BoatBanter.com - A Look At Officer Training In The US Navy and Merchant Marine

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:35:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:10:55 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/26/17 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 17:59:00 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 8/26/17 1:26 PM, justan wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 8/26/2017 9:01 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/24/17 5:51 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/24/2017 4:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/24/17 2:43 PM, True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 21:00:56 UTC-3, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/23/17 6:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 5:36 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/23/17 12:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/23/2017 11:02 AM, wrote:
This article offers some interesting insights into some of the
issues
behind the recent naval collisions:

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

They make the point that many, if not most, US naval officers
regard
sea duty as something that must be endured on the way to higher
rank,
as opposed to a career goal in and of itself.

My wife and I once met a recently promoted US Coast Guard
admiral who
expressed exactly those sentiments in a conversation with us.
We were
surprised by both the attitude and the candor but that was
probably a
reflection of our inexperience with such things.

I don't know of anyone who was in the Navy, officer or enlisted,
who
relished sea duty.

Then why sign up for it? One might think that if one is signing
up for
the navy, one relishes the idea of serving on a ship at sea.

Reason number one: It was Navy or the Army.

Actually, the Navy is much, much more than just ships at sea.
There's a
vast system for communications, aircraft squadrons, INTEL facilities,
administration, logistics and supply facilities that support the
mission
of the Navy and the fleet. I don't know the breakdown but I
believe
that far more Navy personnel are assigned to shore duty stations
at any
one time than assigned to ships.

Typically, the rotation is three years of sea duty and then three
years
of shore duty. But it's more complicated than that because some
overseas shore duty may be counted as sea duty for rotational
purposes.
I was actually on ships for three years but had two tours overseas
that
also counted as sea duty. My only duty that did not count as sea
duty
was time in schools and my last duty station in Annapolis.

Yeah, I know the navy is more than just ships at sea, but...why would
you join the navy unless you were into ships at sea?

Funny you should ask that. I had a niece and a nephew's significant
other who both joined the navy. Both were trying to find ways to
avoid sea duty after a couple long deployments and especially after
kids arrived. One had the navy pay her way through nursing school
right here in Halifax.

One of life's absurdities...join a force that sends you to sea and
then try to get out of it. Love it.

I admit, it is amusing to read your comments on a subject that you
have absolutely no knowledge of. Tooling around on Long Island Sound
or on the Chesapeake Bay on "YO HO" isn't exactly like being at sea on
a ship that runs out of fresh water on the second day of a six month
cruise and breakfast consists of powdered eggs, coffee or Bug Juice.

You've never experienced "Channel Fever" either.

Interesting how much praise you boys throw on the naveee for its
technical training programs...perhaps the naveee should concentrate on
training how to run a ship so it doesn't crash into another ship or run
aground. Makes the claims of near-invulnerbility of these ships to enemy
attacks laughable.

I'll be interested in the results of the investigations.

Harry is full of ideas as to what others need to do to improve
their performance. He drew a blank though when it comes to self
improvement. Maybe he needs more liberal arts training.

It should be apparent to anyone with an IQ higher than yours, Justan,
that there may well be serious deficiencies in the training for the
navees's ship command and operations. Yes, there could be another
reason, but the principle of Occam's razor seems to apply. Bad watch
keeping, not knowing how to use the radars, crew not knowing how to
communicate with other ships in the immediate area, et cetera, are all
possibilities, and all seem to be training issues.

http://tinyurl.com/y9lavg6z

And you know this because of your vast experience commanding and
standing watch on the good ship Yo Ho. Your commentary over the
years has given us quite a bit of insight as to your knowlege and
capabilities as a mariner. Therefore, your opinions on matters
marine and military are cast aside as rubbish. My wife knows more
about boats and boating than you do.

===

One of the interesting possibilities that I haven't heard anyone
mention is the possibility of organizational culture issues. When
NASA did a deep dive into the reasons for space shuttle failures, they
determined that one of the key reasons was that junior level engineers
were afraid to escalate known problems for fear of damaging their
careers. This sometimes led to design problems being buried instead
of aired out and resolved. I'm guessing that because of the
military's rigid command hierarchy that something similar might happen
among the watch keepers.

As in not reporting equipment shortcomings or in not knowing what to do
while on watch?

===

Not reporting, or not following up, equipment shortcomings would
certainly fall into the category of an organizational issue. Not
knowing what to do on watch is mostly a training and job performance
issue unless more senior people lnowingly let it happen.

I was thinking more along the lines of a junior watch keeper not
raising or escalating a potential hazard for fear of being rebuked.

I could buy into that. In the military, one 'oh ****' wipes out a lot of 'attaboys'. Fear of rebuke
or maybe a desire to demonstrate (improperly) initiative or prowess.