
civilian position as a result of the<br />
recent Defence Material<br />
Organisation review of service<br />
personnel.<br />
To facilitate the accountability<br />
accorded the position, the SPO-D<br />
exercises authority by being a<br />
member of several ANZAC Class<br />
and related project boards such as<br />
SEA 1348 phase II (the ANZAC Ship<br />
build project), the Evolved Sea<br />
Sparrow Missile (ESSM) project,<br />
Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD)<br />
project, Underwater and Surface<br />
Warfare Upgrade (USWUP) project<br />
and the ANZAC Alliance board. The<br />
total budget for these projects<br />
amounts to approximately $A 7<br />
billion, spread over several years.<br />
Unfortunately, most of the boards<br />
meet in Canberra, Melbourne or<br />
Sydney and not sequentially so if<br />
you enjoy air travel, the ANZ SPO-D<br />
is the job for you!<br />
System Program Office Sections<br />
The SPO itself is functionally broken<br />
into four major groups (SPOkes?).<br />
These are Sustainment, Business,<br />
Project Office and Generation. Each<br />
group is managed by a Commander<br />
or Executive Level 1 equivalent, with<br />
the exception of the build Project<br />
Office which has a project manager<br />
at Executive Level 2 level and the<br />
Generation group (now the ANZAC<br />
Alliance) which is managed by a<br />
board-appointed General Manager.<br />
Sustainment Manager (SS)<br />
Lieutenant Commander JASON<br />
Sears currently fills the SS position.<br />
This position manages the In-<br />
Service Support environment for
62 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
ANZAC Class ships under the<br />
direction of the SPO-D and in<br />
support of the ANZAC CEM. He also<br />
maintains and controls the ANZAC<br />
Class baseline and oversees the<br />
Sustainment Group.<br />
The Sustainment Group managers<br />
and staff are responsible for<br />
managing the operating budget of<br />
approximately $A 56 million/year<br />
and several In-Service Support<br />
(ISS) contracts for Engineering and<br />
database/Information Technology<br />
delivery. These contracts are each<br />
worth approximately $A 6 million<br />
per year and involve complex<br />
procurement and detailed contract<br />
management. Contracting Policy<br />
Organisation (CPO) and the<br />
financial sections of the Business<br />
Manager’s group support each<br />
manager in this task.<br />
Platform Systems Supportability<br />
Group (PSSG)<br />
The PSSG Manager is Lieutenant<br />
Commander Darryl Griffiths, former<br />
Deputy Marine Engineer Officer in<br />
HMAS ARUNTA (among other<br />
notable past achievements).<br />
Supporting the manager are<br />
Lieutenant Giles Wilson, Mr Chan<br />
Thong and Mr Stephen Goswell in<br />
the PSSG positions. They are<br />
responsible for the processing<br />
management of configuration<br />
changes in the<br />
Propulsion/Mechanical, Hull and<br />
Aviation/Electrical fields<br />
respectively. Also within the group<br />
are Chief Petty Officer Stu Hassard<br />
and Leading Seaman Dave Randall,<br />
along with Leading Seaman Steve<br />
Tomlinson.<br />
All uniformed personnel having<br />
recent ANZAC experience has<br />
proven invaluable in clearing a<br />
backlog of outstanding<br />
documentation and reports (CCPs,<br />
DMDRs, PMDPs and SPRs) which<br />
had stalled within the process.<br />
Combat Systems Supportability<br />
Group (CSSG)<br />
Lieutenant Phil Merrifield currently<br />
heads the CSSG and filling the<br />
group positions are Lieutenant Mark<br />
Bailey, Lieutenant Steve Wells<br />
(RNZN) and supported by Chief<br />
Petty Officer Phil Springer. All these<br />
staff members have found their<br />
understanding of a typical greenie’s<br />
life (namely kips, brew drinking and<br />
video watching) to be quite different<br />
since joining the ANZ SPO.<br />
SPO Operations Group (SPO<br />
OPS)<br />
The SPO OPS currently consists of<br />
Lieutenant Vicki Speedy (OPS<br />
Manager), Lieutenant Ken Ferguson<br />
(Maintenance Manager), Chief<br />
Petty Officer John Nikiforos (ex-<br />
ARUNTA and soon to join HMAS<br />
ANZAC), Chief Petty Officer Dave<br />
Turville, Chief Petty Officer Leigh<br />
Davis (Warramunga Maintenance<br />
Manager) and Leading Seaman<br />
Michael Brennan (Maintenance<br />
Planning). The Operations Group is<br />
responsible for Urgent Defects<br />
(URDEF) rectification and<br />
availability planning and in<br />
conjunction with the In Service<br />
Support Contractors solve all the<br />
planned and corrective<br />
maintenance problems. This is the<br />
face of the SPO to most ship’s<br />
companies and in concert with the<br />
SRCO provides the first point of<br />
contact for any support issues.<br />
SPO Support<br />
In-Service Support Contractors<br />
Contractors (Tenix ISS and SAAB<br />
Systems) are also located within<br />
the same building (in some cases,<br />
at adjacent desks!) which permits<br />
rapid problem resolution. These<br />
contractors are still responsible for<br />
small change (care of the SPO<br />
PSSG) configurations. Larger,<br />
whole-ship configuration changes<br />
are now managed by the ANZAC<br />
Alliance.<br />
Information Technology Support<br />
CSC who is also located within the<br />
building provides computer<br />
support. Lieutenant Phil<br />
Smithdale and Ms Melissa Randle<br />
are AMPS Manager and assistant<br />
Configuration Data Manager<br />
respectively.<br />
Inventory Support<br />
The further development and<br />
implementation of the Class<br />
Logistics Management concept<br />
for ANZAC Ships, coupled with reorganisation<br />
of both the Defence<br />
Logistics Support function<br />
(through LSA-N for ANZAC Ships)<br />
and the creation of the Defence<br />
Materiel Organisation, has seen<br />
the emergence of a need to<br />
provide an independent,<br />
centralised ANZAC Class focus for<br />
related Logistics Supply Support<br />
and Inventory Management<br />
issues. This situation has been<br />
accentuated with the reduction or<br />
withdrawal of previous levels of<br />
support in these critical areas<br />
from other Defence functional<br />
areas.<br />
The Inventory Support Group is<br />
primarily management focussed,<br />
with contracting and partnering<br />
reliance on commercial and<br />
Defence entities for execution of<br />
inventory related tasks. This has<br />
been a full time task and in<br />
concert with the logistics partners<br />
the SPO is addressing the current<br />
logistic shortfalls as a result of<br />
increased operational tempo and<br />
equipment usage.<br />
Contracting Maritime Systems<br />
West (CON(MS)W)<br />
The role of CON(MS)W advisers is<br />
to provide policy advice and<br />
assistance on contract related<br />
procurement matters for the ANZ<br />
SPO. These contract advisers<br />
provide support to the ANZ PSO<br />
on:<br />
• procurement and liability<br />
submissions;<br />
• correspondence /issues that<br />
impact on existing contracts;<br />
• matters relating to Contract<br />
Management;<br />
• Contract Amendments /Contract<br />
Change Proposals; and<br />
• Legal advice where required.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
63<br />
Materiel Support Evaluation (MSE)<br />
Achievement of RAN operational<br />
preparedness capability objectives<br />
depends significantly on the<br />
Reliability, Availability,<br />
Maintainability and Sustainability<br />
(RAMS) of RAN platforms. The<br />
MSE Cell supports (through<br />
recommendations or reporting) the<br />
Combat and Platform System<br />
effectiveness, so that the<br />
operational mission requirements<br />
of the Fleet Activity Schedule (FAS)<br />
can be achieved. It is a primary<br />
tool of the ANZ SPO Performance<br />
Measurement Plan and through its<br />
functions of collecting, filtering,<br />
reporting and analysing data,<br />
enables better appreciation of<br />
asset performance and provides<br />
informative data to assist decision<br />
making. MSE provides:<br />
• Recommendations of where<br />
resources should be targeted to<br />
gain the greatest improvement in<br />
system RAMS.<br />
• Shortfall summaries between<br />
projected system availabilities and<br />
FAS requirements. Ramifications,<br />
in terms of equipment cost and<br />
availability, for short notice FAS<br />
variations.<br />
• Class wide comparison of defects,<br />
systems, maintenance and<br />
allowances.<br />
• A cost analysis and periodic<br />
reporting function.<br />
• Proposals to improve routine<br />
maintenance schedules.<br />
The MSE program enables<br />
managers at Class or Ship level<br />
to further investigate<br />
discrepancies identified in Key<br />
Performance Indicators (KPI)<br />
Performance Reports. Using<br />
efficient data management and<br />
streamlined collection<br />
procedures, MSE enables a “drilldown”<br />
function to investigate<br />
areas of pin pointed concern. For<br />
example, an unacceptable<br />
number of URDEFs for a<br />
particular system identified in KPI<br />
Report data instigates a detailed<br />
analysis of system equipment.<br />
Using an MSE interface, the<br />
equipment’s performance might<br />
be found to be historically<br />
deficient when operating under<br />
conditions similar to those<br />
experienced just prior to the<br />
failure. Calculation of historical<br />
component reliability, together<br />
with correlation against the Ship<br />
FAS/FXP, could lead to<br />
identification of crucial<br />
operational parameters<br />
influencing equipment failure.<br />
From this, the MSE may<br />
recommend changes regarding<br />
stock levels, optimal equipment<br />
work cycles, highlighting top 10<br />
system failures, reducing logistic<br />
delays, and any actions required<br />
to prevent capability loss in the<br />
future.<br />
The ANZ SPO Performance<br />
Measurement Program (PMP)<br />
measures the effectiveness and<br />
efficiency of in-service support<br />
processes and outputs in support<br />
of the overall military objective.<br />
PMP aims to:<br />
• Produce information to support<br />
ANZ SPO management decisions<br />
and resource allocation.<br />
• Support the performance<br />
measurement requirements of the<br />
DMO.<br />
• Support assessment of ISS<br />
Contractor performance.<br />
• Provide input data to the ANZ SPO<br />
process improvement process, and<br />
• Produce input for ANZAC Class<br />
systems performance and<br />
improvement activities.<br />
The Performance Manager (a<br />
Lieutenant Commander billet) is<br />
responsible for Whole Ship<br />
Management and Performance<br />
Measurement. The PM is in<br />
charge of the Performance<br />
Measurement Section and acts as<br />
the Deputy ANZ SPO Sustainment<br />
Manager on occasions as<br />
appropriate.<br />
The Assistant Performance<br />
Manager is responsible for the<br />
complete ANZ SPO Performance<br />
Measurement activities, which<br />
include the development of Key<br />
Performance Indicators (KPIs),<br />
data collection, reduction,<br />
analysis, and report production.<br />
This involves analysis of the<br />
systems engineering, maintenance<br />
engineering, configuration<br />
management, inventory support<br />
and budget performance outputs<br />
so that management decisions<br />
can be made to improve<br />
supportability to the ANZAC ships.<br />
Conclusion<br />
As you can see the ANZAC SPO<br />
(and co located CEM) is a vibrant,<br />
busy and fascinating place to<br />
work. It has sufficient<br />
infrastructure and positions to<br />
provide <strong>Navy</strong> personnel with<br />
continuity of posting to WA,<br />
maintenance and development of<br />
specialist skills of both a technical<br />
and business nature and most<br />
importantly a chance to improve<br />
the support and the ship that we<br />
serve in. The move to WA has<br />
provided a recent injection of fresh<br />
blood and this coupled with strong<br />
partnerships with contractors and<br />
a clear direction, the ANZ SPO is<br />
well placed to provide engineering,<br />
logistic and maintenance support<br />
for all the ANZAC Ships.
