How would you fix the NNPP

[Preciousblue1965]

I always thought it was 90%

Anyway, Benjamin Disraeli said there are three types of lies, "Lies, Damn Lies,...and Statistics."

Actually I thought that was Mark Twain that said that.  Then again it could be just a lie or a damn lie.

[Gamecock]

Actually I thought that was Mark Twain that said that.  Then again it could be just a lie or a damn lie.

Not that I would ever use Wikipedia as a real source of data for a formal paper (But its okay for message board rhetoric)....

Wikipedia says

Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

[Preciousblue1965]

So I guess we are both correct, from different point of views.

[93-383]

Are nuke school hours still segregated into S, M and O?

AND, is there a "No hours suggested or required" option that is actually allowed and used?

What do they stand for?

S sugested
M Mandatory
O ?

[Preciousblue1965]

Way back like 10 year ago when I was a foolish nub......(insert snide comments now).......


the hours program was basically just two sets of numbers. The first number was total hours required for the week, the second number was number of required hours per day.  For example

15-3 would mean you had to put in 15 hours a week, 3 hours a day minimum.
10-0 would be that you had to have 10 hours a week, but not any set number of hours a day
0-0 was essentially study as long and when you felt was necessary
40-5 was essentially the equivalent to waterboarding with acid and Barbara Streisand music on continual repeat.

[Preciousblue1965]

I remember the daily and weekly breakdown aspect,...

It was also very dependent on your Section Adviser (a euphemistic term for chief or disgruntled PO1),...

I know what you mean by that.  My section advisor was an MM1 over a bunch of MMs, but he insisted that there was no way to get through school without putting in at least 10 hours of study.  So he put in place that even if you were 0-0 hours, you had to put in 10 hours a week regardless.  I tested him on it and only did 8.5 and he put me on 10-0 the next week.  He was really perturbed when after comp I told him that I never studied at all during those 10 hours a week and that he was stupid for putting people on them. 

[PapaBear765]

Interesting data point for the discussion...

A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement.  They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff.  No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane are being heard.  My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.

It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.

On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.

[93-383]

Interesting data point for the discussion...

A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement.  They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff.  No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane are being heard.  My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.

It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.

On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.

Curiously did anyone recommend axing NPTU in general, and sending people to the fleet after NNPTC? I don't mean to offend any of the staff at NPTU but what is the point no one fails now or even 10 years ago when I went through, what's the point? NPTU Charleston teaches the S5W platform which has been out of service for years, neither NPTU teaches truly current designs. Not only today but looking back 10 years to when I went through what was the point. No one failed and every student was passed off to the fleet to be vetted.

How can you tell the training program is truly broken?

- when while at a shore command, the CPOs are teaching the E6s how to fill out and compile the necessary paperwork/evidence to remove the NECs of people who never should have made it into the fleet with a 33XX NEC's while referring to this as the "no child left behind nuclear navy".

[HydroDave63]

This is a valid perspective I have not considered before. NPTU's train and vet Navy personnel, and perform design and mods testing, the latter do not need Navy operators. If the NPTU's are not serving the vital function of filtering out personnel who should not be allowed to manipulate Navy Nuclear Power Plants why are my tax dollars being  spent to support the entire infrastructure? The NPTU's should not be maintained just to give sea returnees a place to be assigned shore duty. They are expensive facilities. The housing for the NPTU personnel in my hometown includes gates, gategaurds, fencing and an entire dependents support infrastructure in the middle of nowhere New York. Civilian operators (could be many ex-Navy) would not require or desire such an outlandish expenditure of tax dollars. If the only legitimate function these NPTU's currently serve is design and mods testing, civilian operators are the way to go. It seems to be evident the Navy program has evolved to the point that the NPTU's are no longer needed to screen out potential Navy operators who are unfit to operate plants. This would be evidenced by the near 0% attrition rate. If the fleet can perform this function, and we already have to pay for a fleet, the NPTU's mission scope may be in need of serious reconsideration. Times are tough for government finances and they look to be getting tougher. An all civilian NPTU for design and mods testing can realize cost savings by minimizing Navy infrastructure spending, and civilian jobs for the local market, albeit government paid. Indeed, NPTU may not be needed at all, perhaps the design and mods can be all computer based. It should be considered.

4.0 !!! Couldn't agree more....what he said!!!

