NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Navy Nuke => Navy:Staying In => Topic started by: Preciousblue1965 on May 07, 2008, 12:17
-
I know they old saying "A B#*%ing sailor is a happy sailor" but I just wanted to get some input from both new and old glow-worms on what you would do to "fix" what we perceive to be wrong with the Navy Nuke program, and not just the broad brush stroke of "raise the standards of recruitment" or "do away with NRRO", I mean real specific answers. I am sure that there is a lot that we would agree on and even some that we wouldn't. Who knows maybe someone with some power will read this and see what they can do to put it into play.
-
Wow. I am glad you put this question up. While it is true that most of us folks who would post to this are somewhere between E4 and E6, meaning we have limited perspective into the "Big Navy" and its ability to monitor and resolve problems, maybe we can make our recommendations here in a respectful manner and someone can at least read them.
I guess I should preface my recommendations here with the acknowledgement that most of the issues with the NNPP probably need to be addressed at the command level, though I'd imagine most complaints are identical across the fleet, sub or surface. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that there is no real answer to many of the issues most of us have with the program. Jobs suck, and that's why we get paid.
1)People are disgruntled, and not just in that casual "happy sailor is a B****ing sailor" way. This may stem from the program's almost complete lack of positive reenforcement (this is a command issue, yes, but I'd imagine it's a Navy wide "command issue" ). For most guys I have worked with over the last five years, job satisfaction has been less than or equal to zero, wether they were a dirt bag or the best guy in the division. If you think about it, not many people can find job satisfaction in just knowing that they are good at what they do. I happen to be God's gift to the ELT world, and I carry myself in a smug manner based on that and think the job is great just because I can do it well(ok fine, it's not that hard to show up and do what you're told). We all need an incentive from time to time. My division all got NAM's after an ORSE for "zero LOK deficiencies." That means we got awards because they couldn't say anything bad about us? I don't know how well it works to motivate your people by saying, "hey guys, you don't suck that bad."
My recommendation based on this: let's assess the nuclear community from an angle other than compliance (which we will cover later). It would also be helpful to provide an opportunity for this discussion to take place in an official forum, and in a format that doesn't compel people to lie on a multiple choice survey to avoid having to justify answers. We have all complained to our CPO's and Div-O's about issues, and a lot of the time they just agree. "I agree with you, but that's how it is." We had an Electrician show our CO, at quarters on the pier, a copy of that page in Navy Regs that says something like "Hours worked outside normal working hours will be compensated with an equal amount of time off during normal working hours." Meaning Saturday duty equals Monday off -- yes, it's actually there. The Captain simply replied, "Not on submarines." If you actually look at it, that regulation doesn't provide a provision for submarines or any other platform. I guess I am writing this in the same way my girlfriend of three years reminds me of her ring size from time to time...
2) Withdrawn. I don't have the background to make this statement. My apologies to all who read it.
3) Money isn't the answer here, people! You guys out there know that the zone A reenlistment cap is now $90k (probably higher by the time I hit 'Post' ). It has doubled in the five years I have been in, yet on my boat we only had three sea-returnees (excluding CPO's) in the nuke divisions, and they weren't exactly an all-star lineup. It seems like the NNPP is setting itself up to retain guys who want E-5 and new trucks or motorcycles or HDTV's, but not necessarily competent individuals. We had an awesome E-6 RC divver get out at six years. This guy was the shining example of "squared away recruit." A technical expert and solid watchstander, well liked up and down the Chain of Command, he wouldn't take NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS to stick around two years for a shore duty. I actually had the opportunity to present this as an example to a Force Master Chief very respectfully, trying not to sound like a dissenter (one of those "town meetings" with the crew where coners ask about new uniforms), and he actually said "we're looking into raising the bonus cap." When asked if the "Big Navy" has looked at why money isn't helping, he said they're looking at throwing more money at the issue. You commercial operators out there have made it very clear that nukes make more money on the outside.
My recommendation: You got me here. I really want to love this program and stay in the Navy, but as time goes by I am having trouble telling myself that this program isn't headed in the wrong direction. I am happy with my old car and normal TV, and don't really want a motorcycle; and I am starting to believe that sticking around thinking I can positively influence things might just leave me bitter, fat and divorced at 40 years old.
All that being said, I plan to take another shore duty, bringing me out to that dreaded ten year point. I really am having fun in this game, as broken as it may be.
-
" Money isn't the answer here, people! "
Agreed. My son is on a boat, qualified, and from independent reports from the squadron level, doing a good job. His plan has never varied - 6 and out and on to a local cooling tower thingy. Repeated 12 hour days and extended cruises are exactly what he was told to expect, this after the 18 month high speed treadmill called Goose Creek. Just another churn 'em and burn 'em story, but this life is certainly not for everyone. More power and respect to those of you who pulled (or are pulling ) twenty or so. 8)
-
Well did I ever start a topic or what? :o
Well I can't state exact quotes as I was not there, but I did overhear a MCPO talking to one of the NRRO guys(not field office but big wig guys) about the future of the NNPP. Apparently the conversation got into the Re-Up bonuses going way up. Yada Yada Yada, the NR guys says(not exact quotes) "we know the job sucks but hopefully we can keep a few guys with these new bonuses" to which this MCPO(one of the VERY rare instances that this guy made sense) "well what can we do about the 'sucking' part"
I agree that more and more money might keep a few more around, but what good is all that money if you never are home to spend it. You can only buy so much stuff at the ship store(surface guy here) and over the internet(ok there is a lot there).
I respect some of the guys for NRRO, but I don't respect their mindset. The idea that "we have to find something or else we aren't doing our jobs" is rediculous. I understand that some of the programs are there for our own good and that is why we haven't had a major accident since inception(I fully think it is a matter of time with the way things are going, IMHO).
I am not sure if I have any or all the answers but something has to give.
-
Yes it takes a special person to make the twenty year mark regardless of the current problems. (That is a serious statement not a tongue and cheek response like normal.)
It takes several types of special person.
A: Someone who really really loves the fact they are serving their country and feels pride in being in the Navy(Sadly not enough of these guys)
B: Someone who knows that they can't make it out in the real "non military" world where incompetence gets you fired, not moved to a position of little importance I.E. Good Deal(WAY too many of these guys)
C: Someone who has to stay in for one reason or another outside of their control I.E. Buddy of mine's wife would NEVER qualify for health insurance on the outside that was in their price range
Though this doesn't cover everyone it covers a good bit.
-
The dial has been turned back on The Wayback Machine.
It is now 1980. Hope you enjoy punk rock.
The Navy is considering raising Nuclear Reenlistment Bonus cap from $15,000 to $20,000.
The Bureau of Personnel believes their desired retention rates of 40% first term, 50% second term, and 60% third term will be achieved - which will man all nuclear billets, by rate, in the proper proportion.
The Wayback Machine is now set to 2008.
The Navy does not now, and never has wanted everyone to re-enlist.
They want the truly disgruntled to leave. They want the truly motivated to stay. Plain and simple. Money won't do it. A new poster slogan won't do it. The Navy knows that.
So, dudes... and dudettes...
If you like it - stay in. I appreciate your service.
If you don't like it - do your time and get out. And I'll enjoy working with you.
Notice the positive energy? We make energy.
You can't fix the Navy, it's not broke.
You can enjoy the ride.
-
1) Eliminate the automatic E-5 for STAR- I know this is hypocritical since that is how I and many other people advanced to E5. But here is the problem our advancement is too fast due in part to poor retention. Our E5s are not ready to lead a workcenters our E6s are not ready to be LPOs and Many of our E7s are not ready to be LCPOs. As a community we typical base someones “rank” on their qual level or speed. Currently this is how it must be since you can easily have a six year E4 CRW quallified that has significant LOK and experience over a STAR E5. We further assign “rank” by “clicks”,politics, and other subjective factors. How can we function as a military unit when our rank means nothing amongst ourselves?
2) Raise the standard for NNPTC back up to their pre “no child left behind” nuclear navy. This will drop the number of incoming nukes I admit however that can be offset by incorporating more stikers and convential ratings in to the engine room. Many of the watches currently required to be stood by nukes do not require that level of knowledge (speaking for a CVN)
-
While it is true that most of us folks who would post to this are somewhere between E4 and E6, meaning we have limited perspective into the "Big Navy" and its ability to monitor and resolve problems, maybe we can make our recommendations here in a respectful manner and someone can at least read them.
I guess I should preface my recommendations here with the acknowledgement that most of the issues with the NNPP probably need to be addressed at the command level,
Great post and awesome topic. Withroaj, I'm posting this as my short answer for now * (I'll explain this in a minute).
Yes, the command level does read these posts and we, they do listen...sometimes. That whole we/they thing sounds good. [I say that as my gotee is growing out. :P]
The command level is listening now more than ever because they have finally realized that their way isn't quite working. IOW, keep this and other good comments coming.
* It is a very good idea to unplug the food processor prior to attempting to remove the blade...experience talking here! Typing is tough...I'm AF JKL; (no SD). I did this two days before my retirement ceremony. Good going huh, now I have time to play golf but I can't hold the clubs with these bandages.
Guess what I served at my retirement ceremony reception?
Finger foods :P
Also, I'm one of those guys who enjoy pedicures and manicures [and I'm not afraid to admit it], so now I get a 20% discount on my manicures. ;)
Sorry I got off topic, please don't smite.
-
FINGER FOODS ;D ;D ;D ;D
That is funny, I don't care who you are.
-
2) Raise the standard for NNPTC back up to their pre “no child left behind” nuclear navy. This will drop the number of incoming nukes I admit however that can be offset by incorporating more stikers and convential ratings in to the engine room. Many of the watches currently required to be stood by nukes do not require that level of knowledge (speaking for a CVN)
We as LPO's, LCPO's, DIVO's, PA's, etc...need to stop complaining about the level of knowledge todays newbie's have. The current system is not going to change. So, it is a leadership challenge that WE as leaders need to overcome.
BTW...when I was a young nub MM3 back in 1990 I occasionally heard the "old timers" complaining about the level of knowledge of the nubs. I'll bet if you if you went into the way back machine and emerged in the 1970's you probably would have heard some crusty MM1 complaining about the level of knowledge of his nubs. Same thing over and over.
-
We as LPO's, LCPO's, DIVO's, PA's, etc...need to stop complaining about the level of knowledge todays newbie's have. The current system is not going to change. So, it is a leadership challenge that WE as leaders need to overcome.
BTW...when I was a young nub MM3 back in 1990 I occasionally heard the "old timers" complaining about the level of knowledge of the nubs. I'll bet if you if you went into the way back machine and emerged in the 1970's you probably would have heard some crusty MM1 complaining about the level of knowledge of his nubs. Same thing over and over.
I realize that the “old timers” have probably been complaining about the lack of knowledge sine the second class of nukes graduated from power school. However I truly believe that the level of knowledge has changed in our new personnel. For example I had one individual that didn’t know what the Presurizer was for, couldn’t explain the basic concept of how power followed steam demand, ect. What made matters worse is he couldn’t be trained you could explain something in the morning and he could not remember any of it by afternoon. When asked why.. why do we keep this person the COC simply stated we where so undermanned that we could not afford to loose anyone even if they where a danger to themselves and others. This leads to placing dangerously incompetent people on watch and the CRW or CMO must spend more time watching that individuals every action, this is provided that they can stay on the watch bill at all.
As for improving the first line leadership that is exactly correct, however it is now becoming the job of the fleet to separate the wheat form the chaff and many Officers and Chiefs are unwilling or unable to do that. Rather the COCs try and mitigate the damage that said person can cause, usually resulting in said individual getting the “good deal” further angering the quality personnel of the division leading to reduced retention and overall poor command climate.
-
Well a wise person once told me:
Every generation has complained about the generation that came after them, yet we continue to survive
That being said, one thing that made me decide to leave the Navy was the mindset that if you get shafted, either working extra hours because of someone's screw up or any number of other things, there RARELY is the concept trying to make up for it. Instead it is the mentality of "suck it up, get back to work" I understand that crap happens and sometimes it is beyond the control of anyone and that mission comes first, but when the fate of the world isn't on the line, let guys go home early or cut a guy some special lib. Whatever you do don't promise it to him and then never give it to him.
Another thing I think should be available is a periodic evaluation of supervisors(Divo, LCPO, etc) from their subordinates. I mean if a guy is completely hosed up and a tyrant to his people, he can still get results because they have to follow his orders. Or if the guy is a complete idiot and his people are constantly having to save his arse or cover for him, yet at the end of his tour, he gets a NAM/NCM and a cushy shore billet. I understand that it could be possible for a division to give a good guy bad evals because they don't like his policy of an extra hour of cleaning on friday, but I have to have faith that most guys would give an honest opinion of the guy.
-
93
I have to agree with you a great deal on that. In 3 years at Proto, I saw 2(TWO) people get dropped for academic reasons. Had a mechanic that couldn't tell me that oil flow through bearings was in parallel vice series, gave him a 2.3 on his final board. Civilian told me that 2.4 was the lowest I could go. Told him that 2.4 was close to passing and this guy was nowhere near close.
I would LOVE to see just one class of nuke students go through the pipeline WITHOUT any civilian interaction. Let the nukes train them, let the nukes decide who makes it through or not, and forget quoatas or training reports or grad numbers. Let the SE and an in-rate set their, throw out the training manual for what can and can't be done. I would bet even money that there would be fewer students get through, but those that did would be solid nukes.
-
I think it would help some if the guys that were completely incompetent could be more easily denuked and replacements gotten quicker for them. I think there should be less "coddling" and more "boot to arse" in the pipeline. Most of them are ok after a few pokes and prods but there are some that if you litterally don't walk them through their qual process they would never qualify to operate the toaster. If a student is dink it is their staff's fault now for not helping them enough.
I also firmly believe that NNPTC and NPTU should be a 4 year tour split 2&2. 2 years NPTU then 2 years at NNPTC. THen again maybe the other way around so the guys at NNPTC do like they do now and say "Prototype will fix em" with the broke ones.
-
I would LOVE to see just one class of nuke students go through the pipeline WITHOUT any civilian interaction. Let the nukes train them, let the nukes decide who makes it through or not, and forget quoatas or training reports or grad numbers. Let the SE and an in-rate set their, throw out the training manual for what can and can't be done. I would bet even money that there would be fewer students get through, but those that did would be solid nukes.
Your buddies in the fleet would thank you for your quality control after return home from a deployment where they were standing port and stupid because there aren't enough men to adequately fill out a watchbill.
-
Your buddies in the fleet would thank you for your quality control after return home from a deployment where they were standing port and stupid because there aren't enough men to adequately fill out a watchbill.
Touche` Ok maybe make it one crew at one of the prototypes for one class. It would still be interesting to see the results, you have to admit that.
-
Not wanting to go off-topic...at least not too far...but is it still harder than all get out for a nuke MM to make Chief? I know when I got out in 1988 that my boat had the only nuke (not sure if subs or sub and surface) promoted to MMC that year.
That was always daunting, especially with a division top heavy with E-6's.
-
Not wanting to go off-topic...at least not too far...but is it still harder than all get out for a nuke MM to make Chief? I know when I got out in 1988 that my boat had the only nuke (not sure if subs or sub and surface) promoted to MMC that year.
That was always daunting, especially with a division top heavy with E-6's.
It has changed a little in that aspect. E7 is a little more open these days than it was. The way I saw it when I was in
E4-E5 pretty hard to get it unless you STAR. Usually make it just prior to 6 years being up
E5-E6 Goes in cycles. For a little while it was pretty hard(around 30-40%) and then it opened wide up to Pass and Advance and back down again
E6-E7 Not a lot make it but enough to keep it interesting. Generally E6 tends to be the breaking point. Lots of guys make E6 and get out, but if they make E7 tend to stay in. When you are used to getting promoted every 2 to 3 years, little disheartening to hit that wall. Furthermore, making E7 is becoming more about checking off boxes(EWS, Community service, college courses, proto tour, etc) then it is about actual job compentency or leadership.
-
If a student is dink it is their staff's fault now for not helping them enough.
It couldn't possibly be the student's lack of skill or initiative contributing to the dinkitude?!?
-
Wow what a sweet thread, but I have some predictions about its future path. 8)
DISCLAIMER: This is going to be long, so skip if you want. :)
Anyway, I truly believe that a lot of senior leadership in the nuclear Navy (officer and enlisted) are starting to realize there is a problem. I also believe that they genuinely want to make changes. Anyway, I was completely floored by my CMCs first question in my check out interview;
"What are we doing so wrong that someone like you can look at 100K dollars and say "no thank you?""
For me, it was a matter of positive reenforcement. Now, that is a vast over simplification of things but that is what it boiled down to. I explained to him that I didn't agree with the company's policy of "you have to find something wrong because there is always something wrong" and "you can't say anything good because it encourages mediocrity." I also explained that the last thing I wanted to hear from a man who's very job it was to care about me is "Let me tell you something PO *******, no matter what your qualifications or your accomplishments, at the end of the day you are still just a blue shirt, and no one gives a s**t about MM1 *******." That was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back.
I explained that if the nuclear Navy rewarded an equal amount as it punishes, people would consider staying in. I really believe that. If I was told "thank you" and "good job" more frequently, it would have been a lot better. I know that sounds silly and simple, and maybe it is, but its a matter of human nature. If you continually look for and focus on the bad, then people are going to be bitter and all you are going to get out of them is mediocrity. I actually think its perfectly easy to understand, and I have no background in psychology. A human being will perform to the level that you expect him to perform to. So, if you always expect him to be wrong, then he is going to be wrong. I base that opinion on what I saw in my career as a Navy Nuke and what I see as a Commercial Nuke.
