Experience or Theory?

[NukeLDO]

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. 

The thought in the proposal is that the bar for NFAS/NPS duty is higher than that for p-type.  Make p-type duty a pre-requisite for NFAS/NPS.  Then, fully man the p-types to handle the actual demand signal (once that's actually known).
If you were fully manned, would the duty be so bad?  No back-to-back watches, etc.

[Creeker]

To address the issue of lowering level of theory knowledge....  I was always fairly proud of the electronics knowledge that nuke ET's had coming out of the pipeline, and developed further in the fleet...  I was a target rider, but on my first tour back at NFAS, I heard plenty of stories from sub colleagues about who fixed stuff for the coners..  The nukes, of course.  Who could figure it out, and troubleshoot down to the component level, when there were no more black boxes to swap out?  The nukes could.  And then, when NFAS moved from Orlando to Charleston, we changed the curriculum to get rid of radar, and replace it with I&C trainers.  There was tremendous pressure to alter our level of instruction to only troubleshoot to the board level, then swap and be done.  We managed to somehow keep troubleshooting to the compenent level, and I think it's crucial!  How many times in fleet roubleshooting will we have to do this?  Maybe not all that often, but that theory of how things work, down to component level, can be crucial in determining whats wrong on the macro scale.  I think this basic concept applies to electrical, mechanical, and Rx theory as well.

[bdhoe]

I rarely pipe in but, as everyone as has said it is very important to know both.  You will never know what situations are given to you down the road, and during one major evolution I became the mechanical pressure watch.  The brief for all of this evolution(mucho mucho briefs) would consist of questions to the RO and myself, and needless to say, nothing is cooler for a mechanic then telling the RO that "I now have pressure control of the reactor"..and to make it worse I was a SMAG..but I knew exactly what was going on and was in complete communications with the RO at the time and we operated perfectly in tune and had no problems.  Knowing all the theory I did, is why I was placed there, as well as knowing the plant I was on..so strive to be the best at both and don't stereotype yourself down to your rate.
Just follow the old golden rule and learn at least one thing new about the plant you operate each day..and good luck!

[Preciousblue1965]

The thought in the proposal is that the bar for NFAS/NPS duty is higher than that for p-type.  Make p-type duty a pre-requisite for NFAS/NPS.  Then, fully man the p-types to handle the actual demand signal (once that's actually known).
If you were fully manned, would the duty be so bad?  No back-to-back watches, etc.

There would still be things to complain about, but it would definitely help morale for a while.  There was nothing worse than having 6 watchbill slots to fill and having only 6 guys in the division.  The cube would have to start watch relief almost a full hour prior to regular watch relief just so the "daisy chain" could be done before the end of shift.  Most guys got just enough time to run over to the barge, smoke one if they smoked, and eat whatever they could find in the vending machines and get back down to relieve the next guy, all in the span of about 8 minutes.  The lucky guy was whoever had cube for second half because they usually ended up only doing 2 hours of cube duty. 

However I fully believe that if you could give guys almost no back to back watches, life would be much better.  You could even have the "maintenance" guys qualify initially, maintain proficiency, and then if they wanted to, go from maintenance to training and the other way around.  It would be a little dicey at times, but it would still be a break from 3 solid years of taking young minds and warping shaping them into nuclear operators.

[Preciousblue1965]

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.

Oh sure, do stuff the easy way after I leave.  I wonder if they ever implemented my continuous improvement that I actually won money for. 

[goobs22xx]

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.

And it was great while it worked, but has since failed from two distinct ends.

First, the smoke and mirrors have been obliterated. The issue got brought up that we were manning not IAW the PTM and there has been backlash from that. They're supposed to be collapsing down the ODs to PTM mandated levels and sending the 3 or 4 "superfluous" guys back to crew. Now we're supposed to have crew level RPPOs as well as dealing with the things that the DCA used to take care of. This part really pisses me off because the system was working when it was used as intended.

However, the above mentioned backlash has no effect on the current shutdown, yet the crews are getting stabbed with levels of maintenance that only gets worse every shutdown. We dropped down to only having 1 extra guy each half and he is always doing maintenance. Most days the cube is getting secured because the ODs want us to take care of something. I guess I should throw out there that I am a mechanic and my perspective is rather limited to the divisional level.

The real issue here is that on the divisional level we lack the ability to prioritize anything. It's always seems to be a rush to get something done right away, be it getting maintenance done or getting students ahead of the curve. If we weren't such extremists in our thought process, we could get our job done much more efficiently. I think that, as was mentioned earlier, if we had people allocated to perform a single aspect of the job of running prototype that we would be doing much better overall.

But what do I know? I'm just a dirty SPU who does what he's told...

[Preciousblue1965]

Well when I was there I saw the 626 got from

Having a DCA who coordinated all the DC maintenance.  It was usually a SPU during Tweek.  Worked good because it was easy maintenance, got the SPUs some experience reading PMS cards, and well.......lets face it, sea returnees weren't going to do it when we could leave early. 

Then, they got rid of the DCA and shifted all DC maintenance to the crews.  Each crew had a DC LPO to basically coordinate the crews share of the DC maintenance.  I was Crew D, and somehow ended up being the only one that really worked on the DC maintenance.  I eventually turned over when I got ready to leave the Nav.  The guy I turned over to eventually went on to become the DCA when they reinstated it after I left.  I guess that is when the ODs got overmanned and everything shifted. 