[Preciousblue1965]

I guess I can chime in on this.  On CVNs we have two sides of the wall as far as machinery goes, thus we have two groups of MMs as such, one for each side of the wall.  There are RM and M Div, RM taking car of RX auxillary stuff and M taking care of Engines, D/Us, and TGs.  On many of those CVNs we have non-nuke MMs operating the equipment.  Some carriers allow Conventional nukes to qualify everything but CMO with other stipulations such as can't operate throttles unless dire emergency, can't stand TG watch with pumps, etc.  That being all said, we have these fresh out of the womb, non-nuke nubs that are able to qualify these watches, some of which qualify pretty quickly, with no additional training other than apprentice school for 2 weeks.  So as far as mechanics go I say that we can send them out to the fleet immediately after NPS.  EM and ETs I feel should have about a month or so of IDE type hands on experience just for the sake of operating switches.  Very minimal overhead for that.  As far as when NECs are assigned, make it contingent upon them qualifying their first in box watch, and the RX officer has to sign off for final approval of NEC. EOOWS should also go to the IDE type atmosphere and get some hands on training there.  I only say this because I personally saw an EOOW that was super stellar in NPS, but couldn't supervise the plant to save his life or anyone else's.

Now if your heart is dead set on having students operate a plant before operating a plant(is that redundant or just redundant?). I say take the Ole Mobile Chernobyl and turn her into a permanant training platform, not only for nukes but for the entire Navy.  You could do carrier quals for new pilots, DC training, and nuke training.  She wouldn't do 6 month deployments, but rather like 2-3 week underways.  Since you wouldn't need a regular ship's complement like AOs and other rates, you could house all the nukies onboard the ship just like they do now.  Thus also saving money on BAH for students and being able to control students better by restricting liberty for those not ahead of the curve if needed.  The staff types would enjoy the fact that they would be at a sea going command that would not deploy for 6 months at a time. 

Those are my 3 cents. 

[JsonD13]

You know taking a carrier and making it a mobile training platform might be good idea.  But I don't see a cost savings there so much.  If you are to train the pilots and such too, you really have to keep most of your rates on board.   You aren't going to be saving much money there.  You will still need galleys, racks for everyone, and the such, so it would be tough to do this.  Now if you just make it so that you are doing it for nukes, you will be able to save on getting rid of Air and AIMD departments.  The only time you would need an extensive engineering (not reactor) department is in port for refurbishing and repairs.  Pay and support services could be maintained on board.  You would still need navigation and deck departments if you were to take it underway. 

Personally, as being a former instructor at NPTU, I would agree with taking the prototypes away.  This would allow more personnel to be on board our ships and allow for more of a normal non-nuke type shore tour for those eligible.  If we removed prototypes, and just decommed the prize, we would have alot more people, maybe even enough to make 5 and 25's the standard.  But that's probably just wishful thinking ;-).

Jason

[Preciousblue1965]

You wouldn't need an AIMD department really because you could just wait to fix the plan back in port.  AOs would be useless because you wouldn't be arming planes.  You could have a minimal galley staff since ships company would be reduced.  You wouldn't really need the ADM staff or CTs.  PN, SKs, and other paper pushers could be reduced by a decent amount, along with HMs and DTs since you wouldnt ever really be deploying and would be within flying distance of major US hospitals.  Of course you would need a few just to stabilize a patient.  If you really think about it hard, there are a LOT of people that you would be able to cut out of a training platform.  Plus just think of all that money you save in BAH per student sailor and all that money that is now being required of staff at NPTU when they go to the students apartments to do "health and comfort" inspections.  Not to mention the money saved paying all those Bettis employees in Charleston and NY, plus you get the civilians out of the qualifying loop and let the Navy guys that have to stand watch with students decide who is worthy and who isn't, instead of just trying to get their numbers up.

[PapaBear765]

Curiously did anyone recommend axing NPTU in general, and sending people to the fleet after NNPTC? I don't mean to offend any of the staff at NPTU but what is the point no one fails now or even 10 years ago when I went through, what's the point? NPTU Charleston teaches the S5W platform which has been out of service for years, neither NPTU teaches truly current designs. Not only today but looking back 10 years to when I went through what was the point. No one failed and every student was passed off to the fleet to be vetted.

How can you tell the training program is truly broken?

- when while at a shore command, the CPOs are teaching the E6s how to fill out and compile the necessary paperwork/evidence to remove the NECs of people who never should have made it into the fleet with a 33XX NEC's while referring to this as the "no child left behind nuclear navy".