I was floored again when I witnessed my first simulator scenario here at the plant. Of course, the enormity of what was happening in front of me was flooring, but more importantly, what happened afterwards was eye opening. Of course, like they Navy, they critique the performance. What was different, though, was the fact that they started out with the positives. I heard things like "Troy, I thought you did this, that and the other really well. I think we should show the other ROs what you did and get their take, and maybe make it SOP" and "Bob, thanks for the backup on that thing over there, that shows and excellent understanding of that systems response to the problem and I think we can improve the stations performance by incorporating your thoughts into the training material."
When they got to the negatives (which there were very few of, BTW), they handled them in a way that wasn't demeaning or condescending. No one left feeling cheated, hurt or betrayed.
As far the Navy, what I experienced is far more drastic. Anyone that served on the USS Miami from 1999-2004 would back me up. When I got to the boat, I experienced what I thought was going to be an exciting, thrilling career on a US Warship. From the CO down to the newest nub (me), everyone was happy. The CO loved his crew, and they loved him back. He expected them to bust their asses, and they did because he busted his ass for them. When I walked around Groton checking in, I was stopped in the streets by Chiefs and Officers and asked "You are on the Miami? That must be awesome! Whats it like to be on that boat?" The Miami was the poop in that day, and for good reason. The CO was and still is to me, the best Commanding Officer ever. Field days under this guy never lasted over an hour. Why? Because everyone knew the skipper was going to come around and if he was happy, he was going to put liberty down (in port on Friday). So what happened? People busted their assess for that hour and their reward on the 1MC was; "This is the Captain, I see everyone is working really hard and the ship looks terrific. A gang is holding me hostage and threatened to do unnatural things to me, so liberty is down by the CO." Pure human nature right there. Instead of sending minions out to beat down on people for 4-8 hours, he simply held out a carrot and accomplished his goal. At the same time, he kept the natives happy and all was well. I have many many stories about this guy and just how awesome he was, but this is already getting too long. To summarize; under this skipper, life on the boat was not only bearable, it was fun and enjoyable. We had excellent on ORSE, TRE and every other inspection known to man. We won awards and accolades and even had 60 minutes take a ride. I reenlisted.
Then, my next CO showed up. This guy for some reason that is still unknown to me, apparently didn't like the Miami the way she was. He changed everything. Field day went from 1 hour to 4-8 hours depending on his mood that Friday. He beat his officers and Chiefs for any and every little imperfection down to a tiny bit of paint on the rubber feet under deck plates. I even got to witness this man chew out and berate the XO in front of the entire crew. That is still to this day, the most uncomfortable moment of my life. So, his officers and Chiefs beat us. I have many many stories to illustrate life under this CO but to summarize, life sucked and I began regretting my decision to "Stay Navy" and started down the red brick road of bitterness, anger and hatred for the Navy. The Miami went from the cream of the crop to the bottom of the barrel with BAs on TRE, ORSE and every other inspection known to man. Well, except cleanliness. We were real clean.
The same thing happened at NPTU. Started out with a terrific CO, and so life was good. Halfway through got a CO who had to "prove his power"... his words, not mine... by making every staff work +4s on swing shift to combat DUIs. So of course, life got bad.
The point of all of this is that I believe that either you are a people person, or you are not. Unfortunately, in the military, there is no people skill qualification. Sure, there doesn't need to be, but therein lies the problem with the military as a whole. As folks become more educated the "because I said so" line doesn't fly as much anymore. More now than ever, the military as a whole needs real good leaders and not just some "do as I say not as I do" schmuck. And, the CO is the major key in all of this. You can have good/bad officers and Chiefs everywhere, but with a good CO the bad ones can do little damage and the good ones can do spectacular work, and under a bad CO, the bad one can do irreparable damage and the good ones become bitter and angry just like the blue shirts.
What the Navy needs is a few good officers and Chiefs to stand up in the face of tyranny and not be afraid to pat a guy on the back when he does a good job, don't yell at him for smiling in the box, get over the unrealistic expectation that people are going to sit there and stare silently at a panel for 6 hours or continuously and mindlessly rove the spaces looking at numbers, cut him loose early now and again as we all know early liberty in port is golden since we are trapped at sea for length of time and hold him to a standard that you yourself meet or exceed. It is simple human nature folks. Too many Navy leaders lack the essential people skills to be a truly effective leader and are relegated to the pits of "yes men" and "they/them."
Justin
PS I also believe that a large portion of the NNPP, particuarly NRRO, grasps tightly to the ideals of a dead Admiral. Look, the man was genious as far as engineering the program goes, but he was also a lunatic. He opitimized everything that is the wrong way to treat and lead men. You need to let go of him and his ideals and move the program into the 21st century.
-
For me, it was a matter of positive reenforcement. Now, that is a vast over simplification of things but that is what it boiled down to. I explained to him that I didn't agree with the company's policy of "you have to find something wrong because there is always something wrong" and "you can't say anything good because it encourages mediocrity." I also explained that the last thing I wanted to hear from a man who's very job it was to care about me is "Let me tell you something PO *******, no matter what your qualifications or your accomplishments, at the end of the day you are still just a blue shirt, and no one gives a s**t about MM1 *******." That was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back.
I explained that if the nuclear Navy rewarded an equal amount as it punishes, people would consider staying in. I really believe that. If I was told "thank you" and "good job" more frequently, it would have been a lot better. I know that sounds silly and simple, and maybe it is, but its a matter of human nature.
Justin,
I couldn't agree with you more. I don't mean to make this a "This is how I always did it" post, but I want to emphasize how right you are, and strongly the nuclear Navy is opposed to your idea.
During my drill critiques, I gave out as many BZs as discrepancies and I explained this to my Staff Training Group as the philosophy that I thought would make us better. Not only does it improve morale when someone sees a BZ by their name, but it demonstrates what is right by actually saying it...not simply assuming everyone has a clear mental picture of how to do it right.
"What are we doing so wrong that someone like you can look at 100K dollars and say "no thank you?""
Very interesting quote. I've heard the same thing and I think the Navy is seeing only the tip of the iceberg right now. The problem is that they are trying to fix a symptom and not the problem. People not staying is not the problem...it is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Anyone got any popcorn? :P
The Navy is big on Root Causal Analysis and I was always "encouraged" by "people outside my direct sphere of influence" to dig deep to ensure that all problems were found, severity levels assigned, root causes determined, and corrective actions assigned.
It is time for the Navy to critique this epidemic so they can drill down and actually determine the problems and not the symptoms.
Okay, I'm done...no more popcorn.
Justin, I'd give you Karma right now if I could, but I have to wait until this afternoon when my 24 hour wait time is over. Hopefully someone else will chime in here with some K'. I will later today.
BTW, this was the quote hanging in my office...
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
-
Thanks Mike. I appreciate what you did for your guys. :)
Justin
-
Having read through some of these thoughts, I really sat down and theorized on some of the specifics of what I thought needed to change(pretty easy at 3 am with a screaming 4 month old who is teething).
One thing I think that I really despised at Proto and on the ship. Tests. We have gotten to the point to wear we have the mentality that the tests should operate on a lock hard and fire bell curve. So many people "have to fail" and only so many can do really well. In order to accomplish this, tests are written to extreme lengths. Since when did it become a requirement for an operator to memorize line for line the procedure for an event that occurs once in 3 or 4 years. Furthermore, when did it become SOP to assign points to assumptions that are pretty much common knowledge (I.E. -1pt for not assuming 3 ft is approx. 1m)<-I can't make this stuff up. I really think that the tests(CTE, Watch Quals, Etc) should adequately reflect what is required for a watch stander. Memorize the Immediate actions. Have a clue about supp actions. If you want a guy to prove he can go solid, then let him prove he can work through the procedure properly. Don't expect him to calculate how much chemicals he needs to add if all the nomographs are destroyed by a nucleonics fire(especially with the new computer programs).
Along those lines, I understand that procedural compliance is a must. But is it really necessary to crush a guy because he doesn't use it to operate 2 valves when repressing an expansion tank. S/U and S/D are another story, but after you have done about 100 of those you pretty much got the idea down pat on how to do everything that normally goes on. Understand that guys become MORE competent as they go, not less and let guys operate the plant using common sense. Obviously the manuals are flawed and open to interpretation or else we would not have Revision XYZ that has already rolled over twice for a plant in operation for 40 years. I would be interested in seeing how many times a manual has been changed from one thing only to go back to it several years down the road. Let guys use their extensive knowledge to operate the equipment.
Ok those are my two cents.
-
It couldn't possibly be the student's lack of skill or initiative contributing to the dinkitude?!?
Nay nay moosebreath(favorite saying of one of my old Chiefs)
"Every student that gets accepted to the program is capable of making it through the program, it is your job to find a way that gets them through the program." <-Paraphrased from a CMC call many years ago.
-
Having read through some of these thoughts, I really sat down and theorized on some of the specifics of what I thought needed to change(pretty easy at 3 am with a screaming 4 month old who is teething).
One thing I think that I really despised at Proto and on the ship. Tests. We have gotten to the point to wear we have the mentality that the tests should operate on a lock hard and fire bell curve. So many people "have to fail" and only so many can do really well. In order to accomplish this, tests are written to extreme lengths. Since when did it become a requirement for an operator to memorize line for line the procedure for an event that occurs once in 3 or 4 years. Furthermore, when did it become SOP to assign points to assumptions that are pretty much common knowledge (I.E. -1pt for not assuming 3 ft is approx. 1m)<-I can't make this stuff up. I really think that the tests(CTE, Watch Quals, Etc) should adequately reflect what is required for a watch stander. Memorize the Immediate actions. Have a clue about supp actions. If you want a guy to prove he can go solid, then let him prove he can work through the procedure properly. Don't expect him to calculate how much chemicals he needs to add if all the nomographs are destroyed by a nucleonics fire(especially with the new computer programs).
Along those lines, I understand that procedural compliance is a must. But is it really necessary to crush a guy because he doesn't use it to operate 2 valves when repressing an expansion tank. S/U and S/D are another story, but after you have done about 100 of those you pretty much got the idea down pat on how to do everything that normally goes on. Understand that guys become MORE competent as they go, not less and let guys operate the plant using common sense. Obviously the manuals are flawed and open to interpretation or else we would not have Revision XYZ that has already rolled over twice for a plant in operation for 40 years. I would be interested in seeing how many times a manual has been changed from one thing only to go back to it several years down the road. Let guys use their extensive knowledge to operate the equipment.
Ok those are my two cents.
I agree with this stuff, but it goes back to the point of letting go of the dead Admiral. Personally, I think the navy nuke program would be better off if they went the way of commercial nuke power as far as training, examining and operating. Problem is, the Navy has this idea that they operate and train in a way superior to commercial nukes. Not true.
Justin
-
I want to apologize in advance for this one, since I know it violates the forum rules as I interpret them, but I might have the wrong ACN -- or maybe I'm violating a Nuc Note or a Z0ZZ, whatever.
This came from the guy who wrote the infamous, incomplete "Shut All Four..." manuscript. If you haven't read it check it out. Entertaining perspective. He has a blog at em-log.blogspot.com (http://em-log.blogspot.com), and recently posted this: (I'll put it here in its entirety)
Some advice on running a good nuc division (on subs, anyways):
(1) Day after is sacred. If you want to get the most out of your duty section, they need to know that they can go home and sleep as soon as turnover is complete. I’ve heard some chiefs whine about all-hands evolutions. That’s bull. If it’s a field day, find out what needs to be cleaned and have the duty guys do their part the night before. Same for training – they know they’re responsible for the info, they’ll get it on their own. Establish a good working relationship with the Eng and he’ll gladly support you on this. I know this for a fact - the only time day after is still on board at 0800 on my boat is if we’re getting underway.
(2) Duty days will suck – expect to do 12 hours of watch, and 12 hours of divisional work.
(3) On non-duty days, we’ll get the work done and then go home. If that’s 1100, so be it. I don’t keep people around “just in case”, that’s what the duty section is for. However, either I or my leading first will be on board until the Eng leaves for the day.
(4) On a fast boat, schedule most of the PMS for underway. Like a duty day, underway is going to suck, but you have to be there, anyway, so sucking at sea means more time off in port. This is especially true for E Div.
(5) Order parts. Order more parts. Keep ordering parts, you can never have enough. The same for tools. Screw the chop.
(6) Someone will always get left in port for school and for leave (again, a fast boat thing – boomers don’t need to do this). This will rotate among everyone, from the nub to the snob.
(7) Put in for awards whenever possible. It doesn’t matter if you know they are BS and the guys getting them do, too – a record full of LOCs can save you guys from mast if they screw up later.
(8) Every nub gets a sea dad. If the nub goes dink, so does the sea dad. Getting our nubs qualified is the same as any other divisional work – get it done and go home.
(9) Some times you have no choice – you are directed by the Eng or the XO to write someone up. Some offences, such as under-age drinking, leave no options. However, keep in mind that most NJP results from a leadership failure and should be used as a last resort. (When I got to the Lincoln, the first thing the XO told us during indoc was how their assembly-line NPJ system worked. If a third of your department is restricted on board, how much of a deterrent can it be?).
(10) During field day, or some other all-hands BS, stay out of my spaces. I am responsible and I will make sure the work is getting done. You want to inspect? Give me the list beforehand, and tell me if something got missed afterwards. I don’t want my guys trying to hide from you, or (even worse) trying to look busy. I know my space, I know my guys, let me do the job I’m getting paid for.
(11) Everyone in the division will complete their requirements for the next rank ahead of time. When the exam comes around, getting everyone promoted becomes as important as anything else we’re doing. For making chief, firsts need to qualify EWS/EDPO and a forward watch (COW is common, but it’s not like they are shorthanded. Better is finding someone who NEEDS more qualified watchstanders, even if its duty SK).
(12) There is no such thing as a “designated failure” for divisional training. They set the standards, we meet them, end of story. Everyone ace’ing the exam is a GOOD thing, not proof the exam was too easy.
(13) Everyone has a collateral duty, and they cycle every six months (or every other patrol, for boomers). During one sea tour, I expect that each division member will have done each job at least once, especially training, PMS, and RPPO.
-
Well I haven't had the experience in working in the Commercial Nuke field. I am just a lonely Inspector that comes in when you nuke guys have to weld pipes.
Another thing I always disliked was the "Dog and Pony" shows that you had to perform. I know that sometimes they were required, but seriously is it really necessary to go through an entire firefighting evolution drill on a chained down boat if in your operating procedures it says that if there is really a fire, call the local Fire Department. But I digress.
I had an idea once(yes it hurt my brain on this on). With all the power shortages all over the US and power bills going nuts, would it be feasible for the Government to build "training" plants for nukes that supply power to communities. If you built enough of them and built them two plants at a site you could minimize the effects of the required S/D and S/U prac facs on students. Furthermore it would give guys more choices than just Charleston and NY for shore duties, not to mention with more training platforms the Staff/Student Ratio would be smaller. Of course it would be harder to man these plants but you could off set that with civilian operators. I know this idea needs some fine tuning with a sledge hammer but it is a start.
-
I had an idea once(yes it hurt my brain on this on). With all the power shortages all over the US and power bills going nuts, would it be feasible for the Government to build "training" plants for nukes that supply power to communities. If you built enough of them and built them two plants at a site you could minimize the effects of the required S/D and S/U prac facs on students.
Seems like a brilliant idea, but last I was told (staff in chaleston, left in 2005) the Navy intends to extend the life of the prototypes and MTS's until 2028ish (scary) and there is NO PLAN to replace the Proto-pals. Kind of a bummer, but when you think about it, how much do students really learn at prototype? Does it really benefit the fleet if nukes are the only people to show up to ships knowing how to qualify a watchstation(or knowing how to get spoon fed watch quals, as you salty sea dogs might say)? In addition to that, we all know that nukes have too many options for shore duty, so it makes sense to let the prototypes expire without replacements. I just want you all to know that I think I am hilarious, and that's all that matters.
By the way, as much as I hear folks at work complain about the NNPP, I am honestly surprised to see only the Usual Suspects posting here. I figured more people would have something to say here.
-
Seems like a brilliant idea, but last I was told (staff in chaleston, left in 2005) the Navy intends to extend the life of the prototypes and MTS's until 2028ish (scary) and there is NO PLAN to replace the Proto-pals. Kind of a bummer, but when you think about it, how much do students really learn at prototype? Does it really benefit the fleet if nukes are the only people to show up to ships knowing how to qualify a watchstation(or knowing how to get spoon fed watch quals, as you salty sea dogs might say)? In addition to that, we all know that nukes have too many options for shore duty, so it makes sense to let the prototypes expire without replacements. I just want you all to know that I think I am hilarious, and that's all that matters.
By the way, as much as I hear folks at work complain about the NNPP, I am honestly surprised to see only the Usual Suspects posting here. I figured more people would have something to say here.
Well now that I am on the outside looking in, I can say that there is some benefit to students learning how to qualify on a plant. Not necessarly learning to qual on a ancient platform that doesn't exist anywhere else. That is like teaching a car mechanic to work on todays cars by training him on a Model A. Mostly it comes from them learning the process, Ok I need to learn the systems and how they work, Now I need to know how to fix it when it goes nuts, now I need to learn the really odd operations, OK I think I am ready, Get hammered in a board about some really REALLY odd stuff and get qual'd. Now I really learn how this stuff works now that I am all alone standing watch.