It only figures that when we find something that really works, that someone would throw a fit because it isn't how some Yahoo that sits behind a desk and never had to deal with maintenance dreamed it up when he wrote the PTM.  Frickin Frackin' DUMB Civilian Prototype staff.

[NukeLDO]

It only figures that when we find something that really works, that someone would throw a fit because it isn't how some Yahoo that sits behind a desk and never had to deal with maintenance dreamed it up when he wrote the PTM.  Frickin Frackin' DUMB Civilian Prototype staff.

What makes you think it was written by the contractor?
And, yes, it will have to be revised to implement some of the proposed changes to how the p-types do business.  But that's not impossible.  Why else would there be more than 1000 revisions to the current S6G RPM?
I don't know about you, but I rubbed elbows with some pretty impressive contractor personnel during my 2 p-type tours.

[mlslstephens]

I don't know about you, but I rubbed elbows with some pretty impressive contractor personnel during my 2 p-type tours.

I couldn't agree with you more about that.  I met so many very impressive civilians during my prototype tour and so many of them were extremely willing to help me in my endeavors.  It is true, however, that many of the civilians that helped me the most were priors. 

Looking back on the whole p-type experience I can now see things a tad bit more clearly than when I was in the ring of fire.  When I arrived, I was told that the corner office was the enemy and that I should never seek their help in anything..."only give them what they ask for", and "there is no such thing as a free look".  However, this was not my experience.  I had a great relationship with NRRO.  Of course they have a few jerks working with them as well as the jerks I had working with me.  [I would never post the name of the biggest jerk in the office on an open forum; but the motel owner in the 1960's movie Psycho is a hint]

So how does all this tie into the topic?  The guys who helped me the most were the ones who had an abundance of technical theory knowledge but who also had that operational background.  That is what the good guys at NRRO brought to the table.

[Preciousblue1965]

What makes you think it was written by the contractor?
And, yes, it will have to be revised to implement some of the proposed changes to how the p-types do business.  But that's not impossible.  Why else would there be more than 1000 revisions to the current S6G RPM?
I don't know about you, but I rubbed elbows with some pretty impressive contractor personnel during my 2 p-type tours.

Ok fair enough, I guess I kinda "hit the governor" on that one.  I knew some pretty impressive people too when I worked there, but I also meet some of the most hard headed civilians that couldn't see past their own nose.  Most of the latter where the ones in higher positions of power.  From my short experience, the general mindset of the civilan arm of NPTU was all training and very little of anything else.  While I fully understand that that is their job, that mind set isn't conducive to when it comes to trying to get all the maintenance done that needs to be done.  This usually ends up becoming a wrestling match between the Civilians and the ODs on what takes precedence with the crew guys stuck in the middle. 

As far as the NRRO guys, I never really had too much problem with most, but there were definitely some that would easily rhyme with the word "ticks"  However "comma" towards the end it was pretty good since I knew one of the guys from my old ship.  One of the guys from my crew went on to be NR after I left. 

[NukeLDO]

Of course they're worried about training...that's what the civilians at MTS are contracted to do.  Unlike NY where they are contracted for operations and the Navy worries about training.  Granted, cooperation is required to achieve the desired end state.

[DLGN25]

This is an amazing thread for an old salt who has been out of the Navy longer then most who now serve have lived.  I remember while attending school at Mare Island, the guys who were in training for PBR duty (That's Patrol Boat River) during their PT would march by the barracks and the cadence call would go something like this "If I had a high IQ, I could be a NUKKY-PO".  That was in 1967.  At that time there was a war and the draft.  RO's then came from the top 5% of the ET's, and almost all had some college.  They all were trained in electronics school to the component level, and well versed in transistor theory (state of the art then) as well as in vacuum tubes.  (Have any of you seen one of them?).  Anyway, without electronics theory, you cannot be a good technician, without nuclear and engineering theory you cannot be a good operator. 

Case in point.  Once while in Subic Bay, I visited a high school buddy, then an E-5 MM on a conventional frigate tied along side us.  He took me on a tour of his ship's engine room and told me about how they could not keep vacuum on their turbine generators.  I took me about one minute to find the problem.  The warm-up recircs where open, in fact they were nearly frozen open.  I explained the theory to him, and with glazed eyes he nodded.  Later, he sent a letter thanking me, because the problem was the always open recircs, now he was the hot MM on his ship. 

Anyway, back to Nukes.  Not all RO ET's were able to ply their trade, in fact, on Bainbridge there was not enough technician work for the number of ET's in engineering.  While I was there, there were perhaps maybe four or five who did the bulk of the maintenance and repair work, and it usually went to the non-operator qualified guys to do, or to those interested enough to volunteer.  The game in our division was to qualify as soon as you could so you could to get out of things like maintenance.

Back to the point, the difference between an accountant and a bookkeeper, is the understanding of business theory and general accounting principles.  The difference between a Nuke ET, MM, or EM, and non-nuke ratings, is the nukes understand the theory behind everything they are doing.  To down play the importance of theory, is to jeopardize the ship and her mission, like my buddy's ship, the one who could not keep their generators on line in warm waters because they did not understand, or care about the underlying theory of how the machine worked.

I am also sadden to hear that civilians are now used in training.  Back in the day, instructor duty was a reward and considered prime duty, even in Idaho.

[JustinHEMI05]

Excellent post! One of the best I have read around here in a long time. Thank you for sharing that perspective.

Justin