64 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY MR MATEJA PETRU<br />
DIRECTORATE OF NAVAL<br />
ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND<br />
RADAR SYSTEMS<br />
The Warrlock DF<br />
calibration<br />
Warrlock started life as a RAN Tactical Electronic Warfare Support Section<br />
requirement to provide basic communications intercept and DF capability.<br />
The development languished and the associated bad press brought the<br />
projects in to question but with HMAS GAWLER’s calibration the last<br />
seemingly insurmountable hurdle of system calibration has been<br />
resolved.<br />
Warrlock started life as a RAN<br />
Tactical Electronic Warfare Support<br />
Section requirement to provide<br />
basic communications intercept<br />
and DF capability. The development<br />
languished and the associated bad<br />
press brought the projects into<br />
question but with HMAS GAWLER’s<br />
calibration the last seemingly<br />
insurmountable hurdle of system<br />
calibration has been resolved.<br />
From 8th to 16th of April 2002,<br />
Directorate of Naval Electronic<br />
Warfare and RADAR Systems<br />
(DNEWRS), a subsection of<br />
Directorate of <strong>Navy</strong> Command,<br />
Control, Communications,<br />
Computers, Intelligence,<br />
Surveillance, Reconnaissance and<br />
Electronic Warfare, successfully<br />
carried out a Warrlock DF system<br />
calibration trials on board GAWLER,<br />
which was immediately followed by<br />
an OPEVAL.<br />
The Warrlock is fitted to FCPB’s and<br />
HMAS WESTRALIA and HMAS<br />
NEWCASTLE has a temporary fit. In<br />
the near future the original<br />
requirement will be re-validated and<br />
it is anticipated major fleet units will<br />
be fitted with Warrlocks to fulfil the<br />
role of SAR DF and basic<br />
communications intercept and DF.<br />
The Problems<br />
Warrlock system performance was<br />
repeatedly called into question as<br />
anecdotal and some empirical<br />
evidence indicated that the system<br />
bearing accuracy was better with<br />
the calibration table turned off<br />
rather than on. This assertion could<br />
not be clarified, as the data<br />
collected by the Calibration System<br />
was inconclusive. In a nutshell we<br />
had two systems that generated<br />
inconclusive data.<br />
When in doubt go back to basics.<br />
Generally if the fundamental<br />
principles are sound then the<br />
problem can be resolved. Initially<br />
the Warrlock and the Calibration<br />
Systems were developed by CEA<br />
Technologies and both systems<br />
have substantial software<br />
components. These systems used<br />
an optical tracker to determine<br />
bearings of the calibration source<br />
and in an effort to resolve some of<br />
the shortcomings the<br />
Commonwealth contracted CMG IT<br />
Support to re-develop the<br />
Calibration System software.<br />
Further, the problems were<br />
compounded by staff turnover<br />
within CEA, CMG and the<br />
Commonwealth.<br />
The crucial realisation was that the<br />
Warrlock and the Calibration<br />
System could be contributing to the<br />
confusion and CEA Technologies<br />
and CMG IT Support staff were<br />
interviewed individually with a view<br />
to revisit the basics and re-examine<br />
the mathematical basis of both<br />
systems. During this process the<br />
anecdotal evidence was examined<br />
and each myth was either explained<br />
or determined that further<br />
investigation was warranted.<br />
The first penny dropped<br />
This interview process revealed that<br />
the Calibration System Software<br />
(CSS) applied data filters to bearing<br />
cuts and the criteria of filter<br />
application was not clearly<br />
understood. Principally the filters<br />
discarded low confidence data and<br />
that is why the calibration results<br />
looked so poor. The objective then<br />
became to ensure the data integrity.<br />
These filters were justifiably<br />
introduced in the initial stages of<br />
Calibration System development to<br />
limit storage requirements in the<br />
laptop that was used as the data<br />
collection system. A second laptop<br />
was used to control the transmitter<br />
site. The decision was made to<br />
disable the data filters within the<br />
Calibration System and test the<br />
Warrlock / Calibration System at<br />
CEA Technologies.<br />
The test set up consisted of an<br />
antenna rotator mounted on the<br />
CEA roof and the use of a YAGI<br />
broad band antenna vertically<br />
polarised to illuminate the Warrlock<br />
V/UHF array mounted on the<br />
rotator. The YAGI and antenna<br />
rotator was borrowed from<br />
RANTEWS. Although this<br />
arrangement had severe RF<br />
propagation limitations due to<br />
proximity of metal sheds and<br />
cyclone wire fences, it was possible<br />
to collect valid data on a hand full<br />
of V/UHF frequencies. This process<br />
demonstrated that we should test<br />
the systems on the open field at<br />
Jervis Bay Range Facility JBRF.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
65<br />
The first land trial at JBRF<br />
Two transportable shelters and two<br />
diesel generators were set up at<br />
opposite ends of the Northerly<br />
runway at JBRF separated by<br />
500m. Antenna rotator and<br />
Warrlock V/UHF array shown at<br />
(Plate 1) and transmitter site at<br />
(Plate 2). The objective was to<br />
check the Warrlock/Calibration<br />
System performance in an<br />
environment free of interference and<br />
parasitic effects of the CEA<br />
Technologies’ industrial location.<br />
(Plate 1. - Warrlock V/UHF array<br />
fitted to antenna rotator on top of<br />
shelter)<br />
(Plate 2 - Calibration system<br />
transmitter site with YAGI)<br />
The second penny dropped<br />
At this stage two fault mechanisms<br />
were discovered in the Warrlock<br />
system:<br />
• Fault 1: Interpolation error in the<br />
calibration table.<br />
• Fault 2: Calibration table boundary<br />
crossover error.<br />
Furthermore as the Calibration<br />
System Software had the data<br />
filters disabled this allowed all<br />
data to be collected and allowed<br />
the error mechanisms to be<br />
examined and a more appropriate<br />
data filtering strategy to be<br />
developed. Currently the<br />
Calibration System has new<br />
laptops that allow substantial<br />
data storage. Furthermore the<br />
current method of data<br />
processing is to collect all data,<br />
apply automatic filters that<br />
designate potential bad data and<br />
allows for human intervention.<br />
This allowed optimisation of data<br />
and reduces the volume of data<br />
that is thrown away as bad data<br />
points.<br />
The third penny resounded<br />
From evidence at previous trials<br />
the FURUNO DGPS system part of<br />
the Calibration System on<br />
occasion dropped out. This was<br />
not surprising as the DGPS error<br />
RF telemetry link was based on<br />
commercial channel allocation<br />
and any TAXI that may transmit in<br />
the vicinity would cause cochannel<br />
interference corrupting<br />
the DGPS error data. An<br />
examination of the GPS error<br />
budget revealed that commercial<br />
AMSA DGPS/GPS was sufficiently<br />
accurate. This indicated<br />
calibration techniques using either<br />
fixed or mobile transmitter site at<br />
close or extreme range were<br />
sufficiently robust to allow us to<br />
discard the FURUNO DGPS and<br />
RF telemetry link used in previous<br />
calibration trials.<br />
We now started spending real<br />
money<br />
The following modifications were<br />
carried out to the Calibration<br />
System:<br />
• A $1,500.00 commercial AMSA<br />
compliant DGPS (see<br />
www.amsa.gov.au/dgps)<br />
instrument was used. This<br />
accessed the DGPS error signal in<br />
the vicinity of 300kHz and<br />
discarded the necessity for the<br />
Calibration System to run a local<br />
DGPS base station. The AMSA<br />
signal is good for 300-km radius,<br />
from an AMSA DGPS transmitter<br />
sites with a five-metre error.<br />
• The Calibration System Software<br />
was substantially redeveloped to<br />
take advantage of AMSA<br />
DGPS/GPS and allow the<br />
replacement of obsolete laptops<br />
used for data collection and<br />
control.<br />
• The filtering and post processing<br />
was redeveloped very rapidly in<br />
MATLAB, furthermore it was<br />
decided to have the post<br />
processing done on another lap<br />
top during the sea trials so as to<br />
allow data collection and<br />
processing in parallel.<br />
Proof of the pudding is in the<br />
eating<br />
Second sets of bench tests were<br />
conducted at CEA using the<br />
antenna rotator set up. This<br />
allowed full exercise of the new<br />
software and many bugs were<br />
culled out from the Calibration<br />
System. A second trial was<br />
completed successfully at JBRF to<br />
ensure a high degree of<br />
confidence in the software and<br />
calibration technique including<br />
the use of AMSA DGPS. Each<br />
stage of testing brought us closer<br />
to the actual sea trial conducted<br />
on board HMAS Warrnambool<br />
with the limitation of an<br />
inadequate HF capability. This trial<br />
did prove the techniques of<br />
extreme range 5 to 7 km<br />
calibrations and that a good HF<br />
antenna was required.<br />
After Warrnambool’s trial<br />
additional equipment was<br />
acquired. An EMI/EMC enclosure<br />
(Plate 3) designed by AEA Labs<br />
Maribyrnong built by RFI<br />
industries and tested by AEA. The<br />
enclosure was essential to protect<br />
the transmitter site from selfinterference.<br />
A broad band folded<br />
monopole HF antenna and a<br />
broad band YAGI (Plate 4) were<br />
used to overcome propagation<br />
difficulties that dogged the earlier<br />
version of the calibration system.
66 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
(Plate 3 - Calibration System<br />
EMI/EMC enclosure and amplifiers)<br />
(Plate 4 - HF antenna broad band<br />
folded monopole and broad band<br />
YAGI)<br />
HMAS Gawler completed<br />
successful Warrlock calibration<br />
sea trials using the redesigned<br />
calibration system and excellent<br />
results were achieved well within<br />
Warrlock specified requirements.<br />
Calibration trial observations<br />
In general the DF system<br />
performance is very much<br />
dependent on the maintenance<br />
of quality signal paths within the<br />
ships installation. System<br />
degradation results from<br />
corrosion in the cables or<br />
connectors and the state of RF<br />
cleanliness of the vessel. Care<br />
must be exercised to minimise<br />
parasitic re-radiators such as<br />
hydraulic cranes on patrol boats<br />
that represent a substantial<br />
RADHAZ as well as a mechanism<br />
that contributes to bearing error<br />
problems. The rubber hoses on<br />
cranes are reinforced with steel<br />
wire, wire that is insulated due to<br />
the rubber from the rest of the<br />
ship and acts as an antenna.<br />
When acquiring DF systems it is<br />
important to understand that<br />
bearing accuracy is quoted based<br />
on antenna range tests. Once the<br />
equipment is fitted on to a ship,<br />
performance can be seriously<br />
compromised depending on the<br />
DF antenna selection, siting and<br />
ships structure.<br />
Possible future options<br />
The current calibration system<br />
relies on large signal strength to<br />
achieve synchronisation between<br />
Calibration System transmitter<br />
and DF bearing collection<br />
software CSS. This is a hangover<br />
from earlier design compromises,<br />
and forces us to use high power<br />
RF amplifiers. A better technique<br />
would be to use GPS pulse per<br />
second clocks to achieve<br />
synchronisation between<br />
Calibration System transmitter<br />
and DF collector laptop CSS.<br />
A further refinement is possible<br />
by using a telemetry link to<br />
control the transmitter site and<br />
retransmit segments of the<br />
calibration sequence to fill bad or<br />
missing data. The vessel would be<br />
free to manoeuvre as necessary<br />
rather than be restricted to a<br />
circular track as is currently the<br />
case.<br />
Ultimately future DF systems will<br />
require calibration software and<br />
infrastructure to be part of the DF<br />
system. Telemetry, timing;<br />
automated calibration table<br />
generation is all possible and<br />
making the calibration process<br />
transparent and independent of<br />
ship activities. This would raise<br />
the level of DF system<br />
effectiveness through maintaining<br />
calibration.<br />
Roll the credits<br />
Commanding Officers LCDR Mike<br />
Stow and LCDR Chris Tziolis<br />
(WARRNAMBOOL and GAWLER<br />
respectively) and their crew of<br />
cheerful steerage.<br />
Andrew Christensen’s<br />
(COMAUSNAVPBGRP POCIS) for<br />
the marathon run.<br />
Mr Nev Funnell (RANTEWS) for<br />
articulates support.<br />
Mr Geoff Molloy (NEWRS) for a<br />
sterling effort in plugging holes<br />
where needed.<br />
Mr Ashley Bocking (Land<br />
Engineering Agency) for an<br />
excellent effort and sound advice<br />
on EMI/EMC problems<br />
encountered. A solution that<br />
works first time is a wondrous<br />
sight.<br />
Messrs Mathew Boorman’s<br />
insightful observations, Kevin<br />
Townson’s scientific integrity and<br />
Stuart Williams’ effortless<br />
management. (CMG IT Services<br />
Pty Ltd)<br />
Mr Derek Forster’s resoundingly<br />
good advice and long-suffering (it<br />
is finally over), Mr David<br />
Burgemeister’s excellent mast<br />
work on GAWLER. (CEA<br />
Technologies Pty Ltd)<br />
Squadron Leader Mick Doerfling’s<br />
(Navigation Warfare System<br />
Program Office) and Mr Craig<br />
Benson’s (Sigma Bravo Pty Ltd)<br />
practical mathematics and sound<br />
advice on GPS systems.<br />
Mr Dave Richards’ and Ms Joyce<br />
Taylor’s (DMCP-N) in the thick of<br />
it.<br />
LEUT Colin Cornwell (RANTEAA)<br />
for keeping a critical eye on<br />
proceedings.<br />
About the author In May 1982, Mr Mateja<br />
Petru joined the <strong>Australian</strong> Public Service<br />
at Williamstown Naval Dockyard as a<br />
graduate engineer from the then Caulfield<br />
Institute of Technology and on joining<br />
DNWD in 1984 he expanded his<br />
experience in EW. From 1986 to 1994<br />
Mateja took on the Systems Engineer task<br />
in SONAR and Electro Optics system<br />
development.<br />
He left DoD in March 1994 to pursue a<br />
private business venture in the electronicsmanufacturing<br />
sector but in 1999 returned<br />
to DNSIS which became the Naval<br />
Electronic Warfare and RADAR Systems<br />
(NEWRS) section
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
67<br />
Development of a Combat<br />
System Requirements Set<br />
BY LCDR NIGEL SMITH<br />
DIRECTOR NAVY WEAPONS<br />
SYSTEMS<br />
Introduction<br />
The Directorate of <strong>Navy</strong> Weapon Systems (DNWS) has undertaken a task<br />
to lead the development of a Combat System Requirement Set (CSRS)<br />
as part of the RAN Materiel Requirements Set. This requirement set seeks<br />
to address generic non-capability requirements to be considered when<br />
acquiring new weapon and combat systems. The requirements set is to<br />
be used as the basis for development into specific project materiel<br />
requirement documents and specifications, in conjunction with capability<br />
requirements derived from the operational concept document. The<br />
objective is to have a comprehensive, generic non-capability requirement<br />
set for use by the Air Warfare Destroyer Project, and other major projects,<br />
by the end of 2002.<br />
This article aims to generate<br />
discussion on the development of<br />
combat system standards and<br />
requirements. We would also like<br />
to flush out any stakeholders or<br />
subject matter expertise that we<br />
have not yet identified.<br />
Requirement for a CSRS<br />
DI (N) LOG 47-3 (Technical<br />
Regulation of <strong>Navy</strong> Materiel)<br />
defines the requirement for RAN<br />
Materiel Standards:<br />
• “The technical regulatory system<br />
aims to ensure that RAN vessels<br />
are designed, constructed and<br />