Sort of...I suggested (among more tenable ideas) to reduce NPTU to 3 months and eliminate the goal of qualifying them as watch standers.  Who are we kidding when we sign that ET3's card at his final board?  Can he really go down to the plant and stand watch safely?  Not at all.  He can't even tell me what his duties and responsibilities are.  Moreover, he can't even do it administratively (in my opinion) since his qualification was neutered from the beginning by NPTU not being allowed to runs certain drills on him.  So we're not allowed to run a fast leak, or the more probable SLR, on him, but he can stand watch by himself?  Buffalo sierra.

On a different note, it doesn't make a difference with regards to the aim of NPTU that it's an S5W and not something that's found in the fleet.  We're trying to teach them the basics of watch standing and the qualification process.  So if they completely forget how the seawater systems work here or if they remember them 4.0 but they're completely different at their ship, it doesn't matter.  Knowing the concept of their role in the plant and why they're important is key, not what's the valve number for the cross-connect and where it's located.  The times to alarm for a loss of the primary fresh water system on my sub were different than at MARF, but when I got to the boat I knew that I had to know them.  It's about teaching the students what's important to know.

That's just a thought that's independent of the question raised as to the necessity of NPTU, however.

[PapaBear765]

You actually said something I agree with for a change. 

Don't let it go to your head.

[JustinHEMI05]

Wow, some really good thoughts lately. I like the idea of reducing PType to more of a familiarization course. Not that it isn't that already, lets just admit it and cut it.

Justin

[Preciousblue1965]

I think your post actually illustrates the query as to wether NPTU is necessary in todays NNPP;
Whatever training is instilled at the NFAS and NPS level must be sufficient to weed out those personnel who are book smart and hand stupid. Or, the watchstanding scenarios at NPTU are no longer rigorous enough to weed out those students who become incapable of proper action when placed in a stressful situation. I reiterate these must be valid conclusions if the failure rate is near zero percent. It appears the fleet can perform these functions adequately in the contemporary NNPP, thereby making NPTU a redundant and unnecessary experience in developing Naval Nuclear Power Plant Operators. If this scenario is legitimate, as it seems to be, then, as a taxpayer, I am concerned at the expenditure of funds to give NNPP students an expense paid trip to New York, South Carolina, etc., with no added value to the NNPP. If there is no demonstrable earned value to the NNPP from NPTU, then NPTU has outlived one of its useful missions and that part of the mission should be considered for termination.

Would that be termination with EXTREME prejudice?

I still think that even if you get rid of NPTU that you would have to have some mechanism to be able to "denuke" those who proved to be good students in the classroom but incompetent operators.  Perhaps give students their NEC out of NPS with a 6 month to 1 year "probationary" period that if they prove to be completely incompetent operators the RX officer or Eng can pull their NEC with CO concurrence or soemthing to that effect.  I only recommend this becuase I have seen way too many "above average" GPA students from NPS that are competely unable to grasp the concept of being able to stand a watch.

[arduousartifice]

Not to say whether to keep or get rid of prototype, but the electricians we get never seem to understand the electric plant.  We have to teach them how to operate the EPCP.  I'm pretty sure AC paralleling and the electric plant layout is virtually the same on S5W, S8G, and S6G, yet you have to fight to extract the paralleling requirements from them.  It took me a while once on board to figure out the EPCP, but I'm an ET, so I didn't learn it in prototype.  Still, its not that complicated.  And I also thought part of the point of prototype was to teach students how to use the phone circuits, yet we consistently have to train all the new SEOs how to use the damn things.

So as far as mechanics go I say that we can send them out to the fleet immediately after NPS.  EM and ETs I feel should have about a month or so of IDE type hands on experience just for the sake of operating switches.  Very minimal overhead for that... EOOWS should also go to the IDE type atmosphere and get some hands on training there.  I only say this because I personally saw an EOOW that was super stellar in NPS, but couldn't supervise the plant to save his life or anyone else's.