I had another idea once. Take the "mobile Chernobyl" and make it a training platform. Not just nukes but EVERYONE, including pilots learning to get their wings. Make it to where the longest time underway is a couple of weeks at a time. NO DEPLOYMENTS(barring WWIII). Man it with essential rates for the task at hand(no need for Weapons departments, or large supply departments) and have the students live on board. It would be a nuke billet that gets sea pay but doesn't do 6 month stints. We could even allow <GULP> submariners come play surface Navy for a while if they wanted to as instructors. With 4 plants we could shut down the other two Proto's because even if you had one plant down for a overhaul the other 3 are up training students. Ok more fine tuning need on this one too.
-
Would you really go from sea duty to THAT?
-
I want to apologize in advance for this one, since I know it violates the forum rules as I interpret them, but I might have the wrong ACN -- or maybe I'm violating a Nuc Note or a Z0ZZ, whatever. I'll tell the squadron or NRRO guy on or the other, since he doesn't know either. Tribal knowledge. S***.
This came from the guy who wrote the infamous, incomplete "Shut All Four..." manuscript. If you haven't read it check it out. Entertaining perspective. He has a blog at em-log.blogspot.com (http://em-log.blogspot.com), and recently posted this: (I'll put it here in its entirety)
Some advice on running a good nuc division (on subs, anyways):
(1) Day after is sacred. If you want to get the most out of your duty section, they need to know that they can go home and sleep as soon as turnover is complete. I’ve heard some chiefs whine about all-hands evolutions. That’s bull. If it’s a field day, find out what needs to be cleaned and have the duty guys do their part the night before. Same for training – they know they’re responsible for the info, they’ll get it on their own. Establish a good working relationship with the Eng and he’ll gladly support you on this. I know this for a fact - the only time day after is still on board at 0800 on my boat is if we’re getting underway.
(2) Duty days will suck – expect to do 12 hours of watch, and 12 hours of divisional work.
(3) On non-duty days, we’ll get the work done and then go home. If that’s 1100, so be it. I don’t keep people around “just in case”, that’s what the duty section is for. However, either I or my leading first will be on board until the Eng leaves for the day.
(4) On a fast boat, schedule most of the PMS for underway. Like a duty day, underway is going to suck, but you have to be there, anyway, so sucking at sea means more time off in port. This is especially true for E Div.
(5) Order parts. Order more parts. Keep ordering parts, you can never have enough. The same for tools. Screw the chop.
(6) Someone will always get left in port for school and for leave (again, a fast boat thing – boomers don’t need to do this). This will rotate among everyone, from the nub to the snob.
(7) Put in for awards whenever possible. It doesn’t matter if you know they are BS and the guys getting them do, too – a record full of LOCs can save you guys from mast if they screw up later.
(8) Every nub gets a sea dad. If the nub goes dink, so does the sea dad. Getting our nubs qualified is the same as any other divisional work – get it done and go home.
(9) Some times you have no choice – you are directed by the Eng or the XO to write someone up. Some offences, such as under-age drinking, leave no options. However, keep in mind that most NJP results from a leadership failure and should be used as a last resort. (When I got to the Lincoln, the first thing the XO told us during indoc was how their assembly-line NPJ system worked. If a third of your department is restricted on board, how much of a deterrent can it be?).
(10) During field day, or some other all-hands BS, stay out of my spaces. I am responsible and I will make sure the work is getting done. You want to inspect? Give me the list beforehand, and tell me if something got missed afterwards. I don’t want my guys trying to hide from you, or (even worse) trying to look busy. I know my space, I know my guys, let me do the job I’m getting paid for.
(11) Everyone in the division will complete their requirements for the next rank ahead of time. When the exam comes around, getting everyone promoted becomes as important as anything else we’re doing. For making chief, firsts need to qualify EWS/EDPO and a forward watch (COW is common, but it’s not like they are shorthanded. Better is finding someone who NEEDS more qualified watchstanders, even if its duty SK).
(12) There is no such thing as a “designated failure” for divisional training. They set the standards, we meet them, end of story. Everyone ace’ing the exam is a GOOD thing, not proof the exam was too easy.
(13) Everyone has a collateral duty, and they cycle every six months (or every other patrol, for boomers). During one sea tour, I expect that each division member will have done each job at least once, especially training, PMS, and RPPO.
Bravo. That is exactly how it should be. I just wish some had the spine to pull it off. Referring to my first post in this thread, while under my tyrannical CO, the new Mdiv Chief (who was a first that made it on the boat and fought to stay) said this the day he took over;
"Day after ends right now. Also, we won't be leaving before 5pm everyday, no matter what. And no more special liberty chits. If you need a day off, put in a leave chit."
Proof that bad leadership feeds on itself. At least he stuck to his word until he made MMCS and finally rotated. He said "Thanks for helping me get the star" on the way out. ::)
*SIGH* What a relief it is to be free of that type of leadership. But again, it goes back to my original point. The change has to start from the COs on down and they have to learn how to REALLY lead people. They really need to learn some real people skills. Not just rely on the fact that they are in a position of power.
Justin
-
Would you really go from sea duty to THAT?
Hence the fine tuning with a sledge hammer.
Make it a sea duty, or neutral duty. That way you still get a real shore duty and not one of these shore duties that makes you wish you were back on sea duty(Prototype).
Besides, immagine if you got to chose a sea duty that you knew that 99.999% of the time you wouldn't be out underway for more than a couple of weeks at a time. I am sure that there are nukes that would jump at that chance.
-
Bravo. That is exactly how it should be. I just wish some had the spine to pull it off. Referring to my first post in this thread, while under my tyrannical CO, the new Mdiv Chief (who was a first that made it on the boat and fought to stay) said this the day he took over;
"Day after ends right now. Also, we won't be leaving before 5pm everyday, no matter what. And no more special liberty chits. If you need a day off, put in a leave chit."
Proof that bad leadership feeds on itself. At least he stuck to his word until he made MMCS and finally rotated. He said "Thanks for helping me get the star" on the way out. ::)
*SIGH* What a relief it is to be free of that type of leadership. But again, it goes back to my original point. The change has to start from the COs on down and they have to learn how to REALLY lead people. They really need to learn some real people skills. Not just rely on the fact that they are in a position of power.
Justin
Further example of why I think that the leadership should have some sort of evaluation from the bottom up. As it is right now, the only time that happens is when a CO gets relieved of command for "lack of confidence in the ability to lead". By that time it is WAY too late.
-
Very nice post. Justin- you are spot-on. I made the same statements that you wrote (although a little shorter :P) at every end-of-tour/reenlistment/award presentation, etc. I had. Its all about man's treatment of his fellow man. We (on the Alex) use to hear how good the Miami and the Springfield were back then. What you experienced, unfortunately, doesn't happen enough, and as it did for you, caused me to seek a career outside the realm of ORSE/TRE/ continuous training/ exams / critiques....infinity etc.
I think our manning issues will eventually abate as we (the Navy) transitions at a quadriplegic sloth's pace towards incorporating modern technology. We are already seeing the impacts within the Sub force of the Virginia class's reduced electrical manning requirements. Electrician zone-A srb's are only 60k (not complaining here), vice 90k for RC/M/ELT. Electrician sub E-5 advancement rates are next to impossible without 4-5 years of service.
In the end, knowing that your hard work and effort are worth something to your COC goes a long way. Positive reenforcement produces positive people.
-Rob
-
I don't know that there's anything wrong with the NNPP. Are there things about it that suck while you're in it? Sure there are. Are there things that could be done better? Of course, you'll find that anywhere you go. For what it is, or at least was when I was in, I think that it works extremely well.
Here's the model:
Take a bunch of kids who have a demonstrated aptitude to learn and savagely force feed them their NNPS training with mandatory study hours, as necessary, such that lack of effort isn't a reason for failure. Teach them from the start that there is only one right answer, the NNPP answer. Great, now we have a consistent field of trainees.
Next, send them to an operating plant where they have to beg the dudes who understand how it works to train them on it. Let these guys abuse them endlessly to develop a healthy respect for the plant knowledge that they seek. Great, now we have a uniform field of dudes who respect plant knowledge and know how to qualify.
Next, send them out to the fleet to be trained by the men doing the job. At this point, you have the work force who does 90% of the work in the NNPP. A sea of E-4 and E-5 blue shirts, all with different ability levels and talents, but with a consistent foundation of training. Granted, you'll have slugs but you'll have exceptional dudes too. More importantly, you'll have the hard working aveage dude who just wants to get the job done.
After a couple of years, some of these guys become the LPOs who supervise the work and make sure that everything gets done right. After a total of six or eight years, 90% of these guys leave to take what they've learned and get jobs where they don't have to ask some Air Dale Chief permission to leave after their work is done. Not to worry, they've trained their replacements from that infinite sea of new dudes. It seems to me that it works. All that the khaks have to do is keep from screwing things up too much and make sure that everyone shows up to do their jobs under some pretty unpleasant conditions.
Given the model and the job to be done, I don't know that I could've designed a better system.
MGM
-
Sorry, I decided to delete this. It didn't contain anything it wasn't allowed to contain, I just think that this thread isn't intended to ridicule current Navy policy and that, by posting it I took some of the legitimacy out of the rest of my arguments. Sorry about that. I am leaving this post here as a place holder so the response below makes sense.
-
Thanks now I have to basically remove my reply to it. Geez. ::)
-
It almost seems that we could break this down into a few parts.
1: What needs to be fixed with people we have coming in
2: What needs to be fixed with the people we have in already
3: What needs to be fixed so we don't lose people(other than throw more money at the problem).
-
It almost seems that we could break this down into a few parts.
1: What needs to be fixed with people we have coming in
2: What needs to be fixed with the people we have in already
3: What needs to be fixed so we don't lose people(other than throw more money at the problem).
Seriously...
1. Fail out of pipeline (with real standards), IA to CENTCOM
2. Denuked other than medical...IA to CENTCOM
3. Money is good, but with new civilian nuclear plants being built and existing plants classing up as licensees age to retirement, there is lots of pull to the civilian world. If the fleet would adequately staff at-sea nuke billets and do with a few less chowdales and CIC rates in 8 section, life would improve. Change shore duty billets so enlisted nukes have a decent rotation without having to be pregnant, etc. there might be light at the end of the tunnel.
-
I don't know that there's anything wrong with the NNPP. Are there things about it that suck while you're in it? Sure there are. Are there things that could be done better? Of course, you'll find that anywhere you go. For what it is, or at least was when I was in, I think that it works extremely well.
Here's the model:
Take a bunch of kids who have a demonstrated aptitude to learn and savagely force feed them their NNPS training with mandatory study hours, as necessary, such that lack of effort isn't a reason for failure. Teach them from the start that there is only one right answer, the NNPP answer. Great, now we have a consistent field of trainees.
Next, send them to an operating plant where they have to beg the dudes who understand how it works to train them on it. Let these guys abuse them endlessly to develop a healthy respect for the plant knowledge that they seek. Great, now we have a uniform field of dudes who respect plant knowledge and know how to qualify.
Next, send them out to the fleet to be trained by the men doing the job. At this point, you have the work force who does 90% of the work in the NNPP. A sea of E-4 and E-5 blue shirts, all with different ability levels and talents, but with a consistent foundation of training. Granted, you'll have slugs but you'll have exceptional dudes too. More importantly, you'll have the hard working aveage dude who just wants to get the job done.
After a couple of years, some of these guys become the LPOs who supervise the work and make sure that everything gets done right. After a total of six or eight years, 90% of these guys leave to take what they've learned and get jobs where they don't have to ask some Air Dale Chief permission to leave after their work is done. Not to worry, they've trained their replacements from that infinite sea of new dudes. It seems to me that it works. All that the khaks have to do is keep from screwing things up too much and make sure that everyone shows up to do their jobs under some pretty unpleasant conditions.
Given the model and the job to be done, I don't know that I could've designed a better system.
MGM
Although I sense some sarcasm, unfortunately this is the thought process of many in charge. They believe that the only thing wrong with the program is that blue shirts complain too much. They cling to rhetoric like "we have been doing this for 50 years without a problem." They cling to the memory of a dead Admiral. There are folks participating in this very thread who I believe are of this thought process. They don't believe that the program is broke, or that officers and senior enlisted are part of that problem equally with the blue shirts. On top of that, I think this line of thought dominates upper management of the NNPP, which as someone stated before, is the crux of the problem.
Justin
-
I know it is a look up but what is "IA" anyway. Sorry but I asked everyone I know and looked through all the references but I can't find it. I have a nice cold Mt. Dew if you can help me.
-
I know it is a look up but what is "IA" anyway. Sorry but I asked everyone I know and looked through all the references but I can't find it. I have a nice cold Mt. Dew if you can help me.
Individual Augmentee. In short sailors (except for nukes) are taken off sea and shore billiets to fill Army billets in Iraq, Afganastan, and Git'mo for around 1 year. Some of these are by choice through the detailing process but many of the billets must be filled with people forced to go by a selection board.
-
YOWSER!!!! Ok glad I didn't hear anything about that when I was in. The only thing I ever heard of like that was that we had a guy do the whole Transfer to the Army thing to go fly helicoptors as a CWO.
-
I was floored again when I witnessed my first simulator scenario here at the plant. Of course, the enormity of what was happening in front of me was flooring, but more importantly, what happened afterwards was eye opening. Of course, like they Navy, they critique the performance. What was different, though, was the fact that they started out with the positives. I heard things like "Troy, I thought you did this, that and the other really well. I think we should show the other ROs what you did and get their take, and maybe make it SOP" and "Bob, thanks for the backup on that thing over there, that shows and excellent understanding of that systems response to the problem and I think we can improve the stations performance by incorporating your thoughts into the training material."
When they got to the negatives (which there were very few of, BTW), they handled them in a way that wasn't demeaning or condescending. No one left feeling cheated, hurt or betrayed.
If you master that technique, you may become an excellent SRO Instructor.
The Dale Carnegie people call it a "sh!t sandwich". This sandwich is comprised of a pat on the back, a kick in the @ss, and a pat on the back.
The technique is highly useful on people with large egos*. You get their attention and an attitude of concurrence by stating a positive.
You recommend ONE improvement. You close by reaffirming that this operator has high standards and capabilities and we will see that improvement in the future.
The US Navy critical process is an adaptation of the boot camp company commander belittling a recruit. And it doesn't improve much after that.
You talk to others like you talk to yourself.
;)
* As Operators, we like large egos, we have one of our own - it makes the operation of a 3000Mwt plant a little bit easier.
-
* As Operators, we like large egos, we have one of our own - it makes the operation of a 3000Mwt plant a little bit easier.
I have often noted that the better operators are the ones that tend to be on the cocky side(No Gamecock that isn't a poke at you). You have to have that cockiness and testicular fortitude to argue your point in the face of superior stupidity. I do believe that this nature is what gave birth the the phrase "With all due respect, sir, you are a(n)___________<-fill in blank with your own colorful description of incompetence.
-
If you master that technique, you may become an excellent SRO Instructor.
The Dale Carnegie people call it a "sh!t sandwich". This sandwich is comprised of a pat on the back, a kick in the @ss, and a pat on the back.
The technique is highly useful on people with large egos*. You get their attention and an attitude of concurrence by stating a positive.
You recommend ONE improvement. You close by reaffirming that this operator has high standards and capabilities and we will see that improvement in the future.
The US Navy critical process is an adaptation of the boot camp company commander belittling a recruit. And it doesn't improve much after that.
You talk to others like you talk to yourself.
;)
* As Operators, we like large egos, we have one of our own - it makes the operation of a 3000Mwt plant a little bit easier.
Very nicely explained. That is the perfect way of illustrating the differences between the programs. I think the Navy needs to do some benchmarking and come to realize that since TMI, the commercial world has most definitely surpassed them in every respect. The NNPP believes that the commercial world strives to emulate them (CMCs belief as per my checkout interview), and from what I have seen, that is completely untrue. If it were true, you would have never ending outages and not be able to defuel, refuel and completely overhaul a ginormous plant in two weeks.
Justin
-
As far the Navy, what I experienced is far more drastic. Anyone that served on the USS Miami from 1999-2004 would back me up. When I got to the boat, I experienced what I thought was going to be an exciting, thrilling career on a US Warship. From the CO down to the newest nub (me), everyone was happy. The CO loved his crew, and they loved him back. He expected them to bust their asses, and they did because he busted his ass for them. When I walked around Groton checking in, I was stopped in the streets by Chiefs and Officers and asked "You are on the Miami? That must be awesome! Whats it like to be on that boat?" The Miami was the poop in that day, and for good reason. The CO was and still is to me, the best Commanding Officer ever. Field days under this guy never lasted over an hour. Why? Because everyone knew the skipper was going to come around and if he was happy, he was going to put liberty down (in port on Friday). So what happened? People busted their assess for that hour and their reward on the 1MC was; "This is the Captain, I see everyone is working really hard and the ship looks terrific. A gang is holding me hostage and threatened to do unnatural things to me, so liberty is down by the CO." Pure human nature right there. Instead of sending minions out to beat down on people for 4-8 hours, he simply held out a carrot and accomplished his goal. At the same time, he kept the natives happy and all was well. I have many many stories about this guy and just how awesome he was, but this is already getting too long. To summarize; under this skipper, life on the boat was not only bearable, it was fun and enjoyable. We had excellent on ORSE, TRE and every other inspection known to man. We won awards and accolades and even had 60 minutes take a ride. I reenlisted.
Then, my next CO showed up. This guy for some reason that is still unknown to me, apparently didn't like the Miami the way she was. He changed everything. Field day went from 1 hour to 4-8 hours depending on his mood that Friday. He beat his officers and Chiefs for any and every little imperfection down to a tiny bit of paint on the rubber feet under deck plates. I even got to witness this man chew out and berate the XO in front of the entire crew. That is still to this day, the most uncomfortable moment of my life. So, his officers and Chiefs beat us. I have many many stories to illustrate life under this CO but to summarize, life sucked and I began regretting my decision to "Stay Navy" and started down the red brick road of bitterness, anger and hatred for the Navy. The Miami went from the cream of the crop to the bottom of the barrel with BAs on TRE, ORSE and every other inspection known to man. Well, except cleanliness. We were real clean.