maintained throughout the entire<br />
life cycle to standards that reflect<br />
international civilian and military<br />
practice and the specific<br />
requirements of the RAN.”<br />
• “The Chief Naval Engineer, …, is<br />
to develop and maintain a set of<br />
RAN materiel standards that<br />
document all the technical<br />
attributes required of vessels,<br />
systems and equipment in RAN<br />
service. RAN Materiel standards<br />
are generic, in that they are<br />
intended as the starting point<br />
from which all design and<br />
construction requirements and<br />
specifications for RAN vessels are<br />
adopted.”<br />
In other words, the safety,<br />
environmental compliance and<br />
suitability for service of RAN<br />
systems is dependent on those<br />
systems being built to approved<br />
standards or requirements. (see<br />
CMDR Horsnell’s article on<br />
Technical Regulation – this is the<br />
“approved standard” he is talking<br />
about) Having materiel standards<br />
gives a basis for comparing<br />
various designs, and provides a<br />
baseline against which designs<br />
are certified. This is not to say<br />
that they need to be hard and<br />
fast, inflexible statements that<br />
stifle innovation or tie us to old<br />
technology. With some thought it<br />
is possible to deliver a standard<br />
that delivers compatibility,<br />
interoperability and the<br />
successful integration of the<br />
application functions of a combat<br />
system, without specifying the<br />
equipment or solution.<br />
What is a Combat System?<br />
“In this context a Combat System<br />
is the composite of those<br />
systems of the ship and its<br />
personnel which control,<br />
coordinate and carry out the<br />
warfare mission capabilities of<br />
the ship.” ANEP-32A<br />
This question could keep<br />
discussion going for days at a<br />
WEEOs reunion, I’m sure. A model<br />
for development of the<br />
requirement set has been based<br />
on the NATO publication ANEP-32<br />
Combat System Reference Model<br />
for Open Shipboard Combat<br />
System. The model is used to<br />
identify areas for improving<br />
standards, and to provide a<br />
common reference for<br />
maintaining consistency of<br />
related standards. It provides the<br />
conceptual framework to be<br />
referenced by those standards<br />
and allows work to proceed<br />
productively and independently<br />
on the development of standards<br />
for the areas that are identified<br />
by the model.<br />
The ANEP-32A model identifies<br />
various elements of a combat<br />
system based on the major<br />
warfare areas (Air, Surface and<br />
Underwater), and three functional<br />
areas (Detect, Control and<br />
Engage). A Command function<br />
overlays the warfare areas. A<br />
Support element is added to
68 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
include functions such as<br />
communications, training and<br />
navigation (see Figure 1).<br />
Figure 1.<br />
Aim of the Combat System<br />
Requirements Set<br />
The CSRS will capture generic,<br />
non-capability technical<br />
requirements for RAN combat<br />
systems. The requirements will<br />
not be specific to any one<br />
particular system, equipment or<br />
platform. The requirements set<br />
will be used with operational<br />
concept documents to form the<br />
basis of project specific<br />
functional baseline specifications.<br />
The Combat System<br />
Requirements Set will not define<br />
capability or performance. Rather,<br />
it will define the constraints on<br />
how that capability or<br />
performance is achieved. For<br />
example, if the capability<br />
requirements dictate the need for<br />
a gun, a number of technical<br />
constraints on the design need to<br />
be considered. A constraint may<br />
be the requirement to have a<br />
magazine to store the<br />
ammunition. That magazine must<br />
be designed to meet certain<br />
rules. Another constraint is safety<br />
of personnel and equipment, and<br />
therefore a requirement for Safe<br />
to Fire Zones. The gun must be<br />
able to be aligned with the fire<br />
control system, and so on.<br />
The requirement set will also<br />
specify how performance and<br />
capability requirements should be<br />
stated, and provide some<br />
guidance on how performance<br />
should be tested. This may be<br />
achieved by identifying models or<br />
methods to be considered in<br />
defining our capability<br />
requirements. A number of NATO<br />
models for combat system<br />
architecture and interfaces are<br />
being reviewed.<br />
CSRS Model<br />
Figure 2 shows the model that<br />
has been adopted for<br />
development of specific<br />
standards or requirements. It is<br />
important to remember that this<br />
model is part of the RAN Materiel<br />
Requirements Set, which includes<br />
Whole Ship requirements such as<br />
RADHAZ, EMI/EMC, Shock and<br />
Vibration etc. The Combat System<br />
section aims to capture only<br />
those requirements that are<br />
specific to a combat system. It<br />
will, however, need to reference to<br />
whole ship requirements and hull,<br />
electrical and mechanical<br />
requirements, as all systems in a<br />
ship are inter-related.<br />
This model has been adopted for<br />
development purposes. It may<br />
well eventuate that some areas<br />
are not needed, or that other<br />
areas need to be defined.<br />
Requirements will be grouped<br />
into the functional areas defined<br />
in the ANEP-32 Model<br />
(Command, Detect, Control,<br />
Engage and Support). This should<br />
allow requirements to focus on<br />
generic combat system functions,<br />
rather than specific equipment. A<br />
Common Requirements section<br />
has been added to capture those<br />
requirements common to all<br />
Combat System functions.<br />
Common Requirements:<br />
Includes requirements common<br />
to all components of a combat<br />
system as a whole. Areas to be<br />
covered include:<br />
• Safety<br />
• Security<br />
• Human Machine Interface<br />
• Interoperability<br />
• Interface/Architecture<br />
• System Status Monitoring<br />
• Operational Context<br />
• System Performance Analysis<br />
• Modelling & Evaluation and<br />
Testing<br />
• Combat System Alignment<br />
COMMAND: Requirements that<br />
relate to the command subsystem.<br />
The purpose of a<br />
command sub-system is to<br />
coordinate actions in all warfare<br />
areas in order to make the most<br />
effective use of available<br />
capabilities, when carrying out<br />
the mission of the ship. Elements<br />
may include tactical picture<br />
compiler, tactical display system,<br />
mission planning system, system<br />
doctrine module and large screen<br />
projection devices.<br />
DETECT:The purpose of a Detect<br />
system is to compile a tactical<br />
picture of the environment in<br />
which the ship is operating, by<br />
generating tracks of detected<br />
contacts for the corresponding<br />
warfare area.<br />
CONTROL: The purpose of a<br />
Control System is to coordinate<br />
and control the activities within<br />
the warfare area. Functions may<br />
include; interpret command<br />
directives, perform Threat<br />
Evaluation, determine target<br />
allocation and weapon<br />
assignment, build a tactical<br />
picture for the warfare area,<br />
manage sensor and weapon
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
69<br />
activities, perform kill<br />
assessment.<br />
ENGAGE: The purpose of an<br />
Engage System is to operate the<br />
weapons that are allocated to the<br />
warfare area. This section will also<br />
include magazine and explosive<br />
ordnance requirements.<br />
SUPPORT: Includes requirements<br />
for systems that provide services<br />
that are common to two or more<br />
warfare areas. Although not<br />
associated with warfare areas,<br />
these services are necessary for<br />
the performance of the main<br />
Warfare Area activities. Support<br />
systems include navigation,<br />
communication and training<br />
systems.<br />
Figure 3 shows a Combat System<br />
Overview, taken from the FFGUP<br />
Operational Concept Document,<br />
with the ANEP-32 Functional<br />
areas overlayed.<br />
Development Philosophy<br />
Considerable work has been<br />
devoted to identifying existing<br />
standards. A number of<br />
standards, both <strong>Australian</strong> and<br />
international, exist which cover<br />
various elements of the CSRS<br />
model shown above. These<br />
standards, together with existing<br />
RAN standards, are forming the<br />
basis of a review of the combat<br />
system materiel requirements.<br />
Primarily DNWS and DNC4ISREW<br />
are performing this work.<br />
The CSRS will be needed for use<br />
by major projects such as the Air<br />
Warfare Destroyer by the end of<br />
this year. Because the<br />
development of materiel<br />
standards is an evolutionary task<br />
it is unlikely that a final<br />
comprehensive requirements set<br />
will be available by then. The plan<br />
is to develop the requirements<br />
set in a number of iterations. The<br />
first draft will be compiled at the<br />
end of July, for review by a<br />
standards review board. It will<br />
include existing standards and<br />
identify areas requiring further<br />
development with headings and<br />
sponsors. As the document<br />
matures these sections will be<br />
added in.<br />
A number of organisations<br />
external to <strong>Navy</strong> Systems Branch<br />
are assisting in development of<br />
the standard set. In particular the<br />
results of DSTO studies<br />
commissioned for the AWD<br />
Project will be used in preparing<br />
generic non-capability<br />
requirements.<br />
Conclusion<br />
In summary, the Combat System<br />
Requirements Set aims to identify<br />
two key areas: 1. Non-capability,<br />
generic materiel standards (eg.<br />
Safety standards), and 2.<br />
Standard definitions of function<br />
and performance.<br />
Existing RAN and International<br />
standards and combat system<br />
models are being reviewed for<br />
suitability, and where necessary<br />
new standards will be developed.<br />
The success of the development<br />
effort depends on constructive<br />
feedback from stakeholders. This<br />
will be achieved formally through<br />
a Standards Review Board.<br />
Notwithstanding, informal<br />
feedback is most welcome. If you<br />
have comments or would like<br />
more information on a particular<br />
aspect please call either Mr John<br />
Runge, 02 6266 3205 e-mail<br />
john.runge@cbr.defence.gov.au, or<br />
Mr Ben Nolan, 02 6266 2569 e-<br />
mail<br />
benjamin.nolan@cbr.defence.gov.<br />
au.
70 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY LEUT DUANE UNWIN<br />
TA-AVN<br />
Technical<br />
Supervision –<br />
The Naval Aviation<br />
Perspective<br />
Quite often the question is asked (particularly at Airworthiness boards<br />
and other forums!) on how Naval Aviation technicians are trained to<br />
become “supervisors”. The term “supervisor” can have several<br />
applications and varying responsibilities depending on the situation.<br />
When things sometimes don’t go quite to plan one of the first questions<br />
inevitably asked by senior management is “who was supervising?” This<br />
article seeks to provide some answers to how Naval Aviation prepares our<br />
Technicians to become supervisors.<br />
Quite often the question is asked<br />
(particularly at Airworthiness<br />
boards and other forums!) on<br />
how Naval Aviation technicians<br />
are trained to become<br />
“supervisors”. The term<br />
“supervisor” can have several<br />
applications and varying<br />
responsibilities depending on the<br />
situation. When things sometimes<br />
don’t go quite to plan one of the<br />
first questions inevitably asked by<br />
senior management is “who was<br />
supervising?” This article seeks<br />
to provide some answers to how<br />
Naval Aviation prepares our<br />
Technicians to become<br />
supervisors.<br />
Outline<br />
In basic terms the Naval Aviation<br />
Technician Training System in<br />
blocked into 3 broad elements-<br />
• ITT (Initial Technical Trainingconducted<br />
at RAAFSTT Wagga)<br />
• Type Specific (ie<br />
Seahawk/Seaking/Squirrel/Seas<br />
prite-conducted at TA-AVN)<br />
• ATT (Advanced Technical Trainingconducted<br />
at RMIT & TA-AVN)<br />
coupled with Leadership &<br />
Management Training normally at<br />
Training Centre East.<br />
ITT & Type Specific<br />
ITT and Type Specific training<br />
enables <strong>Navy</strong> to develop<br />
competent<br />
tradespersons/technicians<br />
(Able Seaman) whom carry out<br />
the bulk of autonomous hands<br />
on maintenance on specific<br />
aircraft types. Training at RAAF<br />
Wagga comprises about 2300<br />
hours over 18 months and on<br />
completion of the associated<br />
Competency Journal a<br />
nationally recognised Aircraft<br />
Maintenance Engineer<br />
certificate (AQF Level 4) is<br />
awarded. Following arrival at TA-<br />
AVN trainees complete Basic<br />
Ordnance and Administration<br />
courses as well as an<br />
Equipment Application Course<br />
(EAC) to enable transfer of<br />
theoretical aircraft system<br />
knowledge gained at Wagga to<br />
be applied to current RAN<br />
aircraft.<br />
ATT<br />
At each rank after Able Seaman,<br />
specific Aviation ATT courses (ie<br />
LS-ATT, PO-ATT, and CPO-ATT) are<br />
coupled with <strong>Navy</strong> wide Generic<br />
Leadership and Management<br />
Courses (ie LSLC, POMC). These<br />
courses are undertaken at each<br />
rank to enable us to develop our<br />
tradespersons into technical<br />
supervisors/managers, with<br />
varying increased levels of<br />
supervision/management<br />
responsibilities at each rank<br />
level. This approach ensures<br />
those generic principles of<br />
supervision; leadership and<br />
management that apply across<br />
the wider naval communities’<br />
non-commissioned ranks are<br />
coupled with the specific Naval<br />
Aviation responsibilities inherent<br />
in our maintenance system.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
71<br />
Competencies<br />
The training described<br />
previously is derived from the<br />
competency standards (3 for<br />
LS /10 for PO and 8 for CPO),<br />
which define the category<br />
employment profile for each<br />
rank level. A summary of these<br />
Competency standards and<br />
their relationship to the<br />
employment profile is as<br />
follows-<br />
• Leading Seaman (Supervisor) -<br />
ie required to supervise small<br />
teams in aviation maintenance<br />
activities such as aircraft<br />
movements, jacking of aircraft,<br />
installation of major subassemblies.<br />
Conducts QA<br />
inspections and provides<br />
workplace leadership.<br />
• Petty Officer (Coordinator) ie<br />
Maintenance Coordination and<br />
supervision of larger<br />
maintenance teams (termed a<br />
“Watch” up to 15 personnel).<br />
Responsibilities for OHS, HRM<br />
and coordination & application<br />
of QA and workplace<br />
assessment.<br />
• Chief Petty Officer (Manager)<br />
ie Management, Coordination<br />
and supervision of Aircraft<br />
Maintenance activities and<br />
detachments ashore/embarked<br />
and increased responsibilities<br />
for management of Aircraft<br />
configuration, performance<br />
testing (MTFs), QA and OHS.<br />
Summary<br />
In summary the Naval Aviation<br />
training continuum does not<br />
seek to isolate supervision<br />
into one discrete component<br />
or course. Supervision<br />
training begins inherently in its<br />
most basic form within the<br />
training for the rank of Leading<br />
Seaman and is further<br />
developed into more complex<br />
forms of supervision training<br />
which in competency<br />
terminology are defined as<br />
Coordination and then<br />
Management. Ultimately the<br />
continuum seeks to develop a<br />
technician (AB) into a<br />
Manager (CPO) capable of<br />
maintaining and managing<br />
Naval helicopters,<br />
maintenance personnel and<br />
support equipment at sea or<br />
remote from parent squadrons.
