Looking for some criticism

[spupower]

As a preface: this isn't a good read for new nukes or prospective nukes

Hey guys, I am an ELT SPU at Ballston Spa, Graduated top on class and first to qualify MM and ELT at prototype. I don't know if my opinion is really a good perspective on the situation because I only have 3 years in the program and I don't struggle with it so I have trouble finding where "average" is for a nuke. I hope it doesn't come off like I think I am better because I know better than that.

In my class the people who could not qualify in the 24 weeks got dropped. No exceptions. If people couldn't pass tests or boards they got one retry and an occasional third attempt, and then then got dropped. Staff generally just tried to find the weak people and cut them out of the program and once someone was gone they found the next weakest and worked on them. Attrition has since drastically dropped.

As a staff member I have watched as the standard has lowered, we stopped getting concurrence to drop people more often, the blame for delinquent students started shifting to the staff, the questions from management are now "what are you doing to qualify your student" instead of "why aren't your students qualified yet". When someone is considered weak as a student we hold their hand and push them through quals. There is now a war on attrition, we look at the students we can't get to qualify and try to figure out how we can get around those problems with the next weak student.

I was almost physically ill one training cycle when the CO and training manager talked to staff and said they think we don't use the full grading scale enough, essentially saying that we need to move our standard without actually saying that. We continue to try to fit more students in a training cycle than possible, with NR trying to fit every possible student in even if we say we can't. The point where we kind of realized the direction we were going was when one student was extended in quals to 32 weeks.

My request is to the more experienced sailors out there: I cant honestly say I feel we are producing the world's best nuclear operators anymore. I don't believe our mission is to make the best operators, but to make as many watch-standing bodies as possible. Every time I fail a student for not meeting the standard I have to justify to someone of higher rank why I did it, and get told how hard it makes our schedule. I have tried m best to shield my division from this but I can only do so much and I am worried when I leave the outside forces will crush my junior SPUs and they will just start passing everyone. I don't think we operate to Rickover's standards anymore and I think if he saw how we train he would shut us down.

On top of this, while on one hand raising the work load, NR, as well as the KSO site, is just making it harder to do anything. Obviously I cant be specific but the bureaucracy and red tape on literally anything you do in a day will double the time it should take at a minimum. The average working day for a staff member is 10-12 hours, not to mention collateral duties or supervisors.

Is this just a bad few years at the prototype or is this a bad trend? I would never consider reenlisting after my tour here because I know the only possible shore tour to come back to is prototype, but I still feel the program is headed downhill with this shift to quantity over quality. What do you guys think?

from a concerned junior nuke

[Chimera]

Training has always been a balancing act between getting "everyone" qualified and weeding out the weak links.  The man-power requirements of the fleet need to be balanced with the quality of the candidates available to fill those spots.  Getting the "best and the brightest" out to the fleet is relatively easy.  It's all those out-liers that make the training world difficult.  As a civilian trainer, I know that if my failure rate is too high, I will be looked at more closely to see if I'm doing my job correctly.  Ultimately, the tests and boards are your tools.  That is where you establish the criteria - all pass, 10% failure rate, 50% failure rate, get rid of the dead wood, etc.  It would appear that you are being tasked with altering your passing criteria.  Perhaps you and the other TCs need to sit down and determine what is "necessary" knowledge, what is good ancillary knowledge and how much of the remaining stuff is an ooly(sp).  As an example, as an RO candidate I had no need of the detailed knowledge of the boost and buck windings on the MG sets although that was a favorite board question for RO and MO candidates.  Perhaps the type of questions an ORSE board asks might help with this "new" perspective.

Anecdotal note: A few years after I left the Navy, I ran into my old LPO.  We discussed the perceived weaknesses of the new sailors entering the fleet from the prototypes.  I asked him if he had seen us (my group of baby nukes) the same way we were seeing the new baby nukes several years later when it was my turn to be LPO.  I held the new nukes in contempt for their general lack of knowledge - at least, that was how I perceived it.  He told me his group of sailors saw us the same way.  We didn't know anything and were lazy.  To put that story in perspective, I was class 69-3.  The people who trained me seemed to know everything.  I felt I knew a lot.  Those coming after me seemed to know even less. 

[Marlin]

Anecdotal note: A few years after I left the Navy, I ran into my old LPO.  We discussed the perceived weaknesses of the new sailors entering the fleet from the prototypes.  I asked him if he had seen us (my group of baby nukes) the same way we were seeing the new baby nukes several years later when it was my turn to be LPO.  I held the new nukes in contempt for their general lack of knowledge - at least, that was how I perceived it.  He told me his group of sailors saw us the same way.  We didn't know anything and were lazy.  To put that story in perspective, I was class 69-3.  The people who trained me seemed to know everything.  I felt I knew a lot.  Those coming after me seemed to know even less. 