The same thing happened at NPTU. Started out with a terrific CO, and so life was good. Halfway through got a CO who had to "prove his power"... his words, not mine... by making every staff work +4s on swing shift to combat DUIs. So of course, life got bad.
The point of all of this is that I believe that either you are a people person, or you are not. Unfortunately, in the military, there is no people skill qualification. Sure, there doesn't need to be, but therein lies the problem with the military as a whole. As folks become more educated the "because I said so" line doesn't fly as much anymore. More now than ever, the military as a whole needs real good leaders and not just some "do as I say not as I do" schmuck. And, the CO is the major key in all of this. You can have good/bad officers and Chiefs everywhere, but with a good CO the bad ones can do little damage and the good ones can do spectacular work, and under a bad CO, the bad one can do irreparable damage and the good ones become bitter and angry just like the blue shirts.
What the Navy needs is a few good officers and Chiefs to stand up in the face of tyranny and not be afraid to pat a guy on the back when he does a good job, don't yell at him for smiling in the box, get over the unrealistic expectation that people are going to sit there and stare silently at a panel for 6 hours or continuously and mindlessly rove the spaces looking at numbers, cut him loose early now and again as we all know early liberty in port is golden since we are trapped at sea for length of time and hold him to a standard that you yourself meet or exceed. It is simple human nature folks. Too many Navy leaders lack the essential people skills to be a truly effective leader and are relegated to the pits of "yes men" and "they/them."
Justin
Excellent post--Bad CO's, Chiefs, etc can thrive in the military atmosphere where profits or labor costs are not an issue---less efficient management causing longer hrs and bad attitudes just results in everyone staying longer--but since labor costs do not increase there are no repercussions. Let those hard***sses try that with hourly workers in the civilian world and they won't be so successful, as +40 hrs a week means 1.5x rate---whoops there goes the labor budget! After 20 years of seeing this type of worker abuse I am very hesitant to be a salaried worker unless the compensation is extremely high as your present boss could always be replaced with a flamer---and your life becomes miserable due to his bad management skills resulting in your weekly hrs worked increasing---with no monetary compensation. I love being hourly---it's a great insurance policy---you get the time off --or you get extra money.
-
This is a great thread to read. As a long-time civilian I had no idea the Navy nuclear program was having "issues". Some perspective...positive incentive was absent during my nuke years (78-84) and I'd have to think it has always been that way. Some commands thrived, some sucked. My first nuclear ship was the USS Texas (CGN39). It was a sucky place that actually got worse when a new CO and Command Master Chief showed up and made it unbearable. On the other hand the Mississippi (CGN40) had, by all accounts, a gifted CO and a happy crew that got all the awards.
As for the "dead admiral" - at least in those days they would ack-out an entire section at NPS without blinking. My class lost section 1 by the 6-week point. I get the impression this doesn't happen anymore. But clinging to the past is usually a bad thing. It is like Alabama football and some fans not wanting to let Bear Bryant go. It has caused untold grief for the program. Similarly, continuing to hang with Hyman G is not smart. Commercial power is quite competent and from my perspective the training I received with TVA over the years exceeded the Navy's. I certainly learned more about radiation fundamentals from TVA. Not to belittle Navy nucs, but the typical licensed RO or SRO is light-years ahead as far as competence and knowledge. It would indeed be in the Navy's best interests to benchmark commercial plants.
-
I got a very constructive upgrade from a senior person who also reads this post, and I think it gave me some insight into the issues the NNPP faces. I also realized that I am a bigger part of the problem than I previously thought.
Throughout the training pipeline we are taught that we are one of the only enlisted sectors of the military that is allowed, and encouraged, to question orders. I think that we (the young bucks who complain the most, and probably make the place miserable for the people around us) tend to ask the wrong questions, leaving us with an extremely limited perspective of the big picture.
Also, being in the military, our supervisors often only tell us the "what" and not necessarily the "why." They actually don't owe us an explanation since we are contract (and, honestly, self-respect) bound to perform as instructed when told to act. Since we are dealing with the plant systems and procedures we often infer the "why" only as the plant related part, and not from the command/shipyard/IMF perspective.
All we know is that it pisses us off royally to get assigned a six-hour project at 2 PM. When we wind up getting monitored performing a task that we stay until eight o' clock working on, and only hear about the little things we screwed up in the process (and no "hey, I appreciate you staying late"), we develop bitterness towards the monitoring organization. Honestly, I have generally had good experiences with NRRO and NSRO and other monitoring organizations, but I have also fallen victim to some BS interpretations of some books I am proud to know very well (RADCON and Water Chem). When it winds up with us having to perform extra tasks, even if those tasks only take a minute, we don't tend to respect the fact that usually new instructions just pop up to take out any possible debate on an issue and only serve to cover us in the long run. I have to say that the working relationship between the blue shirts and the monitoring organizations is tense at best, and that that DOES matter. While it's true we don't have any real authority, we do the work, and if we get monitored, we WILL get comments. If we get comments, we get dragged through the mud. If we get dragged through the mud (which we will), we get no sense of accomplishment from a job well done since the size and scope of our accomplishment is nullified by the personal side conversations that took place while we did the work (Formality).
I don't mean this at all to say that we shouldn't have monitoring organizations. People will inherently take the path of least resistance, and if left unchecked tend to slide in the wrong direction (HAMPTON, anyone? ). I completely agree with the need for adult supervision in a climate where the average age is about 22 and the average experience level is less than two years (not fact checked, upgrade me if you know the actual numbers). I do think we go overboard on some aspects, though. Formality, for one. Does anyone expect a group of guys who know each other well to sit together for several hours in silence? Can anyone expect that? Does it make sense to chastise people for getting along with one another when in close quarters for an extended period of time? If all comms relevant to the evolution are spit out in the correct way, what does it matter if there is idle chatter in the hours waited between operations? If a guy is staying late to do a job, the last thing he needs is to get in trouble for talking during the evolution when he comes in the next day.
I guess I have to point out here that we don't actually do much hard work. A lot of it just takes a long time and a lot of frustration. It's also true that the touchy-feely aspect of taking pride in our little accomplishments doesn't actually matter (and I'm not being sarcastic here). We are getting paid to do a job, so we should do it. We are in the military, so we are contract and honor bound to perform, as we raised our right hand and said we would.
As far as the problems with dumb people being allowed to slip through the program, it takes all sorts to run this game. Most of you probably know a guy in M-Div or somewhere else that works harder than anyone else without a word of complaint who can't explain Power vs. Steam Demand to save his life. You also know the guy who graduated top of his class that you keep in ERLL until EAOS because you don't trust him to do a damn thing without adult supervision. Besides, this program makes people pretty marketable on the outside (from what they tell me), and not many people stick around. It makes sense to open up the playing field to other people who are interested in the job, even if they have a tough time in school. When you get a bad student who becomes a great operator, you might also have a guy you can keep around in the program for longer than a single sea tour.
Since I tend to spout poorly though out material that I don't agree with two hours later, I think it's about time for me to step out of this discussion for a bit.
-
Well from what I can tell there have been a lot of good thought processes out there. RumRunner, yes indeep the NNPP has some issues. Some are good, but it seems a lot more are bad. They would no sooner ack-out 1 person let alone and entire section, than let you flip that special switch that is located you know where and does you know what. Manning is becoming an issue, that is why the bonus money keeps going through the roof.
Withroaj, there are a lot of things I agree with you in your post. Some I don't. I do agree that a lot of the time we don't work hard, say like digging ditches, but we more than make up for it in other ways, like Vulcan-Death-Watches, 7 day long rotating shift schedules, deployments, etc without the extra pay that our civilian counterparts would receive. If you ever want a really hard work job, try doing an emergency condenser clean out of all main and TG condensers on a CVN when you have a "silting incident(a.k.a run aground)" 2 weeks before a deployment. That was some fun beating sting rays with wrenches and shoveling sand with fish parts all over the place.
-
I understand the point and need for monitoring organizations. But, my problem with NRRO is that it is out of control, in my opinion. I feel they go beyond the scope of their task and have more power than they are supposed to have. To illustrate (yes I am full of sea stories about the things that P me off :)):
ME as EDO doing paperwork in maneuvering during a horrible long and painful outage. The weather is also especially crappy out, IE 6inch snow/half hour.
Chief of WMFO field office enters.
ME "Good morning, Sir."
Him "Good morning."
Dead silence for a few minutes. I, hating dead silence and the feeling of ignoring a senior, I make some small talk.
ME "I hope the snow stops soon. Its going to be pretty treacherous on the way home tonight."
HE and ME continue some small talk about the weather, other things.
Next day. I get called to PMCs office. I proceed to get a butt chewing for being too and I quote the comment, "buddy, buddy" with the Chief of the WMFO field office. *SIGH* PMC suggests I don't even acknowledge them when they come in, and especially don't talk to them.
That same day standing EDO for something like the 110th time this shutdown, a more junior WMFO member enters. I take PMCs advice and ignore them. But he does not notice me ignoring him and tries to start small talk.
HIM: "So how about all of this snow? Pretty crazy, huh."
ME: "I am very sorry, Sir. But I am afraid I cannot engage you in small talk while on watch as EDO. I was talked to about this today and would appreciate it if we could avoid the same situation."
HIM: "Oh, I am not like that, don't worry." Then leaves.
Next day: Called to PMCs office for another butt chewing for "complaining" to a WMFO guy about getting a butt chewing for talking to a WMFO guy. ::)
And the circle continues. In my opinion, you are damned if you do and you're damned if you don't with those people. Granted, there have been a few good NRRO people, but as a whole, I think that organization is out of control. COs need to step up and smack them down once in a while instead of caving to their every whim. And please, don't tell me I don't see the big picture because that is BS.
In contrast, my first experience with a resident NRC inspector what in the control room during a reactor START UP and based on my experience with NRRO, I thought I had to treat them similarly. Boy was I wrong. This guy is the coolest guy I have met yet, and in fact we are probably going to end up being pretty good friends. And guess what, no one chewed my butt the next day for being "buddy, buddy" with the NRC inspector. What I have learned is that there is a time and place for things like small talk, and the like. What NRRO/NNPP needs to learn is that its OK to smile and shoot the breeze once in a while. Nothing is going to melt.
Justin
-
Believe me Justin, I know the pain. I personally knew 3 guys before they "turned to the Dark Side" and became NRRO Sith Lords. They were pretty cool guys before hand, and on a couple of occasions outside of the fence even expressed to me that they hated having to make the BS comments that they did. Most of the time they told me that they had to have X number of comments or they weren't doing their jobs properly or weren't looking hard enough. The nicer ones were generally the ones that had not done their required sea tour yet, the whole thing about burning bridges and defecating where you consume food thing and all. Luckily the last one that I knew was an ELT and was stupid smart, i.e. memorize chapter and verse to just about any procedure and had like a 3.8 on final EOOW board, but I didn't have to watch his turning seeing as I got out before he was Official. Whatever happened to NRRO was here to help up operate, not create an air of superiority that is both misplaced and overindulged.
-
Justin- Sounds like the PMC should have grown a pair and took one for you. Was he trying to make E-9 or something?
-
Justin- Sounds like the PMC should have grown a pair and took one for you. Was he trying to make E-9 or something?
Nah; if I were to speculate, the WMFO chief made a small remark to the PM who overreacted and called the PMC to his office and told him to counsel Justin. Same thing with the junior field office rep. But I agree that the field office has KSO by the short hairs.
-
I want to make an obervation without being too general or appearing that I offer no solution, so here goes.
When I first got to Charleston for NFAS and NPS the sea returnees there all seemed to enjoy the Navy. I remember thinking I have the coolest job on earth and all these "diggits" were reaffirming my warm and fuzzy about all things nuclear. At that point in time I wanted to re-enlist, i wanted to say in, I wanted to make chief and above and be a super cool know it all with a chest full of candy. I even thought I could be an officer, command a vessel, or go LDO and be a super freaky chief only I get saluted. My section advisers all seemed to enjoy the navy. My instructors all seemed to enjoy the navy. I remember there was a retirement every week (or so it seemed) for some chief or above and those were cool to witness either first hand or from a distance. IOW I wanted what they had.
Overall there was a level of professionalism that I never saw again. My instructors pushed hard and I worked hard. I got those pats on the back, we have been speaking of. I did well....actually better than well I did great. I made a decision with my wife to go to NPTU Ballston Spa and work hard and become a SPU (never did get to be a SPU though).
Prototype was an experience I will never forget. *Disclaimer* I qualified week 13 on the 24 week schedule and was top mechanic GPA wise and second overall GPA wise, so i wasnt a dirt bag.
Prior to exiting the off crew phase, the off crew master chief saw me in the galley eating lunch. He noticed my work ethic (coming in early and staying late, ahead of the curve, helping other guys in my section, being section leader.........hey I was diggit once ;D!) and told me I was student of the week or month or whatever. I get a special parking space yadayada. But then he asked me for my opinion of this place, so not wanting to waste an opportunity I told him, respectfully, that the quality of sailor here was different. And no offense to you guys there now or then or ever, but the average sea returnee seemed to be of a different caliber. He responded that he was well aware of it. There is a pervasive attitude of bitterness and hatred toward the navy, other sailors, "them/they", and especially students.
I loved my job still, but I grew to dislike the many people I worked for and with. I feel the environment there fostered this. I find that we as a community both nuke and especially in the submarine world (no experience with the surface fleet) feed on our own. It was a culture of "well i had it bad so I am going to give every nub hell seven fold." Pay it forward nuke style I guess. I wont get into specifics of things I dealt with in my time, but if you can imagine a nub with a wife and two young girls its not hard to imagine my buttons.
So I read with real interest Justin's comments about the civilian nuclear sector. Its just as demanding, just as technical, and probably more rewarding. But those comments of positvie reinforcement have got to come from the bottom up as well as top down. I mean we complain of how we were treated, but how about how we treated others. Can we really demand this type of one way street rationale?
I would comment more but I figure I will listen to the feedback first. I feel as though my thoughts arent all in order.
-
Another problem I saw during my sea time was the total lack of motivation that some junior personnel had for qualifying, this primarily became a problem when the ship started aggressively following the Navy’s hazing policy (convitction at mast would result in maximum award for all involved or in the room when it happened). Since we can’t beat them any more perhaps big Navy should consider re-structuring the SDAP program and provide significant financial incentive to qualify senior in rate. I’ll just throw out a number $500
-
Well, I'm just now checking back in to NukeWorker on my days off and coming into this thread late.
1. A few people have posted "how much do students really learn at ptype?" Not enough to make it worth it, I think. I think ptype should be 3 months long (total) and the goal is not to qualify them as a watch stander, but rather to hit them hard with as much watch standing as possible. One thing I believe in strongly after my short time in the navy is that the more times someone sees a casualty and takes the I/A's the better s/he'll be each successive time. That would do the fleet the greatest service: send them newbies with some experience beyond the minimum 5 watches for quals.
2. I don't need positive reinforcement. And those of you who do need to lower your standards/expectations. Dirt bags excluded, I haven't worked a nuke yet who doesn't mind working a +12-hour day if he knows that he'll get compensated the next day by either getting cut loose after quarters or not coming in at all. No one is in the navy for the money. A sailor's time off is the most motivating incentive his leadership has. Don't ask him to work until after dinner on Thursday when in-port and then tell him he has to stay until 3pm on Friday because of GMT on financial management, then attend the stupid command picnic on Saturday to be followed by duty on Sunday. It will drive a guy to drink.
3. And the navy reg's say nothing about getting time off for having duty on the weekend. What the MILPERS Manual says is that if you have duty on the weekend and it's a holiday on Friday[Monday], then you get Monday[Friday] off. I also tried to point that out, and was fired as Logroom Yeoman for "being a cancer."
-
And the pieces of the puzzle get filled in bit by bit,........heheheheheh,... 8)
Logroom Yeomen do it IAW the instruction.
-
Wow is it really that messed up ??? When I was in we had to graduate the "Heartbreak Ridge" type of school - aka Hard knocks. I came in at the butt end of the Zumwalt era..... and it was not unheard of to be physically challenged when answering a question incorrectly.....
I also know that we had a very tight band... comaradre (spelling?) even between the nukes and the coners. I guess I was lucky in that I was assigned to 2 unique boats, and the additional requirements that were imposed upon them made us a tighter bunch.
Good luck to all serving or are going to serve, and thanks to those of you who have served....
ET1(SS) Lafeet
-
Justin- Sounds like the PMC should have grown a pair and took one for you. Was he trying to make E-9 or something?
He was an E9. :)
Justin
-
Nah; if I were to speculate, the WMFO chief made a small remark to the PM who overreacted and called the PMC to his office and told him to counsel Justin. Same thing with the junior field office rep. But I agree that the field office has KSO by the short hairs.
I tend to agree with you (not sure who the overreaction came from), which also further makes my point. They have more power/say than I believe they were meant to/supposed to have.
Justin
-
I loved my job still, but I grew to dislike the many people I worked for and with. I feel the environment there fostered this. I find that we as a community both nuke and especially in the submarine world (no experience with the surface fleet) feed on our own. It was a culture of "well i had it bad so I am going to give every nub hell seven fold." Pay it forward nuke style I guess. I wont get into specifics of things I dealt with in my time, but if you can imagine a nub with a wife and two young girls its not hard to imagine my buttons.