72 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY LEUT DOMINIC BARTON<br />
HMAS SHEEAN<br />
Common Electric<br />
Propulsion Systems For<br />
Future RAN Ships<br />
Introduction<br />
The Defence White Paper outlines the requirement for Defence to explore<br />
the use of electric propulsion in ships. It acknowledges the benefits<br />
afforded by this concept as lower purchase prices, more hull space and<br />
reduced operating and maintenance costs 1 .<br />
Electric propulsion in ships takes<br />
cognisance of some other<br />
principles discussed in the White<br />
Paper such as the need to reduce<br />
the numbers of personnel<br />
required to operate a platform, to<br />
reduce personnel-related costs<br />
and risks 2 .<br />
The White Paper also<br />
acknowledges that the civil sector<br />
will be the source of a great deal<br />
of emerging technologies, and<br />
Defence will need to identify the<br />
potential that exists in this area<br />
and adapt them to military uses 3 .<br />
This article will propose that a<br />
common electric propulsion<br />
system be considered for the new<br />
air warfare destroyer, replacement<br />
afloat support ships and<br />
amphibious ships detailed for<br />
acquisition in Plan Blue, the<br />
RAN’s forecast for the next 30<br />
years.<br />
Current Manning, Operation and<br />
Logistics Support Environment<br />
Up until recently, Fleet units in<br />
the RAN had at least five different<br />
types of propulsion plants; diesel,<br />
combined diesel or gas turbine<br />
(CODOG), gas turbine, steam<br />
turbine and diesel-electric. The<br />
last steam-powered ship has<br />
been de-commissioned, bringing<br />
this down to four. The retirement<br />
of the last steam ship has meant<br />
savings in many areas, especially<br />
manpower in terms of physical<br />
numbers of operators, the<br />
specialist training required to<br />
operate the engineering plant and<br />
the intensive maintenance to<br />
keep the plant running. Steampowered<br />
ships are also extremely<br />
inefficient in the consumption of<br />
the highly refined fuels used by<br />
the RAN.<br />
Remaining Fleet units operate<br />
propulsion plants that require far<br />
less numbers of people to<br />
operate and maintain, and are<br />
more economical to run when<br />
compared with a steam plant.<br />
There is still an issue with<br />
markedly different propulsion<br />
systems existing between<br />
platforms. This has an impact in<br />
terms of manpower and logistics<br />
support.<br />
RAN engineering manpower is for<br />
the most part streamed to certain<br />
classes of ship. This is due to the<br />
on-the-job training required to<br />
learn the peculiarities of a<br />
particular propulsion system.<br />
Between ships of the same class<br />
personnel can be posted about<br />
quite freely, but this is not the case<br />
between classes of ship. This is a<br />
limiting factor, particularly where<br />
there is only one ship in the class.<br />
The RAN currently operates a<br />
number of “orphan” ships such as<br />
TOBRUK, SUCCESS and<br />
WESTRALIA. Marine technical<br />
personnel posted to these ships<br />
will often find themselves posted<br />
back to the same ship throughout<br />
their career due to the<br />
accumulation of specialist<br />
technical knowledge they possess<br />
in the unique propulsion systems<br />
on these ships. This situation may<br />
not afford these personnel with the<br />
flexibility they desire to work on<br />
different ships or be based in<br />
different places in Australia.<br />
The RAN is the parent navy for<br />
the ANZAC and COLLINS Class.<br />
Logistic support matters such as<br />
spares, maintenance and<br />
upgrades to platform<br />
configuration are a more complex<br />
burden compared to that<br />
experienced in the past when the<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> operated ships that were<br />
the same as those in much larger<br />
navies such as the RN. The longterm<br />
support of the engineering<br />
plants on such ships as the<br />
ANZAC Class frigates and the<br />
COLLINS Class submarines will<br />
pose a significant problem for the<br />
RAN, due to the peculiarity of<br />
these systems to Australia. A<br />
great deal of spares required are<br />
sourced from overseas, even<br />
though the platforms themselves<br />
were built in Australia. Foreign<br />
manufacturers may cease to<br />
produce specialist parts as they<br />
deem it uneconomical to do so,<br />
with a significant burden on the<br />
RAN’s ability to repair or carry out<br />
maintenance on its ships.<br />
RAN’s Acquisition Philosophy<br />
Australia has learnt how difficult<br />
it is to build a unique platform as
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
73<br />
a parent navy, and bring these<br />
platforms to an operational level.<br />
The principles of tried-and-tested<br />
and commercial-off-the-shelf<br />
(COTS) have been emphasised<br />
for future acquisitions. This,<br />
however, may not be possible for<br />
the RAN in the truest sense for<br />
many reasons.<br />
The capabilities that the RAN<br />
seeks in the future, as set out in<br />
Plan Blue, will be similar to those<br />
sought by a number of other<br />
nations. This has been true in<br />
the past as well, but it was often<br />
the case that the ships other<br />
nations acquired were not exactly<br />
suited to Australia’s requirements<br />
or budget, and a certain amount<br />
of customising of available ships<br />
was necessary.<br />
It is highly likely to be the case<br />
into the future and was certainly<br />
the case with the ANZAC Class,<br />
which has a unique propulsion<br />
configuration and weapons fit-out<br />
compared with other Meko<br />
frigates around the world. This<br />
was due to Australia’s specific<br />
performance requirements and<br />
anticipated operating profile of<br />
the ship.<br />
The COLLINS Class submarine is<br />
totally unique to Australia. The<br />
available diesel-electric<br />
submarines in the world at the<br />
time of purchase were not<br />
suitable for <strong>Australian</strong><br />
requirements in such key areas<br />
as range and weapons carrying<br />
capacity. Therefore a new<br />
submarine design, loosely based<br />
on an existing Swedish design,<br />
was selected.<br />
Costs of purchasing a new ship,<br />
particularly a surface combatant,<br />
are largely governed by the<br />
choices of sensors, weapons<br />
systems and communications<br />
equipment. These are often<br />
acquired in a particular<br />
combination from a range of<br />
internationally available systems<br />
and integrated on a platform that<br />
is able to carry them. By using<br />
internationally available weapons<br />
and communications systems the<br />
RAN has ready access to training,<br />
stores and maintenance<br />
information. There is the further<br />
benefit of enhanced<br />
interoperability with allied navies.<br />
The hull of the ship is the one<br />
thing that is effectively fixed for<br />
the life of the platform. The size<br />
and shape of the hull chosen is<br />
critical in such issues as range,<br />
sea-keeping ability, speed and<br />
payload. Historically, the<br />
propulsion system of the ship<br />
was chosen in conjunction with<br />
the hull. The choice was based on<br />
such factors as the ship’s size<br />
and the top speed required by<br />
the ship. Indeed the ship is often<br />
built around main propulsion<br />
equipment such as engines,<br />
gearboxes and shafting.<br />
Australia is likely to continue to<br />
have some degree of unique<br />
capability or performance<br />
requirements for its future ships.<br />
Electric propulsion will mean that<br />
the RAN can have more flexibility<br />
in the choice of hull design whilst<br />
achieving commonality with the<br />
propulsion system between<br />
classes of ship and with ships of<br />
other navies.<br />
Benefits Of Electric Propulsion<br />
If the RAN is to adopt electric<br />
propulsion systems it would be<br />
necessary to show how this would<br />
address some of the previously<br />
discussed issues regarding<br />
existing propulsion systems.<br />
With the acquisition of at least<br />
eight new fleet units in the next<br />
15 years 4 , there is a unique<br />
opportunity to seek commonality<br />
in propulsion systems. This is a<br />
concept already accepted and<br />
evident in weapons and<br />
communications systems. This<br />
enables greater commonality<br />
between RAN units,<br />
interoperability with allied navies<br />
and better access to spares and<br />
system modifications. These<br />
logistics support concepts should<br />
be extended to platform<br />
equipment as well.<br />
The advent of electric propulsion<br />
will enable the same propulsion<br />
system to be fitted to a wide<br />
range of ship types. Electric<br />
propulsion is inherently flexible in<br />
its nature, and can be tailored to<br />
suit the specific performance<br />
requirements needed using the<br />
same physical equipment.<br />
A common propulsion system<br />
across more than one class of<br />
ship has significant benefits in<br />
reducing the overall logistics<br />
support effort required. This<br />
stems from simply having to<br />
stock a smaller range of spare<br />
parts, common support<br />
equipment and technical<br />
documentation. Further, if the<br />
propulsion system is the same as<br />
that used by other navies then<br />
the RAN would benefit from<br />
ongoing modifications and<br />
upgrades made overseas as well<br />
as have access to greater<br />
resources for addressing defects<br />
and other problems that may<br />
occur. This is evident already to a<br />
smaller degree with the FFGs,<br />
where the RAN receives<br />
considerable access to<br />
information on platform<br />
equipment from the United States<br />
<strong>Navy</strong>.<br />
Having common propulsion<br />
systems across different classes<br />
of ship will mean that marine<br />
technicians will have more<br />
flexibility in their postings within<br />
the RAN. This will remove the<br />
problem where sailors are<br />
streamed to a specific ship, and<br />
have little scope to post to other<br />
types of ship or be based in<br />
different places in Australia if they<br />
wished to. It also gives the RAN<br />
more flexibility in the use of its<br />
valuable, highly trained technical<br />
workforce.<br />
The RAN’s requirements based on<br />
unique or specific capabilityneeds<br />
can also be addressed by<br />
electric propulsion. The<br />
acquisition of an electric<br />
propulsion system for a ship can<br />
be thought of in the same context<br />
as a weapons system. Great<br />
flexibility is afforded as all the
74 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
components such as generators,<br />
control equipment and electric<br />
motors can be placed effectively<br />
anywhere in the ship and then<br />
simply joined by electrical<br />
cables 5 . Its flexibility means that<br />
once size and speed of the ship<br />
are determined, then the<br />
appropriate configuration of<br />
generators and electric propulsion<br />
motors can be installed to meet<br />
requirements. The equipment<br />
used in the electric propulsion<br />
system can then be common with<br />
other RAN units and those of<br />
other navies, even though the<br />
actual size and shape of the hull<br />
may be unique to <strong>Australian</strong><br />
requirements.<br />
Electric propulsion actually<br />
enhances the ability to design<br />
a hull shape to meet unique<br />
needs. A large restriction in<br />
the layout of weapons, sensors<br />
and cargo-carrying<br />
arrangements on a ship is the<br />
large air intakes and uptakes<br />
that need to travel through the<br />
ship to the engine room to the<br />
propulsion diesel engines or<br />
gas turbines 6 . In an electric<br />
system the generators do not<br />
need to be located adjacent to<br />
the propulsion motors. The<br />
generators may be located<br />
throughout the ship to optimise<br />
capacity for army equipment or<br />
aircraft in the case of<br />
amphibious ships, or optimise<br />
sensor and weapon layouts in<br />
the case of a surface<br />
combatant.<br />
Fuel efficiency of a ship with<br />
an electric propulsion system<br />
is greatly enhanced, as only<br />
the generators absolutely<br />
necessary to meet current<br />
propulsion and domestic loads<br />
are operating. As power<br />
requirements change,<br />
generators are started and<br />
stopped by automatic load<br />
monitoring and control<br />
systems.<br />
Propulsion systems that use<br />
currently available technology,<br />
particularly in warships, often<br />
have complicated gearbox and<br />
shafting arrangements to fit in<br />
the large prime movers<br />
required to obtain the<br />
necessary high speeds. These<br />
current arrangements are more<br />
susceptible to damage from<br />
impact, shock, and are noisier<br />
through the water than a<br />
system that has shorter<br />
propeller shafts and no<br />
gearboxes.<br />
The propulsion motors<br />
themselves obviously need to<br />
be placed near the stern, but<br />
due to their reduced size<br />
should in most cases be able<br />
to be located side by side.<br />
This fact, coupled with the lack<br />
of requirement for a gearbox,<br />
will make the propulsion train<br />
a lot shorter than is currently<br />
possible. The USN is<br />
researching extensively the<br />
idea of propulsion pods, where<br />
the electric motors are<br />
mounted in pods external to<br />
the hull below the waterline.<br />
Pods are in current use on<br />
civilian cruise ships 7 and have<br />
obvious benefits to the ability<br />
of a warship to withstand<br />
action damage and continue to<br />
operate. By spreading<br />
generators throughout the ship,<br />
as is current design practice in<br />
warships, the effects of action<br />
damage are reduced. This<br />
principle can be extended to<br />
the electric propulsion system,<br />
whereby failure by damage to<br />
part of it will not affect the<br />
whole system. The survivability<br />
of an electric ship could be<br />
further enhanced by the<br />
inclusion of a storage battery<br />
to provide an uninterruptible<br />
power supply to the whole<br />
ship 8 .<br />
Some of the problems evident<br />
with electric propulsion include<br />
the increased exposure to<br />
potential electrical hazards 9 .<br />
This would be even more<br />
serious if the ship was<br />
damaged in any way.<br />
Significant electrical hazards<br />
exist in all current RAN ships,<br />
particularly submarines.<br />
Design of safe electrical<br />
systems and training of<br />
personnel would be necessary<br />
to address these potential<br />
dangers.<br />
Current electric motors rated at<br />
19 megawatts, which are<br />
comparable to the power of a<br />
LM 2500 gas turbine in a FFG,<br />
weigh over 100 tonnes. This<br />
will be significantly reduced as<br />
permanent magnet electric<br />
motor technology improves<br />
over the next few years 10 . If<br />
the weight savings of not<br />
having a gearbox and shorter<br />
propulsion shafts are<br />
considered, then the electric<br />
option looks much better. The<br />
benefit of an electric motor is<br />
also enhanced by its inherent<br />
quietness.<br />
Viability of Electric<br />
Propulsion<br />
If electric propulsion is the<br />
panacea of future Fleet<br />
requirements, why has it not<br />
been previously used on ships?<br />
The idea of electric propulsion<br />
is certainly not new in the<br />
RAN. Submarines have always<br />
used electric motors, and the<br />
new hydrographic ships are<br />
also electrically driven. It could<br />
be argued that these platforms<br />
are small in size and do not<br />
need to travel at up to 30<br />
knots. This is true, but the<br />
USN had two electrically driven<br />
aircraft carriers in World War<br />
Two 11 . Modern electric<br />
propulsion systems are already<br />
in existence on large cruise<br />
ships, where the civilian sector<br />
have recognised the savings in<br />
purchase and operating costs<br />
as well as the reduced noise<br />
generated by the system.<br />
Considerable research and<br />
development is now being<br />
undertaken by the RN and USN<br />
into the use of electric<br />
propulsion systems in ships.<br />
The RN is pursuing Integrated<br />
Full Electric Propulsion and the<br />
USN is aiming for the<br />
Integrated Power System 12 .