   We served in a very different Navy we had washout rates up to 90% at a times in the pipeline with a fleet of 600 ships and over 100 submarines. Today with a fleet below 300 and many fewer submarines the balancing act of managing manpower is much different as there is not as many non nuclear places to send washouts. I understand that washouts today may not even be retained by the Navy if there are no billets for them. I agree with most of your comments I remember asking shipmates how the hell did these new guys get through Nuke school, like you I have mellowed a bit with age I was only a few years behind you in class 71-2. One of the members of my SubVets chapter was a Nuke school instructor in the early 60's and I hear much the same from him, it appears the more we change the more we stay the same. 

Needs of the Navy is the trump card.

 

 

[ChiefRocscooter]

Look the show will go on after you leave, you are a cog in the machine for now do your best to make things right and you will always be able to look yourself in the mirror!  The program has shifted from a high quality filter to a big pump!  Do your best to help the sailors that will help themselves.  The Navy of today is not the Navy of the 60's,70's,80's,90' , or even the Navy of the 00's.  Thing are getting "bad" in a lot of ways, (to be fair good in others) and I am not sure how "bad" it will get.  Do your time, work hard, get your "education", and weather you stay or bail the NAVY will go on.  Do what is right for you when the time come because you can bet the Navy will do what is "right" for it,  if that happens to work for you, "Great" if not well "oh well".

[GLW]

to the OP,...

there is nothing new in this thread that has not been iterated on these forums dozens of times over the last dozen years,....

and you're right to be worried, things have changed, people can be sinister bitches, sometimes you can even get beat and separated out simply because you posted here,...

no one is nearly as anonymous as they expect to be on the web,...

first to qualify both MM & ELT at KSO?!?!

I (the metaphorical "I") can already narrow you down to six or fewer SPUs currently at KSO,...

in a couple more posts, or with a simple process of elimination, "I" can nail you down,...

and my Big Navy persona does not like what you are posting,....

then again, OPs can always delete the threads they start,....

print all the answers on the thread first though, they are wise and good answers all of them,...

almost forgot,...thank you for your service and keep the faith,.....the big leagues still await,...

[Fermi2]

You've never produced the worlds best nuclear operators. The civilian industry did that...

[spupower]

I would like to see civilians get permission from anyone to build a nuclear submarine, or use weapons grade nuclear material, just saying .

>Broadzilla, is that you in the video? nice singing voice.

[BuddyThePug]

I would like to see civilians get permission from anyone to build a nuclear submarine, or use weapons grade nuclear material, just saying .

Hey, genius, ever heard of Pantex? Or Oak Ridge? Those aren't EM3s doing that work.

Thanks for demonstrating how the knowledge level at NAVSEA has titrated down to Kool-Aid. 

[spupower]

If you missed my point, neither of those are reactors that allowed to travel the entire world freely with their own regulatory agency; one isn't even a reactor facility. Rickover built this program so well that he was called before congress to tell them the reason his program had operated so long without incident. The navy has never stopped building reactors and no one questions our safety, NR is also requested by other organizations for technical expertise on nuclear power to perform audits or give advice. That doesn't mean civilian plants are bad, regulations are still very strict and level of knowledge is still high, I have heard from friends that SRO is one of the most challenging things they have had to do as a qual. I'm not even sure why I am arguing this point anymore, NR=0 accidents.

[SA82]

If you are wondering if it will get any better, then the answer is no. You will just have to add going to sea on top of all of the frustration. I have been out for a year after doing ten years. You will find that "getting the boat out to sea", and signing off on the things that accomplish that (ORSE, maintenance), are what matters to your officers. Knowlegde and good watch standing are secondary to the primary goal (as well as common sense).

The only reason to sign another contract is for the simple reason of whether you like your job and believe in it. Otherwise, make the most of your education benefits, learn as much as you can, and add things to your resume. Then get out and find a new job (while re-inserting common sense into your work day).  I took that approach and I have never been happier.

[Gamecock]

NR is also requested by other organizations for technical expertise on nuclear power to perform audits or give advice.

Who?!?

[spupower]

How about reviewing the destruction of Columbia and the Challenger, US Congress, this is all on google

[Marlin]

How about reviewing the destruction of Columbia and the Challenger, US Congress, this is all on google

   When answering a question the use of the Quote function helps avoid confusion for those who are trying to follow a thread or side bars of that thread (better know as "Off Topic" posts).