So I read with real interest Justin's comments about the civilian nuclear sector. Its just as demanding, just as technical, and probably more rewarding. But those comments of positvie reinforcement have got to come from the bottom up as well as top down. I mean we complain of how we were treated, but how about how we treated others. Can we really demand this type of one way street rationale?
I would comment more but I figure I will listen to the feedback first. I feel as though my thoughts arent all in order.
Nice post, thanks. I agree 100% with first paragraph I have quoted. I saw this mentality at prototype big time while I was there. There was defenitely the attitude of having to treat people the way they were. It was even so bad at one point, that some guys tried to out do each other in how big a douche bag they were. I never subscribed to that thinking and corrected it when I saw it. Students tended to love me because I treated them with respect and dignity, like people. I hated when I saw fellow officer trainers crap on officer students and brag about it "because they could." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the blue shirt is innocent in all of this. :) And, just so you know that my pre-bitterness resume (you already knew I loved my first 2 years on the boat), I am 100% sure I was the biggest diggit the Navy ever saw. I flew a Navy flag (big deal, just wait:)), I won both the honor recruit and military excellent awards at boot, was the first qualifier in my class (number 2 GPA by a point), my computer played Anchors Aweigh when booting up... and another version shutting down (told you to wait for it :)), always had mirrored boots and military creases, etc. I just don't want you to think that I was some dirt bag who is not "complaining" in this thread. Nope, I was a giant diggit, hard charger (which even my bitterness didn't stop) who turned bitter and hate full because of the cycle you talked about. Somewhere, the cycle needs stopped and I believe, it has to start with the COs and go down from there.
And papa, good for you that you don't need a pat on the back. I however, do and I won't lower my expectations on that. Could be my big ego that needs recognizing but whatever it is, I am not going to change it just because you don't need the positive reenforcement. Otherwise, I agree with your points.
Justin
-
Nay nay moosebreath(favorite saying of one of my old Chiefs)
My first chief referred to "Spray 9" cleaner as "goat piss"
-
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the blue shirt is innocent in all of this.
We have more blame than most would care to recognize. Think about all of the critiques you've been to or heard about. What if when an RO hosed up a pump shift when a pump failed to start in fast speed he said it was because he had never paid attention at divisional training; never ran through some scenarios in his head while on watch; was trying to beat the fastest time for shifting pumps... we'd have a lot less standing orders, policies, requirements, instructions, and procedures. If each person at a critique when asked why he did what he did said, "I didn't understand what I was doing because I haven't been studying as much as I should be," things would be a lot better.
Studies on psychology in the workplace for people with a lot of responsibility and stress (nukes) deteriorates proportionally to how much autonomy is taken away from them by supervisors. The less control a guy has over how he does his job will make him more disgruntled.
The drastic and impossible change that we all desire from the naval leadership has to come simultaneously with an equivalent change in the working class.
-
We have more blame than most would care to recognize. Think about all of the critiques you've been to or heard about. What if when an RO hosed up a pump shift when a pump failed to start in fast speed he said it was because he had never paid attention at divisional training; never ran through some scenarios in his head while on watch; was trying to beat the fastest time for shifting pumps... we'd have a lot less standing orders, policies, requirements, instructions, and procedures. If each person at a critique when asked why he did what he did said, "I didn't understand what I was doing because I haven't been studying as much as I should be," things would be a lot better.
Studies on psychology in the workplace for people with a lot of responsibility and stress (nukes) deteriorates proportionally to how much autonomy is taken away from them by supervisors. The less control a guy has over how he does his job will make him more disgruntled.
The drastic and impossible change that we all desire from the naval leadership has to come simultaneously with an equivalent change in the working class.
More good points. Blue shirts are always the first to throw a fit when a new SO is issued or more monitoring becomes required but when asked "well how could you possibly blow DRT water all over the bilge if you didn't need a SO and the EWS there?" they don't have an answer or do have some lame excuse.
Justin
-
It seems that this thread has triggered a bit of reaction amongst the breatheren. Good, Good give into your feelings, let the power of the Dark side flow through you.
-
More good points. Blue shirts are always the first to throw a fit when a new SO is issued or more monitoring becomes required but when asked "well how could you possibly blow DRT water all over the bilge if you didn't need a SO and the EWS there?" they don't have an answer or do have some lame excuse.
Justin
Quite simple, Sometimes we screw up. Not because we didn't know what we were doing, or that we purposely wanted to screw it up. Sometimes things just happen. I know in the grand scheme of things that that is a result we don't want to happen but it does. What is the real thorn in a person's craw is the typical Knee-Jerk reaction that goes way over the top to correct something that was simply a mistake, made due to any number of reasons up to and including being too worn out from rotating shift work, maintenance, and all other things associated with being a nuke.
If SO's and Monitor Watches and anything else the NNPP can come up with to fix a problem worked, they would only need to be implemented once and never heard from again. No matter what, people are going to screw up sometimes, even if you are the freaking head of NR you will screw up at sometime. Good news is that anything truly major with a high potential for Death/Injury/Catastrophe has enough redundancy and other controls that we don't have another Chernobyl or TMI.
-
Heck I screwed up several times in my youth and a few in my later years onboard. Besides the continuous drill and constant training (plus the necessary book studies) that was one of the few ways we learned. Most humans tend to learn from their mistakes, but they need to be held accountable in order for that change to occur. I know I was and I NEVER made the same mistake twice.....
-
I was thinking about this earlier....
The Navy used to use the "Carrot on a Stick" method to get things done.
The Nuclear Navy has since taken away the carrot and found another use for the stick.
-
I know they old saying "A B#*%ing sailor is a happy sailor" but I just wanted to get some input from both new and old glow-worms on what you would do to "fix" what we perceive to be wrong with the Navy Nuke program, and not just the broad brush stroke of "raise the standards of recruitment" or "do away with NRRO", I mean real specific answers. I am sure that there is a lot that we would agree on and even some that we wouldn't. Who knows maybe someone with some power will read this and see what they can do to put it into play.
One thing that would help would be a Black's Law Dictionary equivalent: a Nuclear Power Dictionary. When does "should" mean "maybe" and when does it mean "shall"? (When it's convenient for the COC, of course) How long is "about 1 hour"? Does "continuously" really mean continuously?
-
It's called EAOS,....
Touche. 8)
But thats the thing I don't understand, if the commercial industry is run by mostly ex navy nukes (ops, anyway), then why isn't getting a job at a commercial plant just like working in the navy again? Sure, I see some navy tendencies in a few guys around here, but they are definitely in the minority.
The differences I observed so far include (but are in no way limited to);
Commercial nukes perform their jobs with a much higher level of professionalism.
I haven't got the sense that anyone was being "sleezy" about anything. Although, I must admit that I was a little shocked at the rad con practices when I first saw them. But then I came to realize that the navy radcon program is ridiculously prohibitive. The techs out here are very efficient and know what they are doing really well and we aren't spreading contamination around the world with our methods!
Evolutions or jobs that would require extensive oversight in the navy are handle by lone EO/AO/NLOs most of the time, with maybe a peer check from a counterpart.
People treat each other with respect (going back to my original post).
People are happier. Sure, they have their complaints, always will. But they are no where near the level of the complaints with the NNPP.
I don't know, maybe I am just naive. But something is radically different between the commercial nukes and the NNPP. Is it the money? I certainly will tolerate a higher level of BS for 100K vs 50K. Is it the security in the knowledge that you can move on if you don't like where you are? Is it going home every night? The absence of the military element? Or a combination of a bunch of things? Sometimes I just wonder how things can be so different when so many of the same people that ran the NNPP run commercial nukes. I am sure its just because I am a rookie and with time, will learn all I need to know to fully understand why things are the way they are.
Justin
-
Just FYI, you are right it is not a Navy instruction that says to normalize the work week as much as possible (i.e. giving a day extra off for weekend duty), it is a DOD instruction. The MILPERSMAN does say to maximize liberty and leave to the greatest extent possible while still meeting operational requirements.
One of the problems at my command (I'm on a CVN) that I have the most beef with is that our "cleaning stations" are scheduled for one hour every day, at the end of the day. They secure access from the ship at that time (i. e. no one can go home). This is of course a poor example of what the NNPP is doing wrong, but a good one of what the Navy is doing wrong. I am a firm believer in the ideal that since our pay is the same, leadership really has nothing it can do besides give awards and time off. This type of structure limits and can prevent this. If it was me, we would clean in the morning, or just have the duty section clean up after everyone leaves for the day.
I do definetly agree with the statement that the NNPP is too critical of their sailors, without matching positive reinforcement. I would also like to add that NNPP has too many instructions in "hidden" places to dictate what one does. At my command alone, if you want to lets say, add to a S/G, you have to reference over 4 different binders/manuals. The lookup of information to make sure you are "procedurally compliant" takes just as long as the add! On top of that, these extra requirements were borne out of the belief that if a highly trained technician messes up just once, that it is a leadership failure, and more oversight is needed. This is helping make an evolution which should just take a half an hour or so, take over 5! It becomes very demoralizing when you spend most of your watch waiting to perform the evolution because you are waiting on someone to watch you, just to find out that at the last second you will not get relieved until the evolution is done. We are trained for a year and a half for a reason, and that is trust! When khaki leadership realizes this, things will happen much quicker, and maybe more people will use their heads to solve issues rather than having to take every little thing up the COC (I believe this fosters belief that blueshirts do not know anything as well).
Just two things though when many more are broken.
Jason
-
Touche. 8)
But thats the thing I don't understand, if the commercial industry is run by mostly ex navy nukes (ops, anyway), then why isn't getting a job at a commercial plant just like working in the navy again? Sure, I see some navy tendencies in a few guys around here, but they are definitely in the minority.
The differences I observed so far include (but are in no way limited to);
Commercial nukes perform their jobs with a much higher level of professionalism.
I haven't got the sense that anyone was being "sleezy" about anything. Although, I must admit that I was a little shocked at the rad con practices when I first saw them. But then I came to realize that the navy radcon program is ridiculously prohibitive. The techs out here are very efficient and know what they are doing really well and we aren't spreading contamination around the world with our methods!
Evolutions or jobs that would require extensive oversight in the navy are handle by lone EO/AO/NLOs most of the time, with maybe a peer check from a counterpart.
People treat each other with respect (going back to my original post).
People are happier. Sure, they have their complaints, always will. But they are no where near the level of the complaints with the NNPP.
I don't know, maybe I am just naive. But something is radically different between the commercial nukes and the NNPP. Is it the money? I certainly will tolerate a higher level of BS for 100K vs 50K. Is it the security in the knowledge that you can move on if you don't like where you are? Is it going home every night? The absence of the military element? Or a combination of a bunch of things? Sometimes I just wonder how things can be so different when so many of the same people that ran the NNPP run commercial nukes. I am sure its just because I am a rookie and with time, will learn all I need to know to fully understand why things are the way they are.
Justin
If I could give you double karma I would. I have wondered these same things. How can this job be so similar in scope of what we do (fission, heat, boil, spin turbine, make power) yet I feel good everyday?
I have made mistakes here in the commercial and civilian world. And I felt like crap (mispo on a valve) and a complete retard. But never did I feel I was being made an example of. No talk of reduction in rate, 45/45, etc. We (myself, my bosses, and an SRO who dealt in Human Performance) sat and tried to hash out the events and understand where I failed myself. You see, I still get blamed but it is at least attempted to as Lafeet put it "not make the same mistake twice".
And yes I too need positive reinforcement, so I find it hard in that aspect to "lower my expectations". I think once you taste the clear waters and eat from these greener pastures you will side with me. I didnt start out with these expectations, I developed them.
-
If I could give you double karma I would. I have wondered these same things. How can this job be so similar in scope of what we do (fission, heat, boil, spin turbine, make power) yet I feel good everyday?
I have made mistakes here in the commercial and civilian world. And I felt like crap (mispo on a valve) and a complete retard. But never did I feel I was being made an example of. No talk of reduction in rate, 45/45, etc. We (myself, my bosses, and an SRO who dealt in Human Performance) sat and tried to hash out the events and understand where I failed myself. You see, I still get blamed but it is at least attempted to as Lafeet put it "not make the same mistake twice".
And yes I too need positive reinforcement, so I find it hard in that aspect to "lower my expectations". I think once you taste the clear waters and eat from these greener pastures you will side with me. I didnt start out with these expectations, I developed them.
Was this your first clock reset? Congrats!
After bout a year, you were due.
I guess the Navy had clock resets too, it was called 100 attaboys being reset by 1 oh no!
-
If I could give you double karma I would. I have wondered these same things. How can this job be so similar in scope of what we do (fission, heat, boil, spin turbine, make power) yet I feel good everyday?
I have made mistakes here in the commercial and civilian world. And I felt like crap (mispo on a valve) and a complete retard. But never did I feel I was being made an example of. No talk of reduction in rate, 45/45, etc. We (myself, my bosses, and an SRO who dealt in Human Performance) sat and tried to hash out the events and understand where I failed myself. You see, I still get blamed but it is at least attempted to as Lafeet put it "not make the same mistake twice".
And yes I too need positive reinforcement, so I find it hard in that aspect to "lower my expectations". I think once you taste the clear waters and eat from these greener pastures you will side with me. I didnt start out with these expectations, I developed them.
I know what you are saying. I walk around with a crap eating grin on my face all the time. People always think I am up to something. :) I just didn't know this level of happiness was possible. ;D
Justin
-
You know there's something wrong when I use my highest level of problem solving mental abilities on how to de-conflict the watch bill because of 18 local requirements; some written, some not. I should be trying to figure out how to plan the shift to maximize the maintenance that gets done.
And my "lower your expectations" remark is due to my bitterness. I'm all for positive reinforcement, but while we're riding the make-believe train to La La Land I thought it would be best to not ask for too much in the way of suggesting changes in Naval leadership.
-
Touche. 8)
But thats the thing I don't understand, if the commercial industry is run by mostly ex navy nukes (ops, anyway), then why isn't getting a job at a commercial plant just like working in the navy again? Sure, I see some navy tendencies in a few guys around here, but they are definitely in the minority.
The differences I observed so far include (but are in no way limited to);
Commercial nukes perform their jobs with a much higher level of professionalism.
I haven't got the sense that anyone was being "sleezy" about anything. Although, I must admit that I was a little shocked at the rad con practices when I first saw them. But then I came to realize that the navy radcon program is ridiculously prohibitive. The techs out here are very efficient and know what they are doing really well and we aren't spreading contamination around the world with our methods!
Evolutions or jobs that would require extensive oversight in the navy are handle by lone EO/AO/NLOs most of the time, with maybe a peer check from a counterpart.
People treat each other with respect (going back to my original post).
People are happier. Sure, they have their complaints, always will. But they are no where near the level of the complaints with the NNPP.
I don't know, maybe I am just naive. But something is radically different between the commercial nukes and the NNPP. Is it the money? I certainly will tolerate a higher level of BS for 100K vs 50K. Is it the security in the knowledge that you can move on if you don't like where you are? Is it going home every night? The absence of the military element? Or a combination of a bunch of things? Sometimes I just wonder how things can be so different when so many of the same people that ran the NNPP run commercial nukes. I am sure its just because I am a rookie and with time, will learn all I need to know to fully understand why things are the way they are.
Justin
I could be way off base here but I would guess that the reason that the commercial world is so different from the Navy world despite having so many ex navy guys in the commercial world(full disclosure, I do not work at a commercial plant) is that most of the Navy guys that were the type to cause the most headaches just for the sake of causing a headache don't last too long in the commercial world. To put it another way, the guys that are running the show in commecial world are the ones that had the people skills to get ahead in the civilian sector. The ones that didn't have the people skills have moved on to someplace that their particular leadership style(or lack there of) can be effective. I mean we have all known that guy/girl that stayed in the Navy for 20+ because they probably couldn't hack it on the outside with their personality type.
I can't believe no one quoted my Carrot on a Stick post. Tough Crowd.
-
Was this your first clock reset? Congrats!
After bout a year, you were due.
I guess the Navy had clock resets too, it was called 100 attaboys being reset by 1 oh no!
Honestly, its not the worst thing I have ever "accomplished" Jason. :)
That would have been at a prior job trying to recover a sealed source using "destructive" measures........ie a bandsaw and a drill press. Original manufacturer was out of business, no prints, no procedure, just my best guess and I missed by 1/32nd of an inch. I measured twice, cut once and released several mCi of Cs-137 into the atmosphere. Bad day to say the least.
One thing I loved about the Navy was it taught you to think quickly and absorb tons of material. And it taught you to work hard and of course play hard.
Commercially, I have learned to slow down, understand what I am doing, what it will affect, and wear a single hat. Let me expound a bit using some words a seasoned colleague told me. He was asked prior to his EAOS why he was getting out. He stated why would he stay in for less money doing 3 to 4 jobs (An elt can do operations, chemistry, rad con, or maintenace) when he can do one job for more money. This can be applied to any rating, so dont think I am playing a bias here.
Think about it guys. On top of these many hats in the navy, you also are the boss (LPO at some point), handle schedules like previously mentioned, plan maintenance, perform admin functions, etc. Commercially, you become a master of one of those trades. I likes it alot.
-
It is interesting that mention the many "hats" we wear as a nuke. When I was filling out the paperwork for my VA home loan, the loan officer said that my new job had to be the same as the job I did in the Navy. She couldn't understand that there isn't a job in the civilian world that is exactly like the job of a nuke in the Navy. Even if you work at a power plant, you are only operations or Maintenance or Training, whereas in the Navy you get to be all three and then some.