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
75<br />
The aim of both navies in this<br />
research is the same. They<br />
advocate that electric ships will<br />
be a lot cheaper to acquire<br />
and operate than conventional<br />
ships. Electric ships will offer<br />
increased efficiency, stealth,<br />
automation, reduced pollution<br />
and commonality 13 . The USN<br />
and RN have embarked on<br />
build programs of two new<br />
classes of destroyer that are to<br />
be electric powered, the DDG-<br />
21 and Type 45 destroyers<br />
respectively.<br />
The generators for the<br />
electrical power in these ships<br />
are likely to be gas turbines,<br />
but the ships will be designed<br />
to be able to take advantage of<br />
new power generation<br />
technologies such as complex<br />
cycle gas turbines and fuel<br />
cells 14 . These technologies are<br />
already being developed to<br />
reduce the size of generators,<br />
further improve fuel efficiency<br />
and to meet increasingly<br />
stringent environmental<br />
standards. In an electric ship,<br />
these would simply plug into<br />
the electrical system where the<br />
existing generators were<br />
previously situated.<br />
These ships may well prove to<br />
be too expensive for the RAN<br />
or not meet the capability<br />
requirements of the Air Warfare<br />
Destroyer, but either of the<br />
propulsion systems could be<br />
acquired in isolation. The<br />
selected propulsion system<br />
could then be installed on the<br />
ships that the RAN decides to<br />
acquire in the future to meet<br />
its needs.<br />
Conclusion<br />
This article has outlined how<br />
electric propulsion systems can<br />
address some of the problems<br />
experienced by the RAN in<br />
acquisition, operation and<br />
logistics support of ships that<br />
are designed for <strong>Australian</strong><br />
capability requirements. The<br />
impact on RAN personnel has<br />
also been briefly discussed.<br />
A common electric propulsion<br />
system should be considered<br />
for all future large surface ship<br />
acquisitions outlined in Plan<br />
Blue. The broad benefits of<br />
electric propulsion have been<br />
examined, as has the high<br />
degree of flexibility offered by<br />
this system to future<br />
acquisitions of large fleet units<br />
by the RAN. Two major navies<br />
have already committed to<br />
building ships using this<br />
technology, and the benefits<br />
that they hope to gain are of<br />
direct relevance to the RAN.<br />
This is particularly so in<br />
regards to lower acquisition<br />
and operating costs, reduced<br />
manpower requirements,<br />
commonality and flexibility of<br />
the respective systems.<br />
Notes<br />
1 Department of Defence 2000,<br />
Defence 2000 Our Future Defence<br />
Force, para 10.14<br />
2 ibid, para 10.13<br />
3 ibid, para 10.20<br />
4 <strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>, Australia’s <strong>Navy</strong><br />
for the 21st Century, p 18<br />
5 Program Executive Office for Surface<br />
Ships, Frequently Asked Questions and<br />
Answers (<strong>Navy</strong> IPS),<br />
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/ipsfaqs.htm,<br />
24 Oct 01<br />
6 Clark, P. 2001, ‘Electric Propulsion for<br />
Surface Combatants’, Naval Engineering<br />
Bulletin, Jun 2001, p14<br />
7 Program Executive Office for Surface<br />
Ships, An Historical Overview of <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Electric Drive,<br />
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/IPS/intro/pa<br />
rt2/indexp8.html, 24 Oct 01<br />
8 Clark, op cit, p 14<br />
9 ibid, p 17<br />
10 ibid, p18<br />
11 Program Executive Office for Surface<br />
Ships, Frequently Asked Questions and<br />
Answers (<strong>Navy</strong> IPS),<br />
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/ipsfaqs.htm,<br />
24 Oct 01<br />
12 Office of Naval Research, IPS<br />
Baseline System for Surface<br />
Combatants,<br />
http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/engin<br />
eering/espt/IPS.htm, 24 Oct 01<br />
13 <strong>Navy</strong> Office of Information, <strong>Navy</strong><br />
selects integrated power systems and<br />
electric drive for DD 21,<br />
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ne<br />
ws/news_stories/dd21elect.html, 24<br />
Oct 01<br />
14 Energy Research Corporation, Press<br />
Release August 24, 1999, Danbury,<br />
CT/Bath, ME,<br />
http://www.ercc.com/site/investor/pres<br />
s/releases/1998/08_24_99.html, 24<br />
Oct 01<br />
Bibliography<br />
Clark, P. 2001, ‘Electric Propulsion for<br />
Surface Combatants’, Naval Engineering<br />
Bulletin, Jun 2001<br />
Department of Defence 2000, Defence<br />
2000 Our Future Defence Force,<br />
Canberra<br />
Energy Research Corporation, Press<br />
Release August 24, 1999, Danbury,<br />
CT/Bath, ME,<br />
http://www.ercc.com/site/investor/pres<br />
s/releases/1998/08_24_99.html, 24<br />
Oct 01<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Office of Information, <strong>Navy</strong> selects<br />
integrated power systems and electric<br />
drive for DD 21,<br />
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ne<br />
ws/news_stories/dd21elect.html, 24<br />
Oct 01<br />
Office of Naval Research, IPS Baseline<br />
System for Surface Combatants,<br />
http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/engin<br />
eering/espt/IPS.htm, 24 Oct 01<br />
Program Executive Office for Surface<br />
Ships, An Historical Overview of <strong>Navy</strong><br />
Electric Drive,<br />
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/IPS/intro/pa<br />
rt2/indexp8.html, 24 Oct 01<br />
Program Executive Office for Surface<br />
Ships, Frequently Asked Questions and<br />
Answers (<strong>Navy</strong> IPS),<br />
http://peos.crane.navy.mil/ipsfaqs.htm,<br />
24 Oct 01<br />
<strong>Royal</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Navy</strong>, Australia’s <strong>Navy</strong><br />
for the 21st Century, p 18
76 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY LIEUTENANT CARL HOLMES<br />
NAVIGATION WARFARE SYSTEM<br />
PROGRAM OFFICE<br />
Global Positioning System:<br />
Operation and Vulnerability<br />
Introduction<br />
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite based radio navigation<br />
network operated by the US Department of Defence that provides global<br />
coverage. The most obvious benefit from GPS is the calculation of precise<br />
position data and thus the ability to compute a precise navigation<br />
solution. The second, and perhaps least publicised benefit from the GPS<br />
network is the provision of accurate time. More accurate than the time<br />
provided by a simple wristwatch, GPS time is used in areas such as<br />
communications networks and electricity grids, where accurate timing is<br />
essential for safe and accurate operation.<br />
Despite the benefits that the GPS<br />
network provides, the actual<br />
signal sent from each satellite is<br />
susceptible to both unintentional<br />
and intentional sources of<br />
interference. By the time the GPS<br />
signal has reached the earth from<br />
any given satellite, the power<br />
levels are such that even a low<br />
power transmitter will adversely<br />
affect reception.<br />
Aim<br />
This article discusses some of the<br />
concepts surrounding the<br />
susceptibility of GPS signals. In<br />
doing so it will re-examine the<br />
basic operation of the GPS<br />
Network, highlighting the areas<br />
where the system is vulnerable.<br />
The ADF is initiating project work<br />
that aims to enhance current GPS<br />
suites and improve protection<br />
from interference sources. This<br />
article will also introduce this<br />
work and provide points of<br />
contact for any GPS related<br />
questions.<br />
What Signals are transmitted<br />
from a GPS Satellite?<br />
A GPS Satellite provides two<br />
services to users, which are<br />
shared across 2 frequencies.<br />
These are the Standard<br />
Positioning Service (SPS) and the<br />
Precise Positioning Service<br />
(PPS)<br />
SPS can be received by both<br />
civilian and military users. The<br />
signal, more commonly known as<br />
the Course Acquisition (C/A)<br />
code, is only available on one<br />
frequency called Link 1<br />
(L1=1575.42). The C/A code was<br />
once affected by a false<br />
timing/distance error, known as<br />
Selective Availability (S/A), to<br />
refuse civilian users the accuracy<br />
that the military was getting. In<br />
May 2000 this error was<br />
removed, improving C/A accuracy<br />
to under 20 metres.<br />
PPS is for allied military users. It<br />
is available on two frequencies<br />
L1=1575.42 and L2=1227.6.<br />
The code is encrypted and can<br />
only be read by receivers with the<br />
appropriate cryptographic key.<br />
PPS is transmitted across two<br />
frequencies so that either<br />
frequency can be used if the<br />
other is unavailable and<br />
ionospeheric delays and errors<br />
can be cancelled.<br />
The two signals are created in the<br />
satellite in the following manner.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
77<br />
* Diagrams courtesy of Peter H.<br />
Dana, The Geographer's Craft<br />
Project, Department of<br />
Geography, The University of<br />
Colorado at Boulder.<br />
How does a GPS Receiver<br />
determine its location?<br />
A GPS receiver needs to see at<br />
least 4 satellites to calculate an<br />
accurate position on the earth’s<br />
surface. The determination of<br />
position can be summarised into<br />
a number of key steps.<br />
1. A GPS receiver on the earth is<br />
a specific distance from any given<br />
GPS satellite. A rough estimation<br />
to this distance is calculated<br />
within the receiver based upon<br />
the time delay for a GPS signal to<br />
reach the earth. This time delay is<br />
measured, and because the<br />
signals travel at the speed of<br />
light, a simple<br />
speed=distance/time calculation<br />
can output a distance. This is<br />
known as the pseudo range.<br />
2. Using the principles of<br />
triangulation, rough distance<br />
calculations to three satellites will<br />
allow a receiver to determine its<br />