I thought about this, then I read your post, curse you for beating me to it.   To add a little to it:  Mechanics need exposure to a plant before they go to the fleet.  But I don't think it needs to be operational exposure.  Rather, set up the program so that during NFAS and NPS students can go down to the MTS and be shown what they will be working on in context, perhaps even get in there and operate, under close supervision, SSTGs, HPDs, feed pumps, etc.  I remember the visual aids we had in power school, it was a room full of equipment that wasn't connected to anything, was just sitting there, leaving us to imagine (wrongly) how it fit into the plant physically.  The fusion of the two curricula would necessarily lengthen NFAS and NPS, but eliminate the need for NPTU.  For EMs and ETs, a lot more hands on work could be built into the NPS side, so that after learning about reactor theory or electric plant ops they could go and conduct startups and shutdowns on an IDE, shift the electric plant, learn about casualties, then see them run on a simulator, learn the theory behind the CPs.  I remember a simulator at NPS for the EPCP, but a full IDE would be more useful, also we didn't get more than about an hour to look at the EPCP simulator, and it was shared among 25 of us.

Also, I thought the MTSs were just training platforms.  Are they still used to test new equipment or is that only done up in Ballston Spa?  And, just a comment, but there is no prototype for the Virginia class.  SSN 774 is the prototype.  Proves the necessity from that end.  Though they could have used a bit more testing on some of the equipment, as it seems prone to catching fire, but its nothing prototype worthy.

[PapaBear765]

I think your post actually illustrates the query as to wether NPTU is necessary in todays NNPP;
Whatever training is instilled at the NFAS and NPS level must be sufficient to weed out those personnel who are book smart and hand stupid. Or, the watchstanding scenarios at NPTU are no longer rigorous enough to weed out those students who become incapable of proper action when placed in a stressful situation. I reiterate these must be valid conclusions if the failure rate is near zero percent. It appears the fleet can perform these functions adequately in the contemporary NNPP, thereby making NPTU a redundant and unnecessary experience in developing Naval Nuclear Power Plant Operators. If this scenario is legitimate, as it seems to be, then, as a taxpayer, I am concerned at the expenditure of funds to give NNPP students an expense paid trip to New York, South Carolina, etc., with no added value to the NNPP. If there is no demonstrable earned value to the NNPP from NPTU, then NPTU has outlived one of its useful missions and that part of the mission should be considered for termination.

Nothing can substitute for hands-on learning, so prototype has a purpose.  I think its purpose is ill-defined, or at least ill-understood and, therefore, not being implemented very well.  The better way to go about it is a mixture of what everyone's been saying, i.e. the crux is: not to qualify anyone but to show them how the navy nuclear power works.

I don't know about the near-zero attrition notion, but the attrition due to academic issues is the lowest of the several reason for losing a student.  So, yes.  I guess NPTU doesn't really serve a function since the students don't learn the basic watch standing concepts we're supposed to teach them, nor do they really learn how to operate the plant sufficiently.  Those things are learned in the fleet—the fleet way.  So why bother with prototype?  Because Hyman wanted it that way and it's hard to go against Hyman.

I don't know if it's a fair comparison, but would the laborious process of the NNPP pipeline be better suited for commercial training due to the vast difference in complexity of the plants?  We always talk about how great a skilled monkey would be at standing reactor operator (we should really get some of them damn monkeys on the payroll)...so if it's that easy, then why not shorten the pipeline to something more workable?

And, no, the Virginia is not the test platform entirely.  A lot of its new stuff was experimental when I was in training.

[PapaBear765]

I gleaned a lot of my perspective from you;


The picture you're painting of impending screw up of some magnitude at the NY p-type would be in my backyard, and it would appear the issues are not all administrative (the parts that always suck), they cross over into the operational,....

Commercial nukes have problems too, when they get bad enough they shut 'em down, they don't keep training students,...

If things are this bad and this institutionalized, perhaps it's best to just get rid of the institution,....

Maintain the prototypes for a maximum three month stint? If that's all the hands on the NNPP needs that's an awful lot of real estate that may just as adequately be performed by forces afloat,....

I could be wrong, I'm just not hearing where anyone seems to promote that prototype serves a vital and necessary function to the NNPP, not one "digit" post yet as best as I can tell, and NO ONE saying they love their job at prototype, and feel proud of the product they are sending to the fleet,....

What am I supposed to surmise?!?!?!?!

Just keep throwing money at a waste of a program?!?!?!?!

C'mon, that ain't good, sometimes the cure is to move on,....

Hyman's gone, maybe it's time parts of his paradigm moved on with him,....

Forgive me for possibly talking in circles, some posts are time-sensitive and can't be taken out of the context of the posts around them.