   To respond to a post hit the "quote" button and the comment you are replying to will appear in a "quote" box inside a new dialogue box.

   You can hit the "reply" button to open the dialogue box then scroll down to any comment you wish to reply to and hit the "quote" button, this will place the "Quote" box wherever the cursor is located.

[Fermi2]

I would like to see civilians get permission from anyone to build a nuclear submarine, or use weapons grade nuclear material, just saying .

>Broadzilla, is that you in the video? nice singing voice.

Ever hear of Savannah River and you do know civilian enrichment is weapons grade right?

Again the Navy never produced the worlds best Nuclear Operators. The civilians always did it better and I have been both Nuke Nsavy back when it did produce quality operators, And I have operated BWRs and PWRs in the civilian world. I KNOW which one does it better.

[Fermi2]

How about reviewing the destruction of Columbia and the Challenger, US Congress, this is all on google

Incorrect, NASA relied on INPO a Civilian organization...

[Marlin]

Again the Navy never produced the worlds best Nuclear Operators. The civilians always did it better and I have been both Nuke Nsavy back when it did produce quality operators, And I have operated BWRs and PWRs in the civilian world. I KNOW which one does it better.

   Apples and Oranges the Navy does produce the best nuclear propulsion plant operators which is their goal. Navy operators perform their job at a very young age in isolation from all of the support that a commercial plant enjoys in a much faster responding reactor. Commercial plants are much better staffed with most personnel far more specialized than the multirole functions required in the Navy, again at a much younger average age workforce.

   

[Fermi2]

Incorrect From an Ops end I would guarantee I can take any commercial operator and make them into a Navy Nuke. History has shown it does't work in reverse.

After all it was Rickover who told the JCAE that "I design my plants so a monkey can operate them"

[Fermi2]

And if desired you can move a Civilian plant at nearly the same rate as a Navy Plant. I know, I've done it. At EOL a Naval Operator has nowhere near the core considerations due to Pu239 that a Civilian plant does. If he wants to say we have the best T Ball Players in the world I will agree. But as for nuclear operators, not even close.

[Marlin]

Incorrect From an Ops end I would guarantee I can take any commercial operator and make them into a Navy Nuke. History has shown it does't work in reverse.

When has that ever happened? By the time a commercial operator qualifies he is too old to be considered for Navy service.
A watch station many times had no one over 25 years of age with an Engineer in charge of the Department no older than 30. These watchstanders also did most of the maintenance and testing with little or no support. Again Apples and Oranges, what about the operators of experimental reactors who perform outside the norms of power production???

After all it was Rickover who told the JCAE that "I design my plants so a monkey can operate them"

There are just more monkeys with smaller scope of work each. 

And if desired you can move a Civilian plant at nearly the same rate as a Navy Plant. I know, I've done it. At EOL a Naval Operator has nowhere near the core considerations due to Pu239 that a Civilian plant does. If he wants to say we have the best T Ball Players in the world I will agree. But as for nuclear operators, not even close.

Opinion every facility or ship I have been to claims to be the best. Empirical evidence???

[Gamecock]

How about reviewing the destruction of Columbia and the Challenger, US Congress, this is all on google

I once was like you.....

I believed that NR, with its engineers and its field representatives, was the greatest organization in the world with the smartest people around.....

then I worked there   

Let's just say that once you've been inside the sausage factory, you'll never eat sausage again.....

[GLW]

Looking for some criticsm

well, I reckon if you keep jerking chains you'll eventually get it,....

the big difference between you (the OP) and the people you are arguing with is that the people you are arguing with have already walked in your shoes and you have not walked around in theirs,....

nice to see the NNPP still pushes the "best of the best of the best" hoorah,....

it's good for building an elite fighting group,...

that's what it's all about, you are being trained to operate the engineering spaces of a warship, what the Navy needs from a submariner in the engineering spaces is that bravado that compels a young man to die from drowning with his hand on the valve handle rather than being curled up in a fetal position as the boat fills with ocean and drifts ever closer to crush depth, all so the true warrior; the captain on the bridge, can get one more torpedo on target and turn sacrifice into victory,...

it's not about you, never has been, it's all about the warship, Rickover's program was about the warship, you are just the lucky beneficiary of a program that proves to lots of smart people outside the program that you are trainable and adaptable, and probably worth taking a risk on when investing the time and money it takes to build a qualified operator,...

