While I am sure that the following has been covered at lengths, probably in this thread(all 18 pages of it), perhaps a little rehash is in order. There are somethings that we CAN change and there are some that we CANNOT due to the nature of the business. Allow me to illustrate.
Deployments: Not much we can do there, since they are subject to the whims of other world leaders wild hairs our appropriate response to such wild hairs.
Pay: It will never be enough, but maybe throw some more into the mix, and not in the form of re-up bonuses. Higher propay, maybe even performance bonuses for those guy that truly go above and beyond.
Workload: Of course increased manning will help, but that is only one part of the equation. Stop the mentality of "just in case". Too often, there would be nothing critical to be done, yet EVERYONE is sitting around because the LCPO or DIVO was worried something might come up. If something really needs to be done, it will get done with no complaining, but keeping 20 guys hanging around just to paint the bulkhead for the 10th time that month when there was nothing wrong with it is going to cause a LOT of resentment. This is minimized in the civilian world by the fact that you have to pay overtime and stay in budget. The Navy needs to take on this mentality, even if it can't implement the pay side of it.
The BS factor: Understand that sometimes things happen. A person will screw up and things will break or cause a transient. STOP TRYING TO FIX THE WHOLE for one person's mistake. Too many times, one person will do something wrong that was just plain stupid, a brain fart if you will, and next thing you know, everyone is sitting through 4 hours of extra "training" to remind people not to do that same stupid thing. I understand if it is a rare evolution that gets screwed up, but just because someone signs the wrong part of a qual book or screws up a valve lineup doesn't mean everyone is messed up.
The BS Factor Part 2: Let your people do what they know how to do. I understand procedural compliance is a cornerstone of the program, but don't go overboard with it. You don't need to reference the procedure EVERYTIME to do something you have done 100s of times before and only involve 3 or 4 valves. Also don't enforce rules that aren't rules. I dont' know how many times there were hits on drills that started out "contrary to good engineering practices....". So me the Engineering Practices manual, otherwise it shouldn't be a hit. The Circle X method is a good tool, but it isn't something that is required, so don't enforce it like it is.
Testing and LOK: CTEs and other exams are grossly out of step with what should be expected. Everyone wants to see that nice looking bell curve, so numbers get fudged to fit it. NUBs fail and Senior guys get the highest score, with so many people getting a certain score range in between. If too many pass, the test was too easy. If too many fail, the training wasn't sufficient. A person should not have to memorize word for word a procedure, the supplementary information for why each step was taken, expected indications, and all associated communications for an evolution to get full credit on a question. They should also not have to "assume" 20 different items, write down those assumptions(some that are just rediculous such as assuming 3 ft is approx 1 meter) just to get half credit for a question. When you put out tests like this, it only encourages the use of "gouge sheets" and cheating such as on the IKE and other places. ESPECIALLY when you cause a loss of liberty or extra work for failures. Tests should be challenging, but not take the whole set of books just to get right. If I was writing a test, I would give a sample test to all my people, tell them to not study for it, and see where the level of knowledge is for the group, then write it just a tad bit harder for the real one. Of course there is probably flaws to this method.
Make the Pipeline mean something again: Make sure that people EARN that NEC and not just survive the pipeline. Right now academic attrition is easily less than 5% if it is even 2%. Sorry, but that is unacceptable. What is the point of having more extra bodies on the ship if you can't trust them to stand watch on their own. Not only are they taking up a billet spot, but you usually have to assign someone to sit in their back pocket so you just burned up to billets worth of manning for one person. Also, if a person is grossly incompetent, DENUKE HIM don't send him on some cushy TAD(like gage cal shop, valve shop, department supply, etc) job just to get him out of your hair. Cushy TAD should be for guys that have done well and earned it.
Finally, stop relying on two or three people for 80% of the work. Too often, if a person exhibits competence on a job, he/she gets tagged with doing everything while those incompetent types get to slack off. Make sure your people get trained, even if it takes longer to get done, because if those two or three people leave or are sick, you are screwed.
It always seemed to me that the NNPP had a mentality of training new ones, using and abusing them for however long they signed up for, and then if they had had enough, let them get out at EAOS. If they hadn't, well that was a nice suprise and we get to abuse him/her for a few more years. Easier to replace them then try to actually change the program to keep the good ones.
Just some insights on what I think would help. Of course I could be wrong.