Maybe the best answer is to simply eliminate the whole prototype portion.  I say that hands-on training has no substitute because it doesn't.  But if they can get that in the fleet, then why bother with a prototype, right?  But if there's a better way to use the prototypes that someone hasn't thought of yet, or they haven't tried because it's a radical idea, then maybe it should be explored to see if it's viable.  The facilities are already built and being used, so it would be a waste to just shut them down without exploring different ways of using them.

When I said "NY is bad" I was talking about their current condition post-inspection after not doing very well at all.  And from other discussion threads from a while ago from other people's posts, it doesn't sound like a good place to work either.  But things change with the changes of commands, so that could be different now.

My "lazy instructors" remarks are just to show that I'm aware of the whole picture: that I'm not here complaining about the Bob's being the source of why the NNPP needs fixin' that us blueshirts have an equal piece of the "reasons why it sucks" pie.

And an "impending screw up of some magnitude at the NY p-type" wasn't directed at NY, it was at Charleston.  But it wasn't anything along the lines of a reactor accident, the systems are designed too fool-proof to allow that.  I was just saying that Charleston was close to following NY in a post-you-failed-ORSE stand-down.

[PapaBear765]

Interesting data point for the discussion...

A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement.  They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff.  No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane, are being heard.  My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.

It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.

On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.

A follow-up on the above...   Went to a job fair today and spoke with a woman who's in the position to assess how to improve the NNPP and how to handle the conversion to 688-platform MTSs.  She was open to some things I said.  I brought up the task force that was assembled a couple months ago and we both admitted to having read their report that was distributed yesterday.  I pointed out how my input made its way to being an official recommendation in the report.  Pretty cool.  I also pointed her in the direction of this forum for the most candid insight available.

[mlslstephens]

A follow-up on the above...   Went to a job fair today and spoke with a woman who's in the position to assess how to improve the NNPP and how to handle the conversion to 688-platform MTSs.  She was open to some things I said.  I brought up the task force that was assembled a couple months ago and we both admitted to having read their report that was distributed yesterday.  I pointed out how my input made its way to being an official recommendation in the report.  Pretty cool.  I also pointed her in the direction of this forum for the most candid insight available.

Awesome.  I am optimistic about the Navy making real changes towards improving the program.  I'm glad there are guys like you that can think outside of the box to enable real change and still keep the integrity of the program alive...I believe this is possible.

PB, you have something I don't have and that is the ability to see the program with tomorrow's eyes.  I hate to admit it, but even though I'm a Gen-X'er, I still see the program "the way it was when I was a young sailor..."

Good luck in your future endeavors where ever they may be and I really hope you will be successful in paving the way towards a better NNPP.

[Smooth Operator]

Any recommendations you can summarize and post here without violating security?

[PapaBear765]

PB, you have something I don't have and that is the ability to see the program with tomorrow's eyes.  I hate to admit it, but even though I'm a Gen-X'er, I still see the program "the way it was when I was a young sailor..."

I wouldn't go so far to say that.  I can think "outside of the box," but I value many aspects of "the way things used to be."  So don't knock your perspective, it's as valid as anything from myself.

From reading the above mentioned report and the engineering memorandums on the evaluation of the adequacy of the training facilities at NPTU Charleston, it's a large undertaking (to say the least) to figure out what the best course of action.

Anyone else ever think that it would be a good idea to revitalize a portion of the old Charleston Shipyard for a new location for NPTU?  From my limited view, it seems logical to permanently stick an MTS in one of the drydocks and use the buildings around it.  Then you wouldn't have the problem of finding an available drydock for a DEMA, and nothing brand new would have to be built.

[Cycoticpenguin]

For pure academics, we only had one person out of the 7 classes I saw get de-nuked. However, they got rid of about 30 people for various reasons. Better there then on a ship.

I.e. people going "sad", bologna medical reasons, desertion, etc.

Its not like A school or power school are doing much of a job filtering people anyway.

[PapaBear765]

Its not like A school or power school are doing much of a job filtering people anyway.

One section of the 90-page report was a history of the training program.  It had a bar graph of attrition back to about '96.  The attrition for NPS and NPTU has been virtually constant since then while NFAS went from being in the 60% ballpark down to where it is now...right around the time of the grassy knoll speech.

As far as the recommendations in the report, they're pretty mundane.  Nothing too interesting.  However, the report did acknowledge sea-returnees view NPTU as an undesirable shore tour and the navy needs to explore incentives to entice sailors to want to go to NPTU.