Experience or Theory?

[Neutron Whisperer]

What's everyone's take on which is more important: knowing all the theory stuff from Power School or knowing how to operate the plant and do maintenance?

[withroaj]

Yes.

[Gamecock]

What's everyone's take on which is more important: knowing all the theory stuff from Power School or knowing how to operate the plant and do maintenance?

There is no substitute for operational experience.  However, knowing the theory allows you to anticipate plant response, which in turn makes you a better operator.  The best nukes are heavy on theory, and also experienced operators.

So, in agreement with Withroaj....the answer to your question is.....yes

[Fermi2]

Absolutely

[JustinHEMI05]

I concur with the others.

Absolutely yes.   

Cool user name BTW!!!

Justin

[Fermi2]

DANG I forgot to compliment the name!! Excellent Choice!

[Marlin]

Ditto, yes and absolutely.

[Wanna Know Mom]

I'm not a Nuke and don't work in the nuclear power field, but I agree with the previous posters.  In my field of expertise (med/surg nursing) the best nurses are those that understand and apply nursing theory as well as perform the technical aspects of their job.  We too are constantly vigilant about monitoring our patients (as you do your power plant) 24/7 for abnormals and trends that could indicate an unwanted outcome......hmmm good subject for a comparative essay.    

Kathy VPNM

[Neutron Whisperer]

I posed the question because there's a push at the prototypes to upgrade the staff level of knowledge on theory; even make them take an exam and send them back to the fleet if they fail it.  But there's been dozens of mishaps by the staff due to them not knowing how to plan for and execute maintenance and plant operations.  So shouldn't the push be for making the staff read Vol. IV of the RPM rather than the T-Manuals?

[S3GLMS]

When Port Nuc Instrumentation burns up the power supply at 0130, powers down, a scram occurs and there is no indication of pressurizer level, you need both if you want to get out of it with an intact set of fuel rods.  Real casualty and real recovery experience on D2G plant.  Absolutely used both, the theory and years of operating experience to maintain plant parameters while repairing the equipment.

[Fermi2]

I posed the question because there's a push at the prototypes to upgrade the staff level of knowledge on theory; even make them take an exam and send them back to the fleet if they fail it.  But there's been dozens of mishaps by the staff due to them not knowing how to plan for and execute maintenance and plant operations.  So shouldn't the push be for making the staff Vol. IV of the RPM rather than the T-Manuals?

If you don't understand theory how can you realistically plan and execute maintenance?

Mike

[Neutron Whisperer]

Seems like most of you are talking about the "theory" in "theory-to-practice".  Not what I mean.  I'm referring to the seemingly unimportant stuff like slowing-down length and the neutron life cycle.  Should prototype staff be crapped on for not being able to answer questions about these things rather than not being able to know how many SGWL detectors you need on-service?

I'm with you on the importance of knowing your plant's relationship between temperature change to level change, why there's a -1/3 DPM, why you need to be more careful when shimming out at high powers vice lower power levels, etc.  That stuff helps with operations, but there's a lot of theory stuff that doesn't.  And that's the stuff that is being stressed now.

[JustinHEMI05]

Seems like most of you are talking about the "theory" in "theory-to-practice".  Not what I mean.  I'm referring to the seemingly unimportant stuff like slowing-down length and the neutron life cycle.  Should prototype staff be crapped on for not being able to answer questions about these things rather than not being able to know how many SGWL detectors you need on-service?

I'm with you on the importance of knowing your plant's relationship between temperature change to level change, why there's a -1/3 DPM, why you need to be more careful when shimming out at high powers vice lower power levels, etc.  That stuff helps with operations, but there's a lot of theory stuff that doesn't.  And that's the stuff that is being stressed now.

I see what you are saying but sometimes, you have to get back to the fundamentals. If what I am hearing is true about where I think you are, there is something majorly wrong. You gotta start somewhere to fix the problem when all else fails, and that would be back to basics. I submit though, that had they been trained properly from the get go, you wouldn't have this problem. This all leads back to the PUMP reputation and the How would you fix the NNPP thread, because I bet that right about now is when you would start seeing people that were pumped through back at NPTU.  Just an opinion and educated guess with not real facts to prove it. That said, do I think they should be as harsh as sending them back to see if they don't know how fission works? I don't know, if you ask me, that is the last place I would want them.

How is it again? "Reap what you sow."

Justin

[Fermi2]

Seems like most of you are talking about the "theory" in "theory-to-practice".  Not what I mean.  I'm referring to the seemingly unimportant stuff like slowing-down length and the neutron life cycle.  Should prototype staff be crapped on for not being able to answer questions about these things rather than not being able to know how many SGWL detectors you need on-service?

I'm with you on the importance of knowing your plant's relationship between temperature change to level change, why there's a -1/3 DPM, why you need to be more careful when shimming out at high powers vice lower power levels, etc.  That stuff helps with operations, but there's a lot of theory stuff that doesn't.  And that's the stuff that is being stressed now.