I was one of those top of the class MM becomes an ELT submariner once upon a time ago, I was also one of those conventional skimmers playing at water king on a Gearing class destroyer as a MMFN in thrall to the 2nd class who was technically the real water king,....

there were some great operators on conventional destroyers, maybe 1 out of every 10, but that was good enough for Big Navy, it was not good enough for the nuclear submarines, so Rickover was the right man at the right time,...

is that level of operator needed nowadays?!?!

indications are that Big Navy thinks not,....

do you wanna know what "equivalent Co60" really means?!?!

it means some really smart guy at 08 has dumbed down all the pertinent data to something a monkey can work with,....

if I tried to justify the actions I perform in my current line of employment with "Co60 equivalent" I'd probably be invited to partake of the generous unemployment benefits of my home state,....

also, an MM/ELT SPU is nowhere near the operator a BWR or PWR SRO is,...

so don't argue like it is, it's not, it's just not,...

you've done well to get where you are, just don't get all Anakin Skywalker on us padawan,...

somewhere on thse threads, as alluded to in an earlier post on this thread there is a phenomal observation that went something like this;

"You can't fix the Navy, the Navy ain't broke"

[spekkio]

Spu,

I think that you should serve a few years at sea before you make your final judgement about the quality of nuke that should (or shouldn't) enter the fleet.

I have my own reservations about prototype, but...

Your 'training' doesn't stop at prototype. Your first 3 months onboard a sub are spent getting berated by the cooks, especially the ones junior in rank to you that hate the fact you show up to a sub as an E-5 without dolphins. After that time you go through qualifications that take a year and a half. This is where you learn how to actually do your job instead of the bad habits picked up from prototype, albeit there's really not a whole lot different when it comes to ELT.

You first qualify a junior watchstation where you take logs, clean a lot, and someone is always around to watch you until you prove that you have a handle on things. Once you show you've got a handle on things is about the point you qualify senior-in-rate, 18 months after you first report onboard, but you won't stand that watch for quite some time in normal circumstances.

Your main function in a casualty for junior watchstations will be to accurately report it (which seems to be a real challenge for a lot of people), take immediate actions that are relatively simple in nature, and perhaps get a fire extinguisher to the scene. After that, you simply do what the off-going EWS (or LELT) tells you to do.

Does it take more smarts than being, say, a BM? Absolutely. Are baby nukes expected to solve world hunger in their first month onboard? No.

Where the current philosophy does a disservice to the fleet is when it fails to weed out the bad apples, as in the ones who refuse to put their nose to the grindstone and learn their jobs. Instead, those guys seem to get kicked to the fleet where they eventually go see the chaplain and become unplanned losses. Some of them were smart guys, too. A guy with borderline LOK in prototype can make it in the fleet as long as he continues to work hard and be a team player. A guy who has a bad work ethic, even if he's smarter than the average bear, will not make it.

[spupower]

So just to clarify this, you guys are ok with them not even sticking to the 24 week requirement anymore? Because while I am sure we can literally train anyone to operate in these plants, and yes I know "equivalent Co-60" is stupid and it actually confuses more people coming in that it helps. There are those times where intelligence actually matters and I feel like the fact that we drag people kicking and screaming to their boards is really wrong.

I know I am junior and I haven't seen the fleet but I have seen huge, huge changes at prototype in my few years here and it just seems like they are looking at production over quality, I used to hear people say that attrition is part of a high standard, now any time a student is disenrolled we investigate why we as staff failed to qualify them.

[spekkio]

Do you have any data to back up anecdotal claims on the trend of lowering standards in prototype in the last 10 years (attrition rate, GPA, ASVAB scores and high school GPA before entering the program)? Any data on the effects of sending supposedly lower quality nukes to the fleet (unplanned losses, number of incident reports per year, number of sailors who fail to qualify senior in rate in 18 months, longer maintenance availability accomplishment times, etc)?

Because until you have that data, you're just talking out of your ass.

Also, I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news on your last 3 years of shore duty, but the DoD isn't exactly being given a blank check. If keeping a baby nuke around 2 weeks longer to qualify is cheaper than sending him home and replacing him with someone else from day one, and keeping him around won't cause any negative consequences in the fleet at a higher rate, then why should the Navy de-nuke him?

[Marlin]

I know I am junior and I haven't seen the fleet but I have seen huge, huge changes at prototype in my few years here and it just seems like they are looking at production over quality, I used to hear people say that attrition is part of a high standard, now any time a student is disenrolled we investigate why we as staff failed to qualify them.

   Sounds like a lean management expecting it's instructors to do their job and holding your feet to the fire. It will not change in the civilian world if you are a supervisor, especially if your subordinates are in a union you will have to document everything prior to taking any action.