position in the X, Y, Z planes.<br />
3. The position is thus calculated,<br />
but at this stage it is only a rough<br />
guess. When the receiver was<br />
measuring the time delay of the<br />
signal in Step 1, it was using a<br />
clock that has a large drift (e.g<br />
quartz oscillator). The GPS<br />
satellite has a much more<br />
accurate clock (atomic clock) and<br />
thus there is a time difference<br />
between the satellite and the<br />
receiver clocks. By measuring a<br />
4th satellite range, a receiver now<br />
has 4 calculations and 4<br />
unknowns (X, Y, Z, T). The ‘T’ is the<br />
clock difference, and once<br />
calculated the previous rough<br />
distance measurements can be<br />
corrected.<br />
4. Each satellite knows its<br />
position in its stellar orbit. This<br />
orbit path is translated into<br />
ground coordinates, giving each<br />
satellite an earth reference. As a<br />
receiver can download this<br />
reference from the satellites it is<br />
ranging against, it can then plot<br />
its position on the earth’s surface<br />
relative to these 4 satellites. User<br />
characteristics such as latitude<br />
and longitude, velocity, heading<br />
and altitude can now be<br />
determined. 1<br />
Uses of GPS<br />
The proliferation of GPS is one of<br />
the least understood aspects of<br />
the system. The table below<br />
displays some of the many ways<br />
GPS is now being utilised by<br />
military and civilian users.<br />
What is Navigation Warfare<br />
(NAVWAR)?<br />
Navigation Warfare can be broken<br />
down into two parts. The first part<br />
is ensuring that we protect our<br />
ability to obtain the benefits of<br />
accurate navigation despite<br />
attempts by an adversary to deny<br />
this capability, also called<br />
Electronic Protection. The second<br />
part is to make sure an adversary<br />
is denied the benefits of accurate<br />
navigation, despite their best<br />
efforts to preserve them, or<br />
Electronic Attack.<br />
NAVWAR can come in two basic<br />
forms:<br />
• A brute force attack where the<br />
enemy attempts to overwhelm the<br />
receiver with RF power in excess<br />
of the GPS signal level, and<br />
• GPS spoofing where the enemy<br />
attempts to fool the receiver into<br />
displaying false position<br />
information.<br />
Who can practice NAVWAR and<br />
what are the effects?<br />
Essentially any nation in the<br />
world can practice Navigation<br />
Warfare. The frequencies of GPS<br />
signals and the average earth<br />
power levels (L1: -163dBW, L2: -<br />
166dBW) are public domain<br />
information, meaning even a<br />
simple low power transmission<br />
can affect a sizeable area of<br />
operation. Thus low-tech and illequipped<br />
forces could easily<br />
Target Acquisition En route navigation Mapping<br />
Close air support Precision survey Flight guidance<br />
Missile guidance Space navigation Animal tracking<br />
Command and control Approach and landing Fleet management<br />
All-weather air drop Search and rescue Computer timing<br />
Sensor emplacement Remote piloted vehicles Law enforcement<br />
Co-ordinate bombing Photo reconnaissance Personal car navigation<br />
Network Centric Satellite tracking and<br />
Warfare navigation Theft deterrence<br />
Mine emplacement<br />
and countermeasures Inertial Navigation updates Electricity Grid Timing<br />
Barebase operations Precise timing Emergency operations<br />
ELINT annotation Low Level Navigation Mobile Phone Networks<br />
cause concern to a high-tech<br />
adversary who relies heavily on<br />
the GPS signal.<br />
As reliance on GPS increases, the<br />
opportunity for Navigation Warfare<br />
increases proportionally. Guided<br />
Weapons, communications<br />
systems utilising the GPS timing<br />
signal and precise navigation are<br />
all at risk.<br />
What GPS System changes will<br />
improve NAVWAR Capability?<br />
Modifications to the GPS System<br />
are being investigated in the<br />
United States that will offer<br />
increased protection from<br />
Navigation Warfare. Significant<br />
developments include:<br />
• Military (M) Code transmitted on<br />
both frequencies offering a higher<br />
peak power, spread spectrum<br />
characteristics for anti-jam
78 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
protection and a spot beam<br />
facility<br />
• Selective Availability Anti-<br />
Spoofing Module (SAASM) is a<br />
technology that will allow GPS<br />
receivers to load crypto over the<br />
air. This allows new crypto keys to<br />
be loaded immediately, should<br />
the previous keys be<br />
compromised. It also gives<br />
planners the ability to disable<br />
groups of receivers via radio, if<br />
they are believed to be captured<br />
by the enemy.<br />
ADF and NAVWAR<br />
A Joint Project 5408 (JP408):<br />
ADF GPS Enhancement, has been<br />
established within the Defence<br />
Materiel Organisation (DMO) and<br />
is being staffed by the Navigation<br />
Warfare System Program Office<br />
(NWSPO).<br />
JP5408 is currently in a Project<br />
Definition Study (PDS). Research<br />
is being conducted to determine<br />
the best mix of hardware,<br />
software and tactics to mitigate<br />
the effects of interference on the<br />
GPS signal. By mid-2002 this<br />
research will be complete, and<br />
investigations into individual<br />
platform for GPS protection will<br />
commence.<br />
NWSPO Services to the ADF<br />
The NWSPO is currently setup to<br />
provide:<br />
• Introductory GPS Training<br />
• Navigation Warfare Training<br />
• Direct liaison with the US GPS<br />
Project Office<br />
• Technical advice relating to new<br />
GPS technology and GPS system<br />
integration<br />
Circular Memorandum 37/99 (7<br />
Oct 99) contains more detailed<br />
information on the role of the<br />
NWSPO. GPS related enquiries<br />
can be made to<br />
GPSInbox@cbr.defence.gov.au.<br />
Conclusion<br />
GPS is a cheap and readily<br />
available tool with immense<br />
benefit to a wide range of users.<br />
However, total reliance on GPS is<br />
warned against, due to its ease of<br />
denial. This report has briefly<br />
touched on GPS denial and<br />
protection, and readers are<br />
encouraged to further investigate<br />
the effects of GPS loss.<br />
1 The position solution procedure has been<br />
over-simplified for the purposes of this<br />
magazine. For a more technical explanation<br />
please contact the Navigation Warfare<br />
Office. Contact details are provided at the<br />
end of this article.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
79<br />
Jack Will… As He Always<br />
Does.<br />
BY CPOET LAWRENCE<br />
HMAS NEWCASTLE<br />
Manpower is continually pushed to the limits, always more with less. More<br />
equipment to maintain, but now with no training. So how do we fault-find<br />
this new equipment? As we are always told, we are technicians, thus we<br />
can fault-find anything, but it now takes a lot longer and is a lot more<br />
frustrating. We don’t have any tech manuals, just user guides. It’s mission<br />
Critical and command want it fixed yesterday. All we can come up with<br />
are problems not solutions. Its Friday morning 1000C so we send an e-<br />
mail to the manufacturer / project, requesting assistance. Oh no… they’ve<br />
already gone home for the weekend, its 1700K back in Canberra. Only 3<br />
days to wait for a reply. It’s probably not that important anyway.<br />
When will we get it right? When is<br />
enough, enough. Am I bleating, or<br />
are these genuine concerns,<br />
raised by only me or by many? Is<br />
anyone listening or is it falling on<br />
deaf ears? But what am I talking<br />
about…The vast array of<br />
equipment that has been<br />
deemed urgently required for us<br />
to perform our (HMAS<br />
NEWCASTLE) mission in the<br />
Middle East, Multinational<br />
Interception Force Operations,<br />
(MIF Ops).<br />
Equipment that has been<br />
installed onboard include but are<br />
not limited to the following:<br />
Electronic Chart System (ECS),<br />
Global Command Control System<br />
(GCCS), Upper Air Sounding<br />
System (Vaisala), Secret High<br />
LAN (SHL), Cryptographically<br />
Encrypted LAN Systems, Battle<br />
Force E-mail (BFE), Small Boat<br />
(RHIB) RADAR and GPS,<br />
Combined Operations Wide Area<br />
Network (COWAN) and Electronic<br />
Warfare Support Systems. Just to<br />
name a few. The common factor<br />
with all of these Mission Critical<br />
Systems is that there is no<br />
Maintainer Training and very little<br />
logistics support. Who will<br />
maintain these systems and<br />
how? Jack will, as he always<br />
does.<br />
Most of these appear as new<br />
projects, being driven by separate<br />
organisations, with few of them<br />
even knowing the existence of, let<br />
alone the requirements of, the<br />
others. Logistics Support exists in<br />
the form of a so-called ready use<br />
spare kit and a phone number or<br />
e-mail address for help.<br />
We are continually being told we<br />
need to be smarter, able to do<br />
more with less, reduce our<br />
budgetary outlay and provide an<br />
ever-increasing service. A general<br />
working knowledge of all<br />
equipment is encouraged; we are<br />
a "Jack" of all trades. We do<br />
however need experts that do<br />
know their equipment inside and<br />
out. With most of our equipment<br />
real system knowledge comes<br />
from repeated maintenance and<br />
defect repair. Repair by<br />
replacement is great, but you<br />
have to be able to go further<br />
when the situation arises. Only<br />
sound training, quick and reliable<br />
logistic support and time with the<br />
equipment will let us be efficient<br />
maintainers and provide<br />
command with the services that<br />
they require when they require<br />
them.<br />
The sooner this is realised, the<br />
better off we “The NAVY” will be.<br />
Reliability, availability and<br />
maintainability all go hand in<br />
hand to provide the customer<br />
with the service they need to get<br />
the job done.<br />
We are continually being told<br />
we need to be smarter, able<br />
to do more with less, reduce<br />
our budgetary outlay and<br />
provide an ever-increasing<br />
service.