-
It is interesting that mention the many "hats" we wear as a nuke. When I was filling out the paperwork for my VA home loan, the loan officer said that my new job had to be the same as the job I did in the Navy. She couldn't understand that there isn't a job in the civilian world that is exactly like the job of a nuke in the Navy. Even if you work at a power plant, you are only operations or Maintenance or Training, whereas in the Navy you get to be all three and then some.
Wait, hate to steer off topic. What the heck does that mean... same job as in the navy? So if I was a nuke and decided to open a pie shop... I couldn't get a VA home loan? Maybe we should split this out because I am in this whole process right now. My awesome realtor and mortgage guy is handling everything so far. Just don't want any surprises. Better yet.. just PM me.
Back on topic.
Justin
-
I was thinking about this earlier....
The Navy used to use the "Carrot on a Stick" method to get things done.
The Nuclear Navy has since taken away the carrot and found another use for the stick.
Oh, the carrot's there, all right. Remember? It only hurt for a bit.
I can't believe no one quoted my Carrot on a Stick post. Tough Crowd.
Consider it quoted. I do my best.
-
I know that the "upper C.o.C" is aware of some of the stressing points of NNP. I was lucky/unlucky enough to go out to sea and bring aboard about 9 congressional aids/assistants/etc.. six months ago. In this group were two people that worked, in some fashion, on the civilian side of naval reactors. My impression of there jobs lead me to believe that they exist where the navy ends and where political leadership begins, but anyway... After their 48 hour tour aboard my boat, we small boat transferred them and myself off. One of the female NR/congress persons remembered me from her engineroom tours and struck up a conversation about many of the same topics within this thread. Since I was soon leaving the nuclear navy, and it was a long tug ride back, I gave her a snickers bar and proceeded to spill my guts.
Summary:
"They" did know about the difficulty in retaining the 8-14 year group and the difficulty in placing enough people within the program to make it to the fleet (she stated that based upon her numbers, this was getting better over the last 5-7 years). "They" are aware of the strong pull by commercial nuke power against keeping people in and how it will only get stronger as more plants come on line. "They" believe that higher S.R.B.'s and enlistment bonuses are not the longterm answer, but seem to be the current prescription, although she expects them to continue to rise for ET's and MM/ELTs.
What I enlightened her about were the storys of prototype staff and ex-staff, alike, as to why more people were making it to the fleet. Having not done a tour at either riverboat or in the frozen tundra of the north, I could only pass on what I had heard from multiple independent sources, and the subsequent results to the fleet. She was not aware of our immense training and retraining administrative requirements including the man hours spent in such endeavors. I also threw in why, I felt, so many ETs/ ELTs were getting out of the navy, even though they were a year our two away from Chief. Also, why it was common to see 6-9 year ET chiefs as the norm.
So many things started to come up about maintenance requirements and in port watchbills that I could tell I was losing her, so I pulled back and smiled. She thanked me immensely when we got back to port, and gave me her business card with her private email written on the back. I passed it to my LPO and told him to keep in touch with her.
There is some communication flowing through the NNPP, but as with any large, cumbersome creature, it will take sometime to get a reaction.
As a funny side-note. I found out that Naval Reactors is requiring every line eligible, newly commissioned Ensign to interview with Naval Reactors before proceeding to their first command. It is screwing up all the Navy pilot school convene dates because they have to let their incoming Ensigns go to D.C. for the interviews. There are a lot of pissed off air-dales right now.
-Rob
-
Wirebiter, That is some good insight into what could happen years down the road. As we all know, the Navy is VERY slow in getting around to anything that might make life better for its sailors. If it will screw over the rank and file, expect it to come down with expediance.
Justin, I gave my thoughts some more time to simmer and it also came to my realization of another aspect of why Civ Vs Navy is so different. As a civilian, if you truly hate the person you work for, then you can always walk away from the situation with no other reprecusssions. You have the ability to find another job in the mean time, then leave. You have no such option in the Navy and those in power know that no matter how much someone despises you, they can't just up and leave(most nukes no matter what will not risk the Big Chicken Dinner just because they despise their CO) and have to do what they say no matter how dumb it is. There is no customer service to worry about, and you effectively have indentured servents to do your bidding. This is the atmosphere that allows people with no people skills get ahead and stay in. Ok enough of my two cents. BTW hope I answered your question.
-
Wirebiter, That is some good insight into what could happen years down the road. As we all know, the Navy is VERY slow in getting around to anything that might make life better for its sailors. If it will screw over the rank and file, expect it to come down with expediance.
Justin, I gave my thoughts some more time to simmer and it also came to my realization of another aspect of why Civ Vs Navy is so different. As a civilian, if you truly hate the person you work for, then you can always walk away from the situation with no other reprecusssions. You have the ability to find another job in the mean time, then leave. You have no such option in the Navy and those in power know that no matter how much someone despises you, they can't just up and leave(most nukes no matter what will not risk the Big Chicken Dinner just because they despise their CO) and have to do what they say no matter how dumb it is. There is no customer service to worry about, and you effectively have indentured servents to do your bidding. This is the atmosphere that allows people with no people skills get ahead and stay in. Ok enough of my two cents. BTW hope I answered your question.
You are "exactly right" The rights you have in the Navy are much less than in the civilian world--no matter what bunk the command gives you that you have them. The CO's can play "Road Captain" (aka Cool Hand Luke) and you are just a glorified indentured servant---I think some of the leadership will have a hard time out in the Civilan world where they have to treat people somewhat decently--and probably shrivel up or have heart attacks
-
Now I would like clarify that I do not feel that all officers and chiefs are of the nature stated above. There are a lot that will go to bat for you and stand up in the face of stupidity. It is the apperance that there are more of the former than the latter. Going along with the NRRO vs Crew/Boat/Ship topic, I think that there are some good officers that are forced to being jerks because of pressure from above. Along that same thought process another thing I have noticed, most prevailant at Prototype, is that policies and practices will be implemented by people who have no idea how difficult it will be to fully implement. Case in point, when they added the third path to Mechanic qual books. Their logic-it will help qualify more students because they will be able to have more spots on the watchbill for qualifying. Reality was that it increased the workload on the crews significantly by adding additional watchstanders and made the students stand 4 additional watches than previously required. I am all in favor of getting more experience under these guys belts but when one of the watches that was pretty cake to begin with gets split into two, one of the two watches logs litterly too <1 minute and the other about 3 mins, it is a waste of time and effort.
-
This might be covered somewhere else, but I feel it is somewhat related to this thread. Does anyone else feel that we could use MORE prior enlisted nukes becoming officers. With a few exceptions, prior enlisted guys tend to be much better officers than those who start out O-Gang. Not trying to say that all prior enlisted nuke officers are great or that non-prior enlisted officers are all jerks, just an observation that I noticed in my 9 years. I personally believe that if the NNPP had more prior enlisted guys as officers that things would be a little better, and not just the ones fresh out of the pipeline, get a few that have been on the pond for a while.
-
This might be covered somewhere else, but I feel it is somewhat related to this thread. Does anyone else feel that we could use MORE prior enlisted nukes becoming officers. With a few exceptions, prior enlisted guys tend to be much better officers than those who start out O-Gang. Not trying to say that all prior enlisted nuke officers are great or that non-prior enlisted officers are all jerks, just an observation that I noticed in my 9 years. I personally believe that if the NNPP had more prior enlisted guys as officers that things would be a little better, and not just the ones fresh out of the pipeline, get a few that have been on the pond for a while.
From my experiance most of the worst officers I worked for where prior enlisted nukes. I personnaly think we need less of them, far too many LDO types cannot seperate themselves from their former roles as Cheifs. Plus in the worst cases having a prior MM (or worse ELT) run RM or M div these officers have not been enlisted for many years, yet some of them think they know more about the equipment than the enlisted who try to keep it running every day.
-
From my experiance most of the worst officers I worked for where prior enlisted nukes. I personnaly think we need less of them, far too many LDO types cannot seperate themselves from their former roles as Cheifs. Plus in the worst cases having a prior MM (or worse ELT) run RM or M div these officers have not been enlisted for many years, yet some of them think they know more about the equipment than the enlisted who try to keep it running every day.
Perhaps I was blessed by having some of my former Officers being really good guys and being prior enlisted. I agree that there are some prior enlisted guys that were complete tools, in fact I worked for one that could go from cold stop to the overspeed trip in 0.2 secs flat. Maybe there is a magical window that enlisted guys can go to officer without turning into tyrants and be really good Officers. Somewhere between fresh out of the pipeline and putting on Khaki for Chief. I don't know.
-
I usually found LDO and warrant officers to be better to deal with than most of what we got from Annapolis, ROTC, and OCS. But there were always exceptions. The best watch officer I ever knew was ROTC, and he really was a great officer and person. He treated us blue shirts great and we would have licked the deck plates clean for him if he had ever asked. I saw an EMC go from standing watch as PPWS one day to LDO ensign the next, and he immediately turned into an omni-prick. He went to NRRO and stayed with the Nimitz in the yards and gave us hell. Easy to do when you know where to look for the problems.
I am really upset to read of standards being lowered to maintain headcount. It used to be a sometimes daily challenge to keep your nuc NEC. From what I read it isn't so anymore.
-
I am really upset to read of standards being lowered to maintain headcount. It used to be a sometimes daily challenge to keep your nuc NEC. From what I read it isn't so anymore.
OH! it still is quite the challenge to keep your N.E.C. I got most of my gray hairs from standing EWS with over-instruction watches for the newly reported baby-nukes. :D All I have to say is -ammonia adds on a S8G plant......yeah....nuff said.
-
From my experiance most of the worst officers I worked for where prior enlisted nukes. I personnaly think we need less of them, far too many LDO types cannot seperate themselves from their former roles as Cheifs. Plus in the worst cases having a prior MM (or worse ELT) run RM or M div these officers have not been enlisted for many years, yet some of them think they know more about the equipment than the enlisted who try to keep it running every day.
I tend to agree with you. For the most part in my career, with the exception of a few notable Mustang's (some here), the prior enlisted officers were definitely more difficult to deal with for exactly the reasons you said. Primarily, the not being able to stay out of their prior enlisted role. But I am afraid that this type of experience is very personalized, just like what types of COs you had or LPOs you had, etc. There will be a wide variety of experiences here and they will all be opposites. To that end, I don't think filling the ranks with more or reducing the number of Mustangs have anything to do with or will help/solve any problems. I mean, we could just say "Lets stop allowing bad apples to be in charge." Its just not that simple.
Justin
-
From my experiance most of the worst officers I worked for where prior enlisted nukes. I personnaly think we need less of them, far too many LDO types cannot seperate themselves from their former roles as Cheifs. Plus in the worst cases having a prior MM (or worse ELT) run RM or M div these officers have not been enlisted for many years, yet some of them think they know more about the equipment than the enlisted who try to keep it running every day.
03-383--Thats exactly what I have experienced---it seems that regular officers were commissioned because they had Bachelors degrees --not because they were gungho diggit buttkissers and made LDO (this is a general staemnet and wasn't meant for 100% of the LDO's) ---in alot of cases by stepping on other people. I had a lot more junior officers that I got along with than senior enlisted or mustangs---and respected them more. A lot of LDO's need some people skills---of course they are big shots in the military and that isn't required of them
-
Ok well I guess the few I knew that were really good guys are exceptions then. Is there any other way we could improve upon the chaos that is NNPP.
-
First, on prior enlisted becoming officers, the worst Eng I've had was once a SPU in Idaho, the best Eng I've had is a ringknocker, but my favorite EOOW was an ex-electrician, my second favorite academy. It's a crap shoot(repeat idea). One idea though, put more fleet people into STA (I think preciousblue is right about post pipeline, but prior to khaki). The fleet guys I've seen who go through there have been above the average for ossifers, while the ones that never went to the fleet, just pipeline to STA or equivalent, sucked. I know the fleet's manning issues are severe and losing more from the fleet would hurt, but it should be offset a bit by taking less from the pipeline. Maybe when the retention issue is fixed (I make myself laugh sometimes) the navy could try it. As for LDOs, no one but salty, diggity sea dogs are going to go there.
Second, I know this is a little off the beaten thread, but, I had an idea to improve a small aspect of the program. I find training on fast attacks (at least mine) to be worthless, completely and totally worthless, except for a naptime during the day. The entire training program is like the naked emperor; though it's an area, that while it can never replace operating, a lot more could be gained from a requirement that won't go away.
I figure that on fast attacks, for most underways some nukes get augmented. The requirement is, I believe, 75% of the augment is spent in school or on leave. The rest of the time they accomplish nothing worthwhile, and depending on luck, may or may not get f'd in the a** by some retard at squadron. So why not have the augmented nukes develop the training program (powerpoints, tests, goals, the whole deal)? Plus, they might be able to get training focused more on theory and integrated plant ops, and less on endless repetition of procedures. Maybe even teach us ETs a bit about valves and some MMs a bit of electrical magic.
The thing would be quota based, as in a stupid nuke can make x amount of stuff of good quality working from say 8 to 2, so unless you're really dumb, you should be able to work from 8 to noon, produce better quality and beat the flag on Fridays, if you come in at all. The key would be to emphasize that since augment is meant to be time for relaxing, that the requirement must take that into consideration. You could make the senior nuke on augment responsible for the whole group, so there's someone for the COC blame if the requirements are not met (read motivate his fellows and help with the work). For the most part, I don't think anyone would lose their mind if they weren't cleaning up subbase. And it would help prevent loss of knowledge/proficiency(a little) that happens from a long augment. Plus, eventually, the only thing that would have to be done would be to update for shipalts/revs/acns.
I imagine that if something like this happened it would be gayed up somewhere along the line and end up screwing people, but it could work in theory. Please tell me how it won't work in practice. I have some ideas on how it could be made to epic fail, but I don't think of everything.
-
Second, I know this is a little off the beaten thread, but, I had an idea to improve a small aspect of the program. I find training on fast attacks (at least mine) to be worthless, completely and totally worthless, except for a naptime during the day. The entire training program is like the naked emperor; though it's an area, that while it can never replace operating, a lot more could be gained from a requirement that won't go away.
I think you have hit on another problem. I have never done SSN training but CVN training and shore command training (can't speak for proto) is nearly worthless. On sea commands we tend to only train on topics that are expected to be MMT/ORSE related. I realize that MMT/ORSE take from the training department question bank to creat the tests, but I also know that the questions placed in that bank are thoes that "we" beleive that ORSE wants to see. Theory bolth cross rate and inrate is not a major training topic and I belive that theory leads to more understanding of the complex systems we work with rather than memorization of setpoints, schematics, ect. I'm not trying to say that the setpoints and the other items are not important but I belive it is far easier to understand what a system is when you understand how it works first, this is how we train people in the pipline theory first then details. The problem is once we leave proto the theory training stops (for the most part).
-
I dont know what has happened, but when I was in we always Cross trained. Especially at the EWS / EOOW level. I can recall giving electronic circuit design training to mao moas and smags as well as tricians. And I sat through, and absobred, the training that they provided.
This occurred on both my Fast Attack Tuff commands as well as the Cream Puff Boomers.
I am truly happy that I am no longer required to serve (my 30 has reached its tally) as I am somewhat afraid of what I might expect my Twidgets to know compared to what the standard appears to be today.
Thanks for those of you serving and good luck - sounds like you folks need it
-
Someone earlier said that NNPP would be better off doing training like the commercial world. Does anyone in the industry have some specific differences that would be an improvement? I'm never one to keep my mouth shut for long, so I from time to time write letters directly to members of the COC. Nothing ever comes from it; I'm always ignored. But at least I can say that I didn't sit by quietly while things suck.
So if someone can give me some fodder for my next letter, I'd appreciate it.
569 days left...
-
Best of luck in your endevors PB. I really hope that you are able to accomplish something.
Trust in the Force. Let it flow through you. Beware of the Dark side.
-
This one is appropriate:
-
The issue is solving a problem that requires a different approach. Trying to attract high quality applicants requires many things the Navy just can’t offer or guarantee: money, responsibility, recognition, living conditions, travel. The navy can’t offer much of this in reality but can make up for it by selling an illusion, which is the next best thing or even better in some circumstances.
No, to solve the “problem” it’s not with personnel itself but with the department of defense and our military doctrine. The military budget should be cut in half in the next four years and then cut in half again. At least. Fast attack subs should be cut to 3 per coast. Two nuke carriers max per coast. Bring back the diesel submarines which are an effective weapon, cost effective, and much easier to staff.
The reduction of the military will serve to stop by default the 100 year (unconstitutional) imperial expansion which is on course to guarantee the collapse of the US economic system which can no longer support this insane infrastructure. It is by the way, dept of defense, not the department of nation building/military complex/food hander outer/government overthrower/presidential photo op-er. The size of the military provides an oh too easy “solution” to problems that don’t require military solutions or as a way for a sitting president to distract the populous from the countries issues by creating needless wars and spreading fears. The Romans did this and called it “bread and circuses”. We call it government hand outs and freedom wars.
The current state of the government and the military does not guarantee our liberty but in fact puts our liberties more at risk then ever before since the current size is not sustainable. The government should be slashed by 70% minimum.
The military (and government) is really only an enabler to tax my income and transfer it to the military complex (and other blood sucking lobbiest). It does not protect my freedoms, it only makes my freedoms more tenuous. That it the paradox mystery. Solved.
Follow the white rabbit.
-
The issue is solving a problem that requires a different approach. Trying to attract high quality applicants requires many things the Navy just can’t offer or guarantee: money, responsibility, recognition, living conditions, travel. The navy can’t offer much of this in reality but can make up for it by selling an illusion, which is the next best thing or even better in some circumstances.
No, to solve the “problem” it’s not with personnel itself but with the department of defense and our military doctrine. The military budget should be cut in half in the next four years and then cut in half again. At least. Fast attack subs should be cut to 3 per coast. Two nuke carriers max per coast. Bring back the diesel submarines which are an effective weapon, cost effective, and much easier to staff.
