Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker Menu

ACAD 10-001 Question

Started by Creeker, Aug 09, 2013, 01:58

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Creeker

I have a question relating to figure 2-2 of ACAD 10-001.

Specifically, the block labeled "Does candidate have 2 years or more in a position equivalent to reactor operator position at a military reactor?"  The exact circumstance is a non-ET operator with less than 2 years onboard ship as an EWS, or PPWS.  The follow on command was a non-prototype duty, followed by EAOS. 

Now, in the INPO document "ACAD 10-001, Guidelines for Initial Training and Qualification of Licensed Operators Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)", there is a question which deals with "Total Military Nuclear Experience" which states that an NEC is good from issue to removal, so throughout career transitions to non-nuclear billets, training commands, etc, the "Total Military Nuclear Experience" continues to accumulate, but I'm not so sure I can use this guidance on the "equivalent to RO operator position" requirement.

Can I get some guidance on how other utilities count EWS/PPWS/PPWO time?

Thanks very much in advance!

Higgs

Two years of actually standing the watch. If they do not have that, they won't be eligible. Like it says, "in the position of..."

Justin
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." - Ted Nugent

Higgs

By the way, look at the definition section as well.

Justin
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." - Ted Nugent

Creeker

"In the position of.." is how I read it. 

What are you referring to in the definitions?

Higgs

The defenition of total military nuclear experience. Also note that that term is used in flow chart 2-1, not on 2-2. You're reading it correct, no interpretation necessary. They use total experience for determining direct ro eligibility.

Justin
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." - Ted Nugent

Creeker

Thanks, Justin. 

I read it like you do.

Bill

Higgs

You're welcome!

Justin
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." - Ted Nugent

Creeker

Any other opinions to support or oppose?


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2025 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?