80 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY MS KAREN SOMMER<br />
DIRECTORATE OF NAVY<br />
PLATFORM SYSTEMS<br />
The NSC Professional<br />
Officer Development<br />
Program<br />
The Professional Officer Development Program was introduced to provide<br />
<strong>Navy</strong> Systems Command with a pool of highly competent civilian<br />
engineers for future middle and senior management positions. The<br />
program was designed based on competencies recognised by the<br />
Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust) and the <strong>Australian</strong> Public Service.<br />
In line with these competencies, recruited graduates (PO1s) enter into a<br />
three year development program which consists of six monthly rotations<br />
plus a secondment to the private sector with a Defence industry related<br />
company.<br />
This year, the Civilian Professional<br />
Development staff have taken the<br />
plunge and supplemented the<br />
more traditional means of<br />
advertising PO1 vacancies (ie<br />
Gazette and newspapers) with<br />
Internet advertising. The<br />
WebPages (www.navy.gov.au) now<br />
includes information on the<br />
Civilian Graduate Recruitment<br />
Program in <strong>Navy</strong> Systems<br />
Command and the availability of<br />
an electronic application form. In<br />
conjunction with going ‘on line’<br />
professional development staff<br />
have also concentrated on<br />
promoting careers for civilian<br />
engineers in Defence by<br />
increasing their presence on<br />
campus by way of holding<br />
information sessions, attending<br />
careers fairs and circulating<br />
promotion material. All<br />
promotion material circulated has<br />
the URL listed on it.<br />
On line recruitment has become<br />
very popular amongst leading<br />
employers, careers professionals<br />
and job seekers. While Internet<br />
advertising has not yet completely<br />
replaced more traditional media,<br />
it does have advantages. Some of<br />
the advantages already noted by<br />
the Professional Development<br />
Team are:<br />
• ability to target the correct<br />
audience therefore cutting down<br />
on applications from unsuitable<br />
candidates;<br />
• ability to maintain a year round<br />
profile in the market;<br />
• regular updating of the web site<br />
saves time on informational<br />
enquiries and administration<br />
(such as sending out application<br />
forms);<br />
• inviting feedback assists in<br />
assessing and reshaping<br />
recruitment strategies as<br />
necessary.<br />
Closing date for this year's recruit<br />
drive was on the 10th May 2002.<br />
Following short listing, assisted<br />
electronically, interviews were<br />
held in June and provisional<br />
offers to those found suitable will<br />
be made in July. Provided that<br />
On line recruitment has<br />
become very popular amongst<br />
leading employers, careers<br />
professionals and job<br />
seekers.<br />
these graduates then pass the<br />
requirements listed on the<br />
provisional offer they will be<br />
welcomed on board in early<br />
2003.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
81<br />
Reverse Osmosis<br />
Desalination<br />
BY TIM LEE PO1<br />
DIRECTORATE OF NAVY<br />
PLATFORM SYSTEMS<br />
Reverse Osmosis Desalination plants are fitted to most ships operated by<br />
the RAN to provide potable water. This is a brief overview of how they<br />
work and the technology behind them.<br />
Take a semi-permeable<br />
membrane, which blocks the flow<br />
of solutes (such a dissolved<br />
salts), and use it to separate two<br />
volumes of a solvent (for<br />
example, water). One of these<br />
volumes of solution should have<br />
a high concentration of solutes<br />
(such as seawater); the other<br />
should have a lower or zero<br />
concentration (fresh water). What<br />
we would find is that the solvent<br />
(ie. the water) will flow through<br />
the membrane from the low<br />
solute concentration (fresh) side<br />
to the high concentration<br />
(seawater) side, causing the<br />
water level on the seawater side<br />
to rise. This flow of water through<br />
the membrane is called Osmosis.<br />
Osmosis will continue until<br />
equilibrium between the<br />
pressures is achieved.<br />
The water is forced through the<br />
semi-permeable membrane by<br />
the Osmotic Pressure. The<br />
osmotic pressure is dependent<br />
on both the temperature and<br />
concentration of the solution. The<br />
difference in fluid head (the water<br />
level) after osmosis has taken<br />
place is equal to the osmotic<br />
pressure.<br />
TWO VOLUMES OF WATER, SEPARATED BY A<br />
SEMI-PERMEABLE MEMBRANE. LARGE<br />
DOTS REPRESENT SALT WATER. OSMOSIS<br />
IS YET TO OCCUR.<br />
AFTER OSMOSIS HAS TAKEN PLACE. FRESH<br />
WATER HAS PASSED THROUGH THE<br />
MEMBRANE TO DILUTE THE SALT WATER.<br />
THE DIFFERENCE IN STATIC PRESSURE<br />
BETWEEN THE TWO WATER LEVELS IS<br />
EQUAL TO THE OSMOTIC PRESSURE.<br />
Importantly, osmosis is a<br />
reversible process. Applying<br />
external pressure to the seawater,<br />
for instance by using a pump, will<br />
cause the water molecules to<br />
pass back through the<br />
membrane, leaving the dissolved<br />
salts behind. This is called<br />
Reverse Osmosis, and is the<br />
heart of the process used in<br />
many seawater desalination<br />
plants to produce fresh (potable)<br />
water. The water that passes<br />
through the membrane is often<br />
referred to as Permeate.<br />
APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE SALT WATER<br />
REVERSES THE PROCESS AND INCREASES<br />
THE VOLUME OF FRESH WATER.<br />
To achieve reverse osmosis (RO),<br />
the pressure that needs to be<br />
applied to the seawater must<br />
exceed the Osmotic Pressure. The<br />
more that the applied pressure<br />
exceeds the osmotic pressure,<br />
the greater the flow rate of water<br />
through the membrane will be,<br />
increasing the production of fresh<br />
water. Practically there are limits<br />
to the extent that the applied<br />
pressure can be raised, as power<br />
consumption, safety and cost<br />
considerations apply.<br />
The hub of a RO Desalinator is<br />
the semi-permeable membrane.<br />
Commercial membranes are<br />
constructed of synthetic polymer<br />
materials cast onto a synthetic<br />
fabric backing, and contain<br />
microscopic pores that are large<br />
enough to allow water molecules<br />
to pass through, but too small to<br />
allow the salt ions though. Early<br />
synthetic membranes, first<br />
developed in the 1950s, were<br />
constructed of Cellulose Acetate.<br />
This type of membrane is still<br />
preferred for heavy fouling<br />
applications, due to its better<br />
resistance to chlorine than<br />
Composite Polyamide<br />
membranes. Composite<br />
Polyamide are a more recently<br />
developed type of RO membrane,<br />
and have the advantage of being<br />
stable over a greater pH range<br />
than Cellulose Acetate<br />
membranes, although as noted<br />
above, they are more susceptible<br />
to degradation from chlorine. This<br />
makes these membranes more<br />
susceptible to fouling, as<br />
continuous chlorination of the<br />
feed water cannot be performed.<br />
No membranes operate perfectly.<br />
Membrane manufacturers<br />
typically claim “salt rejection
82 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
rates” of around 99%, meaning<br />
that around 1% of the salts in the<br />
feed water will pass through the<br />
membrane to the permeate<br />
water. The other important<br />
characteristic of membranes is<br />
the “recovery rate”. This shows<br />
what percentage of the feed<br />
water will permeate the<br />
membrane and is desalinated.<br />
Typical values are 10-20%<br />
recovery rate per RO cell;<br />
connecting a number of RO cells<br />
in series can increase the total<br />
recovery rate of a RO system.<br />
Membranes are packaged at<br />
modules, and these are<br />
generally in a Spiral Wound<br />
configuration. Spiral Wound<br />
membranes, as the name<br />
suggests, consist of two flat<br />
sheets of membrane wound<br />
around a tubular permeate<br />
collector into a cylinder, with a<br />
gap between the membranes for<br />
the feed and permeate water to<br />
flow. The feed water enters at<br />
one end of the cylinder and<br />
discharges at the other end;<br />
permeate water collects at the<br />
centre of the spiral, and flows<br />
out the centre of the<br />
downstream end. Spacers, as<br />
well as maintaining the gap<br />
between membranes, also<br />
create turbulence that keeps the<br />
feed water mixed and the salt<br />
concentration even across the<br />
module. Spiral Wound modules<br />
typically 1000 to 1500 mm long<br />
and 100 to 200 mm diameter,<br />
and operate at a recovery rate<br />
of 10 to 20 percent. Other<br />
common modules include the<br />
Hollow Fine Fibre (HFF)<br />
configuration. HFF modules use<br />
membranes in the form of a<br />
tube or pipe, of approximately<br />
the same diameter as a human<br />
hair. The HFF are bundled<br />
together and the feed water is<br />
passed over them, the permeate<br />
discharges from the ends of<br />
these membrane “pipes”. These<br />
can operate at recovery rates as<br />
high as 50 percent, and can be<br />
constructed so as to be very<br />
compact. However the fine fluid<br />
channels can easily be blocked<br />
by suspended solids in the feed<br />
water. Better quality feed water<br />
is required, and the more<br />
extensive pre-treatment of feed<br />
water adds to the expense and<br />
complexity of using these more<br />
efficient membrane modules.<br />
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A REVERSE OSMOSIS DESALINATION PLANT, MANUFACTURED BY SLCE.<br />
Reference Description Reference Description<br />
1 Chlorination 20 High pressure pump<br />
2 Intake valve 21 High pressure switch<br />
3 Coarse strainer 22 Relief valve<br />
4 Booster pump 23 High pressure gauge<br />
5 Coagulant injection 24 Pressure vessels<br />
6 Relief valve 25 Membranes<br />
7 Low pressure gauge 26 High pressure gauge<br />
8 Multimedia filter 27 Flushing valve<br />
9 Low pressure gauge 28 Pressure valve<br />
10 Cleaning valve 29 Brine reject pressure switch<br />
11 20 micron filter 30 Product water pressure<br />
switch<br />
12 Low pressure gauge 31 Salinity cell<br />
13 5 micron filter 32 Product water flow meter<br />
14 Low pressure gauge 33 Flushing tank filling valve<br />
15 Feed water pressure switch 34 Diversion valve<br />
16 Feed water flow meter 35 Cleaning valve<br />
17 Bisulphite injection 36 Flushing/Cleaning tank<br />
18 Acid injection 37 Flushing/Cleaning pump<br />
19 Anti-scalant injection 38 Cleaning check valve<br />
Due to the high pressure (50-70<br />
Bar) which RO plants operate at,<br />
the membrane modules need to<br />
be housed in pressure vessels.<br />
These high pressures are used to<br />
ensure adequate recovery rates. A<br />
high-pressure pump is used to<br />
increase the pressure of the feed<br />
seawater so that reverse osmosis<br />
will occur. These pumps have high<br />
power consumption, a major<br />
factor in the operating cost of RO<br />
desalination plants.<br />
The high pressures used in<br />
reverse osmosis mean that the<br />
membrane module needs to be<br />
contained in a pressure vessel.<br />
Energy recovery devices may<br />
occasionally be fitted in larger<br />
capacity plants – for instance a<br />
turbine driven by the discharged<br />
water – but these devices add<br />
complexity and the energy<br />
saving for smaller plants would
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
83<br />
not offset the increased<br />
maintenance and capital cost.<br />
The production rate of fresh<br />
water from RO desalination<br />
plants can be affected by a<br />
number of environmental<br />
factors. Higher water<br />
temperatures and greater<br />
salinity increase the osmotic<br />
pressure, reducing the amount<br />
the pump pressure exceeds the<br />
osmotic pressure by, thus<br />
reducing the flow rate of<br />
permeate through the<br />
membrane.<br />
Membranes can be fouled by<br />
biological growth on their<br />
surface, which clogs the pores in<br />
the membrane and prevents<br />
water permeating it, and is<br />
greater at higher water<br />
temperatures and in coastal<br />
waters with higher nutrient<br />
concentrations. Generally a<br />
number of filters and strainers<br />
are installed to remove particles<br />
and nutrients from the seawater<br />
before it is passed to the<br />
reverse osmosis cell. Ultraviolet<br />
(UV) sterilisers or chlorination<br />
may also be used to help<br />
reduce fouling of the membrane,<br />
although some membranes may<br />
be degraded by chlorine as<br />
noted above. Efficiency of<br />
membranes can be restored by<br />
cleaning; manufacturers<br />
recommend that this is done<br />
when permeate output drops by<br />
about 10 percent. Membranes<br />
need to be removed from<br />
service for this cleaning.<br />
Desalinators fitted to the LCH<br />
class ships, Normach, and<br />
Martin International.<br />
References: U. Lachish, “Osmosis,<br />
Reverse Osmosis and Osmotic Pressure<br />
what they are”,<br />
http://urila.tripod.dom/index.htm<br />
October 1999.<br />
U. Lachish, “Optimizing the Efficiency of<br />
Reverse Osmosis Seawater Desalination”,<br />
http://urila.tripod.dom/seawater.htm May<br />
2002.<br />
Anon., “Commercial RO Technology”,<br />
Hydranautics/Nitto Denko Corporation,<br />
January 2001.<br />
Anon., “Technical Position Paper:<br />
Chlorination in RO Seawater Supply Lines<br />
and Pretreatment Processes”,<br />
Hydranautics/Nitto Denko Corporation,<br />
January 2002.<br />
Manufacture of semi-permeable<br />
membranes remains a highly<br />
concentrated industry, with the<br />
dominant manufacturers being<br />
Hydranautics (a subsidiary of<br />
Japan’s Nitto Denko) and<br />
Filmtec (part of the US Dow<br />
Corporation). Many companies<br />
produce RO Desalination plants,<br />
including a number here in<br />
Australia, primarily for<br />
recreational and commercial<br />
boats and yachts. Local<br />
manufacturers include Sharplift,<br />
who produce the Dolphin
84 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
BY LCDR SCOTT LOCKEY<br />
816 SQN<br />
Maintaining the S-70B-2<br />
Seahawk Helicopter<br />
The Seahawk helicopter is the <strong>Navy</strong>’s frontline aviation asset. Currently<br />
embarked in six ships, the Seahawk has served the <strong>Navy</strong> proud since its<br />
acquisition in 1989. This article looks at the servicing regimes which are<br />
employed by the Seahawk community to ensure that high levels of<br />
availability and sustainability will be maintained well into the 21st<br />
century. The article is not intended to be a detailed examination of<br />
Seahawk maintenance practices but rather a relatively basic description<br />
of what is required to keep the aircraft serviceable. For those of you who<br />
spend a lot of time around the birdies you will know that we have our<br />
own language – it really is Acronym City when we discuss our aircraft. In<br />
order to give you a chance of understanding us a bit better, throughout<br />
the article I have attempted to explain what a number of these acronyms<br />
mean.<br />
Maintenance Philosophy<br />
The Seahawk is serviced on both<br />
calendar based and airframe<br />
hour based regimes. Nine ‘block’<br />
servicings account for the<br />
majority of scheduled servicings<br />
carried out on the aircraft. These<br />
block servicings are referred to as<br />
‘R’ servicings and comprise a<br />
number of what are referred to as<br />
‘flexible servicing’ operations (flex<br />
ops) or ‘bay service’ operations.<br />
The R1, R2 and R3 servicings are<br />
calendar based, while the R4 to<br />
R9 servicings are all based on<br />