The reduction of the military will serve to stop by default the 100 year (unconstitutional) imperial expansion which is on course to guarantee the collapse of the US economic system which can no longer support this insane infrastructure. It is by the way, dept of defense, not the department of nation building/military complex/food hander outer/government overthrower/presidential photo op-er. The size of the military provides an oh too easy “solution” to problems that don’t require military solutions or as a way for a sitting president to distract the populous from the countries issues by creating needless wars and spreading fears. The Romans did this and called it “bread and circuses”. We call it government hand outs and freedom wars.
The current state of the government and the military does not guarantee our liberty but in fact puts our liberties more at risk then ever before since the current size is not sustainable. The government should be slashed by 70% minimum.
The military (and government) is really only an enabler to tax my income and transfer it to the military complex (and other blood sucking lobbiest). It does not protect my freedoms, it only makes my freedoms more tenuous. That it the paradox mystery. Solved.
Follow the white rabbit.
Ah... ok. Very nice post, can't say I disagree with much of it. But lets come back down to Earth and reality and offer some real solutions to problems in the NNPP. Personally, I think they should just make everyone officers that way you wouldn't have a bunch of blue shirt complaining all the time. :P
Justin
-
Trying to attract high quality applicants requires many things the Navy just can’t offer or guarantee: money, responsibility, recognition, living conditions, travel. The navy can’t offer much of this in reality but can make up for it by selling an illusion, which is the next best thing or even better in some circumstances.
I agree with all of it, but for what I've quoted. You're speaking as though the navy is incapable of being the greatest job in the world. I could think of some very simple ways that the navy could improve by a billion fold. Like I've said before in one thread or another, most of the guys I've worked with don't mind a long day of working...as long as they're working, that their time isn't being wasted. None of us are in it for the money, we're in it for the experience and job satisfaction. That satisfaction only coming from within nowadays, and even then not often enough.
-
I agree with all of it, but for what I've quoted. You're speaking as though the navy is incapable of being the greatest job in the world. I could think of some very simple ways that the navy could improve by a billion fold. Like I've said before in one thread or another, most of the guys I've worked with don't mind a long day of working...as long as they're working, that their time isn't being wasted. None of us are in it for the money, we're in it for the experience and job satisfaction. That satisfaction only coming from within nowadays, and even then not often enough.
Yup I think I see what you are saying. We are trying to "root cause analysis" this down to one big problem, which it isn't. Its about a million little things. Little things that drive a man insane... to drink... to hate... to be bitter... to separate. Things like "stick around just in case." Things that bad leaders do. Things that are contrary to simple human nature. Oh crap... wait... AHHHH the circle continues! It always seems to come back around to the leadership. Or, does that then just follow back to whiny blue shirt? ::)
Justin
-
Justin I feel your pain on this...
I do think a lot of it goes down to leadership and how we promote those who fall in line rather than don't. It only promotes continuing the cycle. That is the problem with people within the program chosing who to promote to higher leadership positions and evaulations. I mean face it, if you got a guy that is always complaining about the BS associated with the job, you are not going to give him a good eval which in turn limits his chance of promotion. Just the way it is. That EP is going to go to the guy who is S#%T hot and doesn't complain about everything and begins conforming to the Nuke world. It is even more evident with Chiefs. I feel the only thing we can do is have someone from outside the program, outside the Navy, come in and evaluate how we do things. This would limit the diggit and super bitter factors and help identify actual problems not just perceived ones. That person or persons would then make strong recommendations about what to do to fix it and make it happen. The key part is the higher ups going along with it. I understand some things would have to be vetoed just because the NNPP is its own unique beast, but if the majority were followed, I feel it would be a step in the right direction.
Just some more of my thoughts....
-
How would you fix the NNPP? Manage your personnel and resources to the contrary of how it's done now.
Here at P-suck we've begun our long awaited PEMA. The crews have gone from the normal three 8-hr shifts to two 12-hr shifts rotating MMMMxxAAAAxxDDDDTxxx (Mids, Assist, Days, Training). These Assist days are 8-hr days, the first two of which are for classroom lectures with the remaining six hours spent assisting the on-shift crew. This has proven to be way more nukes than is needed, so the Assist guys have been getting a good deal thus far by leaving after training is done and Days has no need for us.
P-suck, an everlasting supporter of the navy's conservation of good deals, has reorganized Assist days to be two halves: half of the crew does training for 4 hours while the other half "assists," then they switch second half. This is all due to M Div not having enough people to get their work done and having to support the most watches. But this doesn't help M Div??? I'm not qualified one of their watch stations and the CoC won't let me; I can't do their maintenance and the CoC wouldn't let me anyway. What do you do when stuff has to get done and you're behind? Extend the working hours...for everyone.
Unless I'm operating here with a faulty perspective, then this follows right along with why NNPP has problems and why people won't re-enlist.
-
Just to toss in my out-of-date two cents worth:
What drove me out of the Navy Nuclear Program back in 1974 was the lack of respect in the Wardroom for our training and knowledge. Even though the officers were not trained to the level of detail on our specific equipment that we were, they seemed to feel entirely comfortable over-riding our professional judgements as to how specific pieces of equipment should be repaired and/or operated. We battled almost every day with the smug, superior attitude coming out of the wardroom to the detriment of the operability of the engineroom. In al fairness, a small percentage of the officers did respect our training and abilities, but, overall, most of them did not. I became so fed up with the borderline incompetence in the wardroom that I left the Navy even though I actually enjoyed what I was doing and where I was doing it. As long as the skipper and the majority of the inhabitants of the wardroom have these attitudes, things won't improve. I did manage to have one good skipper and a fairly well grounded wardroom for a short period of time and everything went smoother and better. It was almost fun to go to work under those circumstances. But as long as one must kiss butt in order to garner favor and promotions, the poor trolls in the engineroom will continue to suffer.
-
Management not listening and discrediting workers knowledge/opinions goes on in the civilian world also ie. Where I work at a major electric utility
-
But as long as one must kiss butt in order to garner favor and promotions...
...or to get work done. The purpose of asking for permission from the officers to commence maintenance is to have a last-chance idiot check for conflict of maintenance items and that the work can be done at the time it's intended to be done. That's it. Exactly how to do it, i.e. what to tag out or the order of what to do, is the decision of the guys doing the work.
Management not listening and discrediting workers knowledge/opinions goes on in the civilian world also ie. Where I work at a major electric utility
The wonderful difference being that one can chose how long to put up with that; if it's not that bad, then stick around, otherwise quit. Yes, every job is complaint-worthy but it's self-correcting in the real world. If a company ran things like the navy (which doesn't have a profit to worry about), then it will go out of business.
-
...or to get work done. The purpose of asking for permission from the officers to commence maintenance is to have a last-chance idiot check for conflict of maintenance items and that the work can be done at the time it's intended to be done. That's it. Exactly how to do it, i.e. what to tag out or the order of what to do, is the decision of the guys doing the work.
The wonderful difference being that one can chose how long to put up with that; if it's not that bad, then stick around, otherwise quit. Yes, every job is complaint-worthy but it's self-correcting in the real world. If a company ran things like the navy (which doesn't have a profit to worry about), then it will go out of business.
What happens if the person doing the idiot check is an idiot? 8)
Justin
-
What happens if the person doing the idiot check is an idiot? 8)
Justin
I got nothing.
-
If the idiot checker is in fact an idiot (I've met a few in my very few years in the greatest Navy ever) then you make sure you know what the hell you are doing, and either take the time to give some OJT or get him to sign off and tell him he needs to know what the hell he is signing so he can be more responsible for it when it messes up later ;-) . That's why we were all trained as technicians, and officers trained as managers (I am not implying that officers are idiots, they just tend to know less about the specifics of each rate and more about the general stuff). The problem lies in when the idiot thinks he knows more than you do about YOUR job, and proceeds to tell you how to do it. When that stuff happens, throw up your hands and expect to be at work for a long, long time.
Jason
-
If the idiot checker is in fact an idiot (I've met a few in my very few years in the greatest Navy ever) then you make sure you know what the hell you are doing, and either take the time to give some OJT or get him to sign off and tell him he needs to know what the hell he is signing so he can be more responsible for it when it messes up later ;-) . That's why we were all trained as technicians, and officers trained as managers (I am not implying that officers are idiots, they just tend to know less about the specifics of each rate and more about the general stuff). The problem lies in when the idiot thinks he knows more than you do about YOUR job, and proceeds to tell you how to do it. When that stuff happens, throw up your hands and expect to be at work for a long, long time.
Jason
Ding ding ding.
Justin
-
What happens if the person doing the idiot check is an idiot? 8)
Justin
Well if he gives you major attitude when doing it, well thus the birth of Malicious Compliance. ;)
-
I got a good one. I really wish I could name the CoC responsible for this one, but it would serve no purpose other than to hold them accountable in front of all of us "Holier than Thou" internet types.
DON'T send your guy TAD to a school 162.25 miles away from the boat and have him come stand duty on Saturday, at least not without travel expenses covered. I wish this was a joke, but this just happened to a friend of mine. Groton on Friday in school; Portsmouth on Saturday finishing the Tagout audit. Problem here?
-
Well I always thought that TAD was Traveling Around Drunk so how would you be able to drive back to do the tagout audit? Ok well seriously, it was becoming a growing trend around the Navy to have guys come back for Duty while TAD. On my ship we had SEVERAL instances of guys going to NavLead during the Week and having to come back at night or on the Weekends for watch. Then it turned into a big pissing match between the two commands about regulations, and how if you were TAD you were not assigned to the ship and yada yada yada. Luckily it was only a couple of miles for us, I couldn't imagine doing it for 160+miles. Just one more example of the Navy ignoring regulations when it suits them, but hammering them home if it is in their best interest.
-
I always hated going back to the ship after school. My one MMC and EDMC thought that your work day didn't start until you got to the boat after school at 1600. Many times we were there late to do our part. :-\
Justin
-
I always hated going back to the ship after school. My one MMC and EDMC thought that your work day didn't start until you got to the boat after school at 1600. Many times we were there late to do our part. :-\
And thus the nuke is demoralized; realizing he gets less liberty away from the boat causes him to never ask for a school again, but instead to love his command for only making him work one navy work day per day, and when his time at the command is nearly up he can find no better recourse than to make a long, long list of things he loves about the command, request to reenlist, and, at the penultimate moment, as pen and paper and whore begin to merge into one flesh, pull out the list he has made, lay it on the table, rip up the reenlistment papers, and ride into the sunset.
-
And thus the nuke is demoralized; realizing he gets less liberty away from the boat causes him to never ask for a school again, but instead to love his command for only making him work one navy work day per day, and when his time at the command is nearly up he can find no better recourse than to make a long, long list of things he loves about the command, request to reenlist, and, at the penultimate moment, as pen and paper and whore begin to merge into one flesh, pull out the list he has made, lay it on the table, rip up the reenlistment papers, and ride into the sunset.
Almost brings a tear to your eye :'(
-
Thought of something. If an officer is informed he has a phone call from his wife, then takes the phone and the first word out of his mouth is "Engineer," he should probably be fired.
Also, since when was divisional/department training conducted by IC circuit? I think the compulsion of some people to always adhere to the Sub IC manual is ridiculous, formal communications are not needed all the time (I know the argument about habits, but that's a load of crap). For example, one quarters on the pier the CO was sighting a death toll, said it halfway, then stopped to correct himself from saying something like forty-two to four two. I almost gagged, but decided to deface my pocket sub IC manual instead.
And there's another thing that should probably go away. Pocket versions of instructions like the watchstander's guide and Sub IC manual. I believe they are a waste of money, good only as something to graffiti. Talk about drops in standards, someone is pretty worried when they start saying all watchstanders should keep those on them at all times, and pretty detached from reality as well. I wonder if someone will ever add up all the twos that keep separately traveling up the CoC and get an even number. I've got a raging clue that points to no.
-
Thought of something. If an officer is informed he has a phone call from his wife, then takes the phone and the first word out of his mouth is "Engineer," he should probably be fired.
Also, since when was divisional/department training conducted by IC circuit? I think the compulsion of some people to always adhere to the Sub IC manual is ridiculous, formal communications are not needed all the time (I know the argument about habits, but that's a load of crap). For example, one quarters on the pier the CO was sighting a death toll, said it halfway, then stopped to correct himself from saying something like forty-two to four two. I almost gagged, but decided to deface my pocket sub IC manual instead.
And there's another thing that should probably go away. Pocket versions of instructions like the watchstander's guide and Sub IC manual. I believe they are a waste of money, good only as something to graffiti. Talk about drops in standards, someone is pretty worried when they start saying all watchstanders should keep those on them at all times, and pretty detached from reality as well. I wonder if someone will ever add up all the twos that keep separately traveling up the CoC and get an even number. I've got a raging clue that points to no.
Us surface guys have no idea what in the HamSandwich you are talking about with pocket IC manuals and stuff like that.
Seems like a lot of the what we perceive as wrong goes back to leadership, malicious adherence to our own stupidity in the face of overwhelming common sense, and believing in the policies of a man who was a horrible people person. Bottom line is that when the poop hits the fan, is the EOOW really going to stop to correct the fact he said T-G instead of Turbine Generator when it is on fire? I would hope not.
-
When a revolutionary succeeds he should be given five years and then shot. Or otherwise removed. Because they then become vulnerable to the politics of failure and they cease to advance. They rest on their laurels. I think that’s what happened to Rickover. -Capt. Dick Lang (USS Seawolf SSN 575)
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jul-aug/schratz.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jul-aug/schratz.html)
-
Very interesting article. Not sure I agree with it completely but you can see a lot of what could be truth to it. I have a feeling that we are going to see a lot of new navy recruits do to the floundering economy. This in turn will increase the # nukes that are going to be going through the pipeline, and all the implication that that will entail as far as how to train all those people with the few people we have. Plus with McCain wanting to build all these new reactors there is goign to be a VERY STRONG pull by civie plants to get some people with experience, thus probably going to be adding some strong incentives for NLO positions. Going to be an interesting time in the next few years.
-
Very interesting article. Not sure I agree with it completely but you can see a lot of what could be truth to it. I have a feeling that we are going to see a lot of new navy recruits do to the floundering economy.
I recruited from a county with 25% unemployment. That was a floundering economy. The 5.5% has not yet caused a line outside the recruiting station where my son reports for DEP meetings.
-
I recruited from a county with 25% unemployment. That was a floundering economy. The 5.5% has not yet caused a line outside the recruiting station where my son reports for DEP meetings.
Way to shoot down my point that I based purely on circumstance and with no research what-so-ever. What is this world coming to that people actually go behind your back and do fact checks, SHEESH!
-
I don't need the Navy to provide me with experienced people for NLO Jobs. I can get what I need from the Junior Colleges, factories and such. We train from the ground up and we have much higher standards for performance so it doesn't matter where I get them from. All I need is someone with High Standards, a willingness to work and some intelligence. 15 years ago I knew I could get the first qualification I mentioned by hiring from the Navy. Now it's simply not true. I've seen some of the rocks the Navy puts out these days so now many don't meet qualification number 3 and so far as two, one doesn't need Navy experience to be a hard worker.
One of the very best ROs I know we snagged from Burger King and in my mind so far as work ethic, standards and plain ability to understand and operate a nuke plant this guy has very few peer, I learned a lot about my current facility from them.
It's my view someone without commercial experience shouldn't be commenting on what type of experience is applicable to the real world.
If you wanna fix Nuke school, put me in charge :)
Mike
-
Us surface guys have no idea what in the HamSandwich you are talking about
Typical.
If you wanna fix Nuke school, put me in charge :)
Mike
Ok, presto! You're in charge. Now cite for me some specific, simple suggestions that I can provide to my CoC that would help the program...as I requested earlier. Someone wrote that the program would be better off doing training like commercial plants, so educate us simple navy folk.
-
e-z Pappabear..I agree with Mike. I worked side by side with navy and the biggest difference was the size of their ego....
-
I'm not attacking BZ, I'm trying to get someone to stop being vague and general and get specific. I don't know anything about how the commercial side does business. If people are saying that it's better than the navy's way, I'd like to know how, so that I can forward some suggestions up my CoC. I have less than a 1% expectation that anything will come of it, but that's never stopped me in the past from at least trying.
-
That is an interesting way to look at it. How does an organization that came about sixty years ago leading a new, innovative technology and command structure become a slave to the status quo so quickly?
I am all about staying in if I can continue to be effective, but I would really like to maintain my youthful optimism and idealism in the process. Can an enlisted guy actually contribute to command climate beyond the "deckplate level" ? (God, I hate buzzwords)
-
I don't need the Navy to provide me with experienced people for NLO Jobs. I can get what I need from the Junior Colleges, factories and such. We train from the ground up and we have much higher standards for performance so it doesn't matter where I get them from. All I need is someone with High Standards, a willingness to work and some intelligence. 15 years ago I knew I could get the first qualification I mentioned by hiring from the Navy. Now it's simply not true. I've seen some of the rocks the Navy puts out these days so now many don't meet qualification number 3 and so far as two, one doesn't need Navy experience to be a hard worker.
One of the very best ROs I know we snagged from Burger King and in my mind so far as work ethic, standards and plain ability to understand and operate a nuke plant this guy has very few peer, I learned a lot about my current facility from them.
It's my view someone without commercial experience shouldn't be commenting on what type of experience is applicable to the real world.