Back when the Nuclear Navy still had high standards no instructor would be whining about having to know this type of stuff. YES it's important.

[NukeLDO]

BZ nails it.  If you want to be an instructor, you've got to know more than your average sailor.  I learned more about "how things work" during my instructor tours than any other time in the Navy.  There's nothing like having to stand up in front of a classroom of 30 people with a bunch of questions to make you learn the material.

[Gamecock]

I learned more about "how things work" during my instructor tours than any other time in the Navy.  There's nothing like having to stand up in front of a classroom of 30 people with a bunch of questions to make you learn the material.

I can testify that NukeLDO knows more about Naval Nuclear Power then anyone I've ever met.

[Preciousblue1965]

To go along with what Justin was saying, we had one NUB that got pushed through even though the entire crew knew he wouldn't make a good operator.  He didn't do bad on tests, but he just couldn't run a plant to save his life.  I got an email from a buddy that is STILL there and he said that he saw the prospective gains list come out with this guy on it as coming back to NPTU as a Staff.  I fully agree that a lot of the ones that are starting to come back now are the ones that were pushed through to begin with.  It is now that the civilians are experiencing what we sailors experienced out on the ship.  Bad operators are more of a headache than any benefit you get out of them for qualifying them. 

I say that if the Navy is really REALLY interested in getting some of that lost theory back into the minds of its fleet sailors, I would recommend that every so often(say 5 years or so) that anyone going back to any training command essentially go through a power school refresher course.  Make it similar to the regular power school, but realize that these are seasoned operators.  At the very least it would give guys a 6 month break from operations(assuming you consider sitting in class a break).

[Fermi2]

When I was a Staff Instructor I viewed my job as having to know everything regardless of rate or theory.

Mike

[Neutron Whisperer]

I agree with all of you that it's embarrassing that we're even discussing this.  Sailors sit around and do a lot of nothing, and then complain about failing a CTE because it was too hard.

Yes, we're instructors and by that simple fact I concur that we have to know more than the bare minimum.  But like one of you said, the instructors of today are "Pumped" nukes and therefore don't have the innate sense to take it upon themselves to keep the theory fresh in their heads like the "Filtered" nukes of the past.

So if this new theory-push is an attempt to reconfigure the pumped nukes into filtered nukes, then that's fine.  But what I'm talking about is: should the push be to learn the theory--at prototype--and not how to read a PMS card and know where/how to select the correct manometer for a calorimetric?  (Yes, these are issues.)  I mean, if you're going to decide to upgrade your men, then why not start with the most important stuff first: like how to run the plant at a place where nukes run a plant...then train them up on theory.

It seems to me like they're trying to install a supercharger on a car with bald tires.

[Marlin]

I agree with all of you that it's embarrassing that we're even discussing this.  Sailors sit around and do a lot of nothing, and then complain about failing a CTE because it was too hard.

Yes, we're instructors and by that simple fact I concur that we have to know more than the bare minimum.  But like one of you said, the instructors of today are "Pumped" nukes and therefore don't have the innate sense to take it upon themselves to keep the theory fresh in their heads like the "Filtered" nukes of the past.

So if the this new theory push is an attempt to reconfigure the pumped nukes into filtered nukes, then that's fine.  But what I'm talking about is: should the push be to learn the theory--at prototype--and not how to read a PMS card and know where how to select the correct manometer for a calorimetric?  (Yes, these are issues.)  I mean, if you're going to decide to upgrade your men, then why not start with the most important stuff first: like how to run the plant at a place where nukes run a plant...then train them up on theory.

It seems to me like they're trying to install a supercharger on a car with bald tires.

   Most of this has been aimed at operators. But in the nuclear field in general whether you turn a valve, flip a switch or read a meter the results should be what you expect. This could be experience but no one has experienced everything. Theory is a tough thing to nail down as to what is applicable and what is not, but it frequently requires a theoretical knowledge beyond a practical daily knowledge to fill in a workable theoretical knowledge. I don't know what level is being taught today but the exercise of learning should be part of the experience. I hope that the Navy has not slid so far from Rickover's philosophy's that it has compromised the program. We had a sign at the entrance to the Mare Island school that stated the "smartest must work as hard". We had a graded system that fed section one just what they needed to get by and and section twelve a full load of the curriculum. We had a pump and a filter but the net effect was the overall health of the program. Prototype was heavy on operations as I am sure it is now but the oral exams and walk throughs dipped into the applicable theory.
  As with any training program it should revise itself based on feedback and mission. If it is changing is that a bad thing?