the airframe hours expended.<br />
Typically the R1 to R3 servicings<br />
examine areas prone to corrosion<br />
and seek to ensure the continued<br />
satisfactory material state of the<br />
aircraft over its life by applying<br />
corrosion preventative measures<br />
during the servicing. The<br />
remaining servicings examine<br />
components for wear and/or<br />
deterioration brought about by<br />
continued exposure to high levels<br />
of stress or vibration and either<br />
restore or replace components to<br />
their original state. The<br />
breakdown of each of the block<br />
servicings follows.<br />
R1 Block Service<br />
This operation is carried out every<br />
14 days whilst the aircraft is<br />
ashore and every seven days<br />
when embarked. The servicing<br />
consists of four flex ops including<br />
an aircraft wash, the application<br />
of a light film of oil over the<br />
surface of the aircraft, and a<br />
number of corrosion inspections.<br />
To complete the aircraft wash<br />
correctly it takes a team of eight<br />
maintainers at least two hours.<br />
The entire servicing takes<br />
approximately three hours<br />
including completion of the<br />
appropriate documentation. The<br />
importance of conducting this<br />
servicing diligently can not be<br />
underestimated. Aircraft have<br />
been known to develop extensive<br />
corrosion when left unattended in<br />
a salt laden environment for as<br />
little as three weeks, even when<br />
stored in a hangar. Place the<br />
aircraft on the back of a ship in<br />
the most hostile environment<br />
possible and see how well it<br />
survives if husbandry is not<br />
carried out correctly.<br />
R2 Block Service<br />
The second of three husbandry<br />
based servicing operations, the<br />
R2 is carried out every 28 days<br />
ashore and every 14 days when<br />
embarked. Five flex ops make up<br />
the R2 and they all involved<br />
corrosion inspections and the<br />
application of corrosion<br />
preventative measures. The R2<br />
also takes approximately three<br />
hours to complete.<br />
R3 Block Service<br />
Accessing areas that are usually<br />
sealed, the R3 comprises two<br />
flexible servicing operations which<br />
examine for corrosion. The service<br />
is carried out every 56 days<br />
ashore or every 28 days<br />
embarked. As with the previous<br />
two husbandry based<br />
inspections, the service takes<br />
approximately three hours to<br />
complete.<br />
R4 Block Service<br />
The R4 block service is required<br />
every 30 airframe hours, however,<br />
it generally gets conducted early
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
85<br />
at 25 airframe hours to align<br />
better with the R5 servicing<br />
(which is conducted every 50<br />
hours – see below). It is the most<br />
basic of the airframe hour based<br />
servicings and it consists of six<br />
flex ops. Areas examined include<br />
the main rotor head (MRH), the<br />
tail rotor driveshaft (TRDS)<br />
disconnect coupling, the main<br />
rotor dampers, main rotor pitch<br />
change rods (PCRs), the tail rotor<br />
assembly and the T700 gas<br />
turbines. The service takes the<br />
aircraft out of the program for<br />
approximately 3 hours.<br />
R5 Block Service<br />
Carried out every 50-airframe<br />
hours, the R5 service consists of<br />
four flexops. The servicing always<br />
commences within 30 minutes of<br />
the last flight, as oil samples are<br />
required to be taken from the<br />
main rotor gearbox (MRGB),<br />
intermediate gearbox (IGB) and<br />
tail rotor gearbox (TRGB). Oil<br />
samples must be taken whilst the<br />
oil is still warm and while any<br />
particulate is still suspended in<br />
the oil. Other flex ops include a<br />
MRH Bifilar clean (the bifilars are<br />
the free-floating weights on the<br />
MRH that act to reduce vibrations<br />
in flight), a swashplate inspection<br />
and clean, and inspections of the<br />
TRDS. The servicing alone takes<br />
approximately three hours to<br />
complete, however, as it is<br />
generally completed in<br />
conjunction with the R4, we<br />
generally plan on approximately<br />
four to five hours for the<br />
combined service.<br />
R6 Block Service<br />
The R6 servicing is considered to<br />
be the most basic of the ‘major’<br />
servicings. Required every 150-<br />
airframe hours, the service<br />
consists of all elements of the R4<br />
and R5 plus an additional 18 flex<br />
ops or bay service operations<br />
involving component inspections<br />
and in situ bay servicing. A<br />
maintenance test flight (MTF) is<br />
required on completion of the<br />
servicing to conduct vibration<br />
analysis (VA). A worked-up<br />
embarked flight, which has<br />
access to all the required spares,<br />
can complete the service in<br />
approximately three to four days<br />
providing there is no emergent<br />
work discovered. At the Squadron<br />
the service takes up to 10 days<br />
due primarily to lower experience<br />
levels and the lower priority given<br />
to Squadron aircraft for the<br />
supply of spares and<br />
components. Additionally, when<br />
conducted at the Squadron the<br />
servicing is used to train junior<br />
maintainers so they can be more<br />
efficient when posted to sea.<br />
R7 Block Service<br />
Every 300-airframe hours sees<br />
the requirement for the conduct<br />
of an R7. Fifteen additional<br />
servicings are tacked on to the<br />
R6 to comprise an R7. These<br />
additional servicings primarily<br />
involve further inspections of<br />
mechanical components and a<br />
number of component<br />
replacements. As with the R6 an<br />
MTF is required on completion.<br />
For similar reasons to those<br />
described above, the R7 takes a<br />
flight approximately 10 - 14 days<br />
but the Squadron anywhere from<br />
four to six weeks. When<br />
conducted at the Squadron the<br />
opportunity is often taken to<br />
embody outstanding<br />
modifications (Mods) and satisfy<br />
any relevant Special Technical<br />
Instructions (STIs – special<br />
maintenance procedures dictated<br />
by the technical airworthiness<br />
authority).<br />
R8 Block Service<br />
The R8 is conducted every 450-<br />
airframe hours and it is very<br />
similar to the R6. Only one<br />
additional bay service is added to<br />
the R6 and this involves an<br />
inspection and servicing of the<br />
APU. An MTF is required on<br />
completion. For a flight the<br />
servicing takes approximately two<br />
days longer than an R6 due to<br />
the requirement to remove and<br />
re-install the APU. The Squadron<br />
generally allows for an additional<br />
five days on top of the R6<br />
timeframe.<br />
R9 Block Service<br />
This servicing is not considered to<br />
be an operational level servicing<br />
due to its complexity and level of<br />
aircraft strip required. At present<br />
either the Squadron or<br />
contractors employed by Hunter<br />
Aerospace only carry out the<br />
service at NAS Nowra. It is<br />
conducted every 600-airframe<br />
hours. Previously this occurred<br />
approximately every two years,<br />
however, the current Op Tempo<br />
has resulted in an increased rate
86 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
of effort (ROE) across the fleet,<br />
with the result that R9 servicings<br />
are coming due in about 14 - 18<br />
months. The service includes the<br />
R1 to R7 inclusive (and the R8<br />
every fourth R9) with an<br />
additional 10 servicings. It is<br />
generally aligned with the<br />
Programmed Aircraft Survey (PAS<br />
- see below) and as a result the<br />
aircraft is significantly stripped to<br />
allow for PAS inspections.<br />
Numerous components, including<br />
the MRH spindles, are subjected<br />
to an extensive bay service or<br />
overhaul during the R9, and a<br />
number of fatigue critical<br />
components are replaced during<br />
the service. Emergent work, the<br />
shortage of some critical<br />
Maintenance Managed Items<br />
(MMIs), and corrosion<br />
rectification following the PAS<br />
inspection usually results in the<br />
service taking in excess of three<br />
to four months. If extensive<br />
rework is required, an aircraft<br />
could be out of operational<br />
service for six months or longer.<br />
Programmed Aircraft Survey<br />
Programmed Aircraft Survey (PAS)<br />
inspections are carried out every<br />
two years. Their intention is to<br />
establish the material state of an<br />
aircraft following a period of<br />
service and then return that<br />
aircraft to an ‘as new’ condition<br />
prior to further service. PAS<br />
rectification work often involves<br />
the replacement of ‘working rivets’<br />
and rectification of corrosion in<br />
difficult to access areas. As<br />
mentioned above, the PAS usually<br />
aligns with an R9 although the<br />
current ROE is causing the 600-<br />
airframe hour mark to become<br />
misaligned with the 2 year PAS<br />
requirement.<br />
Factors Affecting Service<br />
Timeframes<br />
Although I have tried to give an<br />
indication here of how long it<br />
takes to complete each block<br />
servicing operation, there are a<br />
number of factors that will<br />
influence how long a particular<br />
ship’s flight or Squadron servicing<br />
unit takes to complete the<br />
operation. Critical to any servicing<br />
is the provision of spares to<br />
replace any components found<br />
unserviceable during the service.<br />
Although the organisation is<br />
getting much better at predicting<br />
spares usage, it is possible that<br />
an aircraft could be delayed out<br />
of a service due to the<br />
unavailability of an O ring, bolt or<br />
other ‘minor’ component. The<br />
timely conduct of any service<br />
requires the appropriate spares<br />
to be available when required.<br />
The second critical factor is the<br />
skill level and experience of<br />
personnel. A future article in this<br />
magazine will cover Aviation<br />
Technician qualifications and<br />
authorisations, but suffice to say<br />
that all personnel posted to a<br />
Ship’s flight are fully trained and<br />
authorised. 816 Squadron on the<br />
other hand has a mixture of<br />
experienced maintainers<br />
responsible for training those who<br />
have recently joined. Obviously<br />
the experience levels of any team<br />
of maintainers will directly<br />
influence the progress of a<br />
servicing.<br />
Finally, emergent work. It is not<br />
uncommon remove a component<br />
for its bay service only to find<br />
airframe corrosion that needs to<br />
be rectified prior to returning the<br />
aircraft to a serviceable state.<br />
Emergent work during a servicing<br />
can have a detrimental affect on<br />
the progress of a servicing but<br />
the continued airworthiness of an<br />
aircraft relies on all maintainers<br />
to conduct their job professionally<br />
and rectify any faults they<br />
discover.<br />
Hopefully this article has<br />
broadened your understanding of<br />
how we keep these aircraft in the<br />
air. Should you desire any further<br />
information about the Seahawk<br />
helicopter or the maintenance<br />
practices employed, please<br />
forward an email to the author at<br />
scott.lockey@defence.gov.au.<br />
About the Author - Lieutenant Commander<br />
Scott Lockey is the Aviation Engineering<br />
Officer at 816 Squadron. He posted to the<br />
Squadron in January of this year following<br />
completion of the inaugural <strong>Australian</strong><br />
Command and Staff Course. Previous<br />
postings have included the Aircraft<br />
Maintenance and Flight Trials Unit<br />
(AMAFTU), Workshops’ Officer at RNAS<br />
Portland (HMS Osprey), 816 Squadron as<br />
the Deputy Aviation Engineering Officer and<br />
the Fleet Aviation Engineering Unit as the<br />
CAMM Engineer. He holds an Honours<br />
degree in Aeronautical Engineering and<br />
recently attained Chartered Professional<br />
Engineer status through the Institution of<br />
Engineers, Australia.
NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN AUGUST 2002<br />
87<br />
LCDR Derek Buxton<br />
Surfaces from his MBA<br />
BY APESMA CLIENT CARE<br />
CENTRE<br />
One of the highlights of Lieutenant Commander Derek Buxton’s career<br />
with the Canadian <strong>Navy</strong> is the four years he spent in Perth on exchange<br />
with the RAN working on the Collins Submarine Project. A Marine<br />
Engineering Officer and a qualified submariner with four years operational<br />
experience on the HMCS Onondaga, Derek’s job on the Collins Class<br />
Project was to establish business processes for in-service support, as the<br />
submarines were transitioned into service.<br />
Now back in Canada, Derek is<br />
putting the <strong>Australian</strong> experience<br />
to good use; he is working in the<br />
position of In-Service Class<br />
Manager for Canada’s new<br />
Victoria Class submarine<br />
acquisition program.<br />
One of the other things Derek<br />
took back to Canada from<br />
Australia was a MBA (Technology<br />
Management) from distance<br />
specialist, APESMA.<br />
“Two things appealed to me<br />
about the APESMA program,”<br />
Derek said. “The curriculum,<br />
specifically the applied learning<br />
approach and the way it covered<br />
management issues in a<br />
technical environment. And I<br />
particularly liked the flexible and<br />
portable study methods.”<br />
“The Collins Class Logistics<br />
Office was a new organisation<br />
and we had to cover a lot of<br />
ground quickly,” Derek said. “I<br />
found myself immersed in a raft<br />
of business issues – managing<br />
consultancies, negotiating<br />
support contracts, establishing<br />
quality systems, implementing IT<br />
systems, through to major capital<br />
acquisition programs – all ‘bread<br />
and butter’ areas in the APESMA<br />
MBA.”<br />
“The APESMA MBA allows you to<br />
design a study program around<br />
professional interests and<br />
personal aspirations, but against<br />
an excellent framework of<br />
classical management concepts.<br />
Well-constructed study materials,<br />
superb administrative support<br />
and subject matter relevant to the<br />
modern work place are the<br />
hallmarks of the APESMA MBA,”<br />
he said.<br />
APESMA Management<br />
Education<br />
The leading provider of<br />
postgraduate programs in<br />
Australia is not a traditional<br />
university, it’s a professional<br />
society, the Association of<br />
Professional Engineers, Scientists<br />
and Managers, Australia<br />
(APESMA). Together with their<br />
academic partner LaTrobe<br />
University, APESMA run the largest<br />
MBA program in Australia, now<br />
accounting for one in four MBAs<br />
conferred each year in Australia.<br />
With 9,000 graduates spanning<br />
1,500 organisations and 50<br />
countries, an APESMA award also<br />
means joining a significant<br />
professional network.<br />
Students can choose a<br />
technology rich program and exit<br />
with a technology linked<br />
qualification — eg,<br />
MBA/Technology Management —<br />
or they can select a traditional<br />
management studies program<br />
and exit with a general MBA.<br />
Both MBA study streams include<br />
a Graduate Certificate in<br />
Management and a Graduate<br />
Diploma in Management as<br />
award milestones. A new<br />
Graduate Certificate in e-<br />
Business is also available.<br />
Typically, three years part-time<br />
study is required to achieve an<br />
MBA, two years for a Diploma,<br />
and a Certificate can be<br />
completed in one year. However,<br />
with the flexible delivery format,<br />
students can choose to<br />
accelerate or defer their progress,<br />
depending on their<br />
circumstances.<br />
For further information call the<br />
APESMA Client Care Centre on<br />
1300 85 3377 or visit<br />
www.apesma-ed.com