[NukeLDO]

A recent task force put together some ideas on how to revise prototype operations.  Recommendations include an exam for staff when they report for duty and a two week course to bone up on the weaknesses, limiting class size until the true "capacity" of the prototypes is truly understood (demands on staff time with maintenance, watchstanding, training, and IDE operations), raising the bar for fleet returnee requirements to become an instructor, and teaching actual instructor techniques at BIT school.  SO, there is a pretty exhaustive self-recriminating look in progress.  However, as with everything, change takes time.

[G-reg]

I have often told people (especially during pre-job briefs back in my Navy days) that trained orangutans could do 80% of our jobs.  Then I tell them that there are two primary things that separate "operators" from "trained monkeys"; and those two things are understanding and anticipation.  Theory and fundamentals won't get any work done in a day, but without them you're little more than a trained monkey, just going through various motions of money-see/monkey-do.  Understanding and anticipation during each and every step you're going through is the reason that your boss doesn't pay you with bananas. [End of motivational section of the pre-job brief. ]

Just for clarification, you don't have to be an ace on theory in order to be a good operator.  I really don't care if the guy standing Feed Station for a startup can dissect the StartUp Rate equation into a million pieces, as long as he understands that YES HE CAN cause a positive reactivity excursion with that Feed Reg Valve switch he's holding.

So theory is important - VERY important.  But when it comes to an operator's knowledge of theory: some is good, more is better, but there still comes a point when too much is just too much.  Unfortunately, there are people around who always see fit to take it to extremes (and usually, it's the people who don't actually operate any equipment themselves).

My own two cents...

 - Greg

[Preciousblue1965]

A recent task force put together some ideas on how to revise prototype operations.  Recommendations include an exam for staff when they report for duty and a two week course to bone up on the weaknesses, limiting class size until the true "capacity" of the prototypes is truly understood (demands on staff time with maintenance, watchstanding, training, and IDE operations), raising the bar for fleet returnee requirements to become an instructor, and teaching actual instructor techniques at BIT school.  SO, there is a pretty exhaustive self-recriminating look in progress.  However, as with everything, change takes time.

Does the Navy really think that they will be able to man the prototypes fully if they implement that?  They are having a hard enough time trying to coerce guy/gals to go teach there as it is, let alone trying to find the "cream of the crop" to go back.  While I fully encourage the concept of trying to get better instructors at NPTU and that there are/were NPTU instructors that were less that intelligent in all things nuclear power(most often they ended up getting put in some position in which they could not adversely affect the plant, yet was considered a desirable job to others such as Pro-phase, OCTG, etc.), I also understand that if you set the bar where it probably needs to be, you are going to be even more undermanned than they already are. 

I frequently thought that there should be a Maintenance Division for the prototypes.  One for each rate, about 8 or 9 guys/gals per division.  All they do is do the PMS that is required and needed.  They don't train students, they don't stand watch, they do maintenance.  They write the tag-outs and WAFs for shutdowns, order the parts, do the work, get the boat to work again.  That takes a CONSIDERABLE load off of the training staff, especially during shutdowns to devote more time to training or heaven forbid maybe an extra day off.  You would have to maintain the current manning levels for training staff(since I know the Navy loves to do more with less and would be tempted to drop the levels to bare minimum to man the watch bill).  The reason this works is that you would be able to have two different billets for P-type, one for training and one for maintenance.  I would be willing to wager that more people would volunteer for P-type if they knew they only had to do maintenance.  Of course you give them less pro-pay and give them the option of going to the training side of the house if they cut the mustard with LOK.

Come to think of it, isn't there an industry that seperates out maintenance vs operations vs training?  I am pretty sure they are doing much better as far as morale and recruiting than the Prototypes.  If only I knew what industry that was.  

[mlslstephens]

I frequently thought that there should be a Maintenance Division for the prototypes.  One for each rate, about 8 or 9 guys/gals per division.  All they do is do the PMS that is required and needed.  They don't train students, they don't stand watch, they do maintenance.  They write the tag-outs and WAFs for shutdowns, order the parts, do the work, get the boat to work again.  That takes a CONSIDERABLE load off of the training staff, especially during shutdowns to devote more time to training or heaven forbid maybe an extra day off. 

Interesting point.  After you left p-type, we went to something very similar to this on the 626.  I had my MO run all the maintenance with his "beefed up" off-hull divisions.  Only small maintenance was performed by the crew so they could concentrate on training students and their own qualifications.  My STO was able to concentrate on tougher drill for staff because they weren't worried about the staff being ready for staff drills...the maintenance was being handled by the ODs.
Now, my manning wasn't IAW the PTM but with enough smoke and mirrors, we were able to keep NRRO off our backs.    Okay, the real truth is that I worked with some great NRRO guys who wanted the best for the MTS so it seemed as though they looked the other way when it came to PTM manning.

[Neutron Whisperer]

A recent task force put together some ideas on how to revise prototype operations.  ...  SO, there is a pretty exhaustive self-recriminating look in progress.  However, as with everything, change takes time.

The crews didn't even know about the task force.