If you wanna fix Nuke school, put me in charge :)
Mike
I would have to agree about standards going down in the Navy Nuclear Program--I was in 1985-2005 and about midway I noticed a lot of "rocks" in the fleet--The saying for Prototype previously was "We are a filter" and around midway of my time in changed to "We are a Pump" --a septic tank pump obviously. The Navy didn't teach me a thing about being a hard worker, but instead demotivated any attempts at such with their asinine wasting of time with petty crap. I think they need to look at what thay have changed in the last 20 years in the nuclear pipeline and change it back to the way it used to be--that may entail spending more money on the program and cease trying to squeeze water out of a brick--or a rock in this case.
-
I would have to agree about standards going down in the Navy Nuclear Program--I was in 1985-2005 and about midway I noticed a lot of "rocks" in the fleet--The saying for Prototype previously was "We are a filter" and around midway of my time in changed to "We are a Pump" --a septic tank pump obviously. The Navy didn't teach me a thing about being a hard worker, but instead demotivated any attempts at such with their asinine wasting of time with petty crap. I think they need to look at what thay have changed in the last 20 years in the nuclear pipeline and change it back to the way it used to be--that may entail spending more money on the program and cease trying to squeeze water out of a brick--or a rock in this case.
Well I can attest first hand that any "rocks" that we were trying to squeeze water out of at prototype had already been squeezed up the road at the "crystal palace" We were only the last pump in series for the whole pipeline. We would get broke students that hadn't passed a single test or ack board with the simple comment, "Should do well at Prototype". Out of all the broke ones we got, I saw ONE SINGLE SAILOR that I felt was an asset to the fleet even though he probably should have not made it to Prototype. This was out of hundreds. So prototype can't take all the blame for shipping out broke nukes. We did the best with what we got from NPS. Funny thing is I was always taught that you increase flowrate by having pumps in parrallel instead of series...
-
If the idiot checker is in fact an idiot (I've met a few in my very few years in the greatest Navy ever) ... When that stuff happens, throw up your hands and expect to be at work for a long, long time.
Jason
Junior Officer on Pre-Watch tour during Complex Overhaul Startup Testing.
JO: "Aren't those scram breakers supposed to be open?"
Secondary Control Watch (SCW): "Yeah, right."
Kuthunk, Kuthunk (Before the SCW could utter a word elsewise)
EOOW over 2MC: "Reactor Scram, Reactor Scram -- Case II"
-
Junior Officer on Pre-Watch tour during Complex Overhaul Startup Testing.
JO: "Aren't those scram breakers supposed to be open?"
Secondary Control Watch (SCW): "Yeah, right."
Kuthunk, Kuthunk (Before the SCW could utter a word elsewise)
EOOW over 2MC: "Reactor Scram, Reactor Scram -- Case II"
I guess the SCW should have explained what was going on instead of being a smart a** douche bag.
Justin
-
I am all about staying in if I can continue to be effective, but I would really like to maintain my youthful optimism and idealism in the process. Can an enlisted guy actually contribute to command climate beyond the "deckplate level"? (God, I hate buzzwords)
The fact that you're referred to as being on the same level as the floor says a lot about what that organization thinks about you...and how much influence you can really have.
Seriously - it's not just a cute buzzword. I thought it was one of the most insulting terms ever used to refer to enlisted personnel.
That's not to say you can't help make local changes - constructive feedback combined with the right command climate can get things done. But will you change your lot in life as an enlisted nuke - no, it's completely out of your hands and always will be.
And to relate this to the original topic - I think that the enlisted/officer divide is what is fundamentally flawed with the NNPP. There's no fixing that in the foreseeable future.
-
The fact that you're referred to as being on the same level as the floor says a lot about what that organization thinks about you...and how much influence you can really have.
Seriously - it's not just a cute buzzword. I thought it was one of the most insulting terms ever used to refer to enlisted personnel.
That's not to say you can't help make local changes - constructive feedback combined with the right command climate can get things done. But will you change your lot in life as an enlisted nuke - no, it's completely out of your hands and always will be.
And to relate this to the original topic - I think that the enlisted/officer divide is what is fundamentally flawed with the NNPP. There's no fixing that in the foreseeable future.
Wow, don't come where I work then where you have "floor operators" and "floor supervisors." They don't even gussy up the name floor for ya. I don't think they care though since they will all pay off FICA, etc around the end of August.
Justin
-
Wow, don't come where I work then where you have "floor operators" and "floor supervisors." They don't even gussy up the name floor for ya. I don't think they care though since they will all pay off FICA, etc around the end of August.
Justin
That may be your title, but in the navy it was more than that - It was your ceiling.
Sorry if I appeared too touchy about the wordage - I just hated what it implied more than the actual title. I'd be more than happy to be titled 'floor operator' at my current place of employment!
-
I guess it depends on your point of view. I never got the a feeling that it meant anything derogatory. Is there some reference that or something you heard that caused you to feel that way? I am just curious.
Justin
-
I heard some good news on this front. The COMNAVSUBFOR VADM recently came to a humble little shipyard in New Hampshire/Maine and talked to the folks. He wants to fix retention in the nuke community, and has some good ideas that go beyond money to git-r-done.
He's put some positive changes in motion that, as small and symbolic as they seem, are a big step in the right direction. Training was on the list, and as we all know, spending several hours a week in a classroom watching recycled power points could be a real pain if you actually wanted to get your job done and go home. I think he wants to get the 'requirements' back to just being the requirements. You know, the ones you can find in written sources? Let's all give him a round of applause for taking a huge job (SUBFOR Admiral) and doing a good thing with it.
Let's also hope that his influence spreads to the surface fleet since my submarine days are now officially over. I'm headed to the USS George H. W. Bush (motto -- "Freedom at Work" -- what does that mean? )
-
Well I am sure that we all agree that any "fix" would not be an overnight thing. That being said I figure we should start from the beginning in order to implement any changes. You wanted specific answers, well here are my two cents
1. Recruiting-Go back to requiring the NFQT to be taken, regardless of ASVAB scores. Ensure that those going into the program have an done well in advanced classes like physics, math, and other core classes.
2. Boot camp-Really, really pay attention to the people that you are putting into perspective rates. Immaturity is not a quality you want to see in an SRO that is stading watch all by hisself at 0300.
3. A school/NPS-Bring back the mentality of being a filter, not a pump. Remove civilians from the decision making process of whether a student is retainable or not(they don't have to work with the broke ones on a real ship, so they get no input as to whether we have to). Make a clean cut policy for academic failures. Two subject(math, BM, MERO, Heat Transfer, Etc) failure, you get an Academic board. You MUST pass the academic board with at least a 2.8 to continue. If you pass the ac board and you fail another subject, GOODBYE. You must also pass your Comp exam to continue. You get one retake. Furthermore, if you are sent to mast more than once, GOODBYE.
4. Prototype-No longer accept sailors that did not legitimately pass NNPTC(see above). Switch from the nanny-style hand holding where qualifications are concerned, and adopt a personal resposibility with encouragement style qualification program. If you are Dinq it is your fault, we will help you, but we are NOT going to FORCE the staff to spend extra time here because you want to slack off. Realize that there are those who do NOT need to spend 12 hours days at Prototype, therefore those that are exceptional should be placed on Staff hours, not the current reduced hours program. No more, no less. Furthermore, delete approx 1/3 of the signature in the book that are overly redundant or serve no useful purpose. Do you really need to demonstrate that you know what to do for a scram to 9 different watchstanders, especially when the last one is Integrated and you are going to go over all the information in one checkout as you did in the other 8.
5.Fleet/Shore Duty-there are way too many things to put into this column. Some of the bigger ones are, maximize liberty to greatest extent possible and follow through with that policy. Minimize the "hurry up and wait" and "just in case something happens" mentality. Realize that there are some smart nukes out there, let them operate the plant because they know how it works, Don't crucify them if they don't have the book open every single time for minor routine operations. Prototype Staff Tours really suck, realize this and ensure that those that go that route are adequately compensated, perhaps with a split tour at NNPTC afterwards. Yes throw more money at us, but not just for re-upping, throw a little more into the "pro pay" pot. Realize that just because one guy is a complete screw-up that this does not require numerous hours of additional training for EVERYONE else. Also, NRRO is not God, therefore we should not treat them as such. They are there to assist us, not hamper us in our activities. Along with that, procedures are not fool proof, they are often ambigious enough to be left up to interpretation by numerous individuals. These individuals change, thus does the interpretations. Stop this, figure out what it is you want to do, and stick to it for good unless a very good reason causes you to re-evaluate your interpretation.
6. Other-About 2 times a year, allow subordinates to evaluate their bosses to those above. This would help identify those who are poor leaders, but get results due to rank and regulations. Give credit where credit is due. Reward those who work hard, but not with more work. Do not reward those who slack off or are incompetant with easy jobs or good deals.
Well I hope that this meets some of the requirements of my fellow nukes. If you agree/disagree with any of it, let it flow.
-
I agree and I disagree.
I have to admit that I never thought about raising pro-pay. That could make it feel better when a coner says "Suck it up, nuke. You get pro pay." Make pro pay more than 5 bucks a day for junior people and 15 bucks a day for senior people (if you do the math, that's less hourly pay than some of our non-nuke brethren, and that doesn't even take into account their second job at Home Depot.)
As far as the academic standards in the pipeline go, I don't really know that is the fix. You know some super smart, top-of-the-class dirt bags; and you know some 2.5 stay alive work horses. Some times intelligence is the enlisted nuke's Achilles heel. It can cause good guys to get out because they think they won't work for idiots on the other side. I think the guy who had to bust his butt to get through the pipeline tends to make better use of his Navy time than the guy who sailed through with minimal effort. Your super-smart guy thinks he's senior and too good for ERLL, AEA, ERF or RT by the time he has six months on board, and takes it as an insult if he isn't ERS, EO or RO by his fifth underway. Your dumb guy will probably wipe up oil every log set even after standing ERLL for two years, and maybe even enjoy cleaning the purifier bowl.
I think that might lead me to another potential fix in the program, but I have no idea how to implement it. Our focus right now is way to heavily based on Accelerating our Lives. While the EDOM/EDM say CPO's and poo-hot first classes should qualify and stand EWS/EDPO, every first class is in quals and "Should be qualified by now." We even see second classes with one or two years on board in supervisory quals. While I think that can be a good thing, it leads to a culture of guys with a year or two on board thinking they're "senior." What other line of work allows a person with so little real experience to consider themself an old salt? In a system where we all strive to take a leadership position, we don't really leave any experienced people in the so-called junior positions. If we do, we consider them to be stupid or lazy. I have to admit that current lack of first-term retention doesn't really allow us any 'reserve experience' to build from. With one or two sea returnee first classes on any given sub, we have the nubs teaching the nubs, while the truly senior people (the sea-returnees) focused on paperwork.
Buck o' Five.
-
(motto -- "Freedom at Work" -- what does that mean? )
Arbeit Macht Frei ? ;)
-
The only reason I even suggested upping the propay amount was to serve as a small prevention measure. If you think about it like this, it makes sense.
If you up the propay amount, the nuke gets more money up front, every month. This in turn makes him(hopefully) just a little less bitter every month. That in turn means that he will be significantly less bitter after XXX years when it is time to re-up. Therefore he is more likely to re-up.
Furthermore, for those lost souls that truly TRULY despise the entire process, here is a thought. IF they want to get out early, let them. Cut their time down to four years, but make it under the following circumstances.
1. They continue to perform their nuke duties adequatley(quals, tests, etc).
2. They forfeit their propay. Must be at least 2 years worth in order to get out. (yes this would push a few people over their 4 year mark, but hey they are still getting out early.)
3. They must not have any UCMJ violations
4. They must pay back any bonuses that they received. If they are unable to supply sufficient capital, the Navy will "loan" them the buy out money at current interests rates to be paid back in NLT 4 years.
I am sure there are other things people could add to this, but it is a start. The only reason I advocate this is to act as a "bitterness relief valve". It allows those who truly want to get the hell out to do it two years early, but it is just strong enough to make people think twice before jumping ship.
-
Naw, that is never going to happen.
Realistically, about the only things that will happen are a bump in pro pay and of course bonuses.
The CMC of NPTU Ballston Spa had some ideas that I thought were really good, as far as bonuses go.
He suggested having progressive bonuses for qualification, similar to what the commercial world does. For example, he said that when you qualified senior in rate, you would get a 2000 dollar bonus. When you qualified EWS, you would get a 5000 dollar bonus. If you qualified EOOW as an enlisted, you would get a 10000 dollar bonus. He then said that based on your quals, you would get a yearly bonus on top of that such as 2500 for senior in rate and 5000 for EWS on up. He also suggested a progressive pro pay based on quals. The more you qualify, the more your pro pay. Besides giving a sailor something to work for (money), it would also make the quals much more competitive and really the best people would be qualifying the advance stuff. He and I both agreed that not every first class should be qualifying EWS. Some should stay in ERLL. :)
So although I disliked most of what that guy stood for, I was really surprised when he told me these ideas at my exit interview. I was impressed and thought they were good ideas. He said he had a couple of Masters helping him work out the details and come up with a proposal to the Navy and Congress. I guess we will wait and see. Personally, I don't foresee anything like this ever being approved. Again, outside of MAYBE upping pro pay and continuing to up the bonuses, I don't think much of anything is ever going to change.
Again though, money isn't the problem. You suggested "a little less bitter," but for me anyway, it didn't work that way. Like my former CMC said, "How can someone look at 100K and say 'no thanks?'" You can't fix suck with money. If they did all of these great things, without fixing the suck, it wouldn't matter in the long run. It would be a start and a temporary fix, but in the end... the people still have to change. If this kind of monetary stuff happened without addressing the suck, in 20 more years, another group of people would be debating the perils of the NNPP on nukeworker.com.
It simply is not about the money.
Justin
-
Unfortunately I have to agree with the "money won't fix the suck" part. Those sound like some interesting ideas but it could lead to a lot of problems when guys start trying to get those senior qual bonuses. Playing devil's advocate, who is to say that there wouldn't be some backstabbing to jump the line in quals to get the bonus, or even guys paying kickbacks to get into quals. I know that that should never happen, but stuff like that could happen. Furthermore, I am sure you would have guys complain that guys at Prototype were getting bonuses when guys at Recruiting duty and NNPTC weren't(then again maybe that ain't such a bad idea).
Either way, I doubt it would ever get implemented. Navy is so darn set in its ways that it would litterly take an act of congress to get them to change.
-
Unfortunately I have to agree with the "money won't fix the suck" part. Those sound like some interesting ideas but it could lead to a lot of problems when guys start trying to get those senior qual bonuses. Playing devil's advocate, who is to say that there wouldn't be some backstabbing to jump the line in quals to get the bonus, or even guys paying kickbacks to get into quals. I know that that should never happen, but stuff like that could happen. Furthermore, I am sure you would have guys complain that guys at Prototype were getting bonuses when guys at Recruiting duty and NNPTC weren't(then again maybe that ain't such a bad idea).
Either way, I doubt it would ever get implemented. Navy is so darn set in its ways that it would litterly take an act of congress to get them to change.
At the rate that new personnel where qualifying (very slowly two years to SIR was rare) when I left the ship I think a little backstabbing and zealous imitative to qualify would be a good thing.
-
Well you are also going to have a lot of guys/gals getting PO'd when they don't get picked to qual EWS/EOOW, whether they deserve to qual or not. They are going to see it as a chance to get a small chunk of change that is not being given to them. Especially if you got a Poop-hot runner that is on the ship half the time as another person, and the hot runner gets put into quals before the other guy, even if he does deserve it. This happens now, but it would really get worse if there was cold hard cash involved. Right now it is the notion that EWS is good if you want to make CPO and be a lifer. Throw some money into, everyone will want it.
-
Justin =>
Not as in depth as you are describing, but there is some sort of return for getting watch sup -> supervisory NEC => 300$ pay raise every month.
I think a bonus WOULD provide more incentive, but not much though. People will be just as lazy.
Precious blue ->
I dont believe the people would object as much as you think. Recruiters can get "auto chief-ed" if they recruit enough people. They also get bonuses for getting enough people in. People at NNPTC are also put in charge of more people, AND as a first class, would be filling a cheif billet -> chief faster.
-
I really don't want to sound too negative but 300 bucks a month is 10 a day. Not the strongest way to say 'go forth and conquer.'
-
I really don't want to sound too negative but 300 bucks a month is 10 a day. Not the strongest way to say 'go forth and conquer.'
300 a month is roughly 12.5% of E-5 over 6 base pay. Plus you have huge SRBs and a nice GI Bill not available just a few years ago. Beats a swift kick...
-
I really don't want to sound too negative but 300 bucks a month is 10 a day. Not the strongest way to say 'go forth and conquer.'
300 a month is a 20,000 dollar car payment too :D
-
I really don't want to sound too negative but 300 bucks a month is 10 a day. Not the strongest way to say 'go forth and conquer.'
Isn't $300 what the Navy would pay a drilling E-5 Reservist per month?
-
Touche
-
Justin =>
Not as in depth as you are describing, but there is some sort of return for getting watch sup -> supervisory NEC => 300$ pay raise every month.
I think a bonus WOULD provide more incentive, but not much though. People will be just as lazy.
Problem is that a supervisory NEC is only available after certain criteria are met. For example(correct me if I am wrong on this) If you are an E6 who is qual SIR (RO, CMO, ERS, etc) then you have to be in for 6 years before they will change your NEC to supervisory. I think an E5 can get it but they have to be EWS quald in order to do it and still wait out the time. I think there are some other combinations but not sure of them. So no qualifying EWS does not "automatically" give you that pay boost.
-
Problem is that a supervisory NEC is only available after certain criteria are met. For example(correct me if I am wrong on this) If you are an E6 who is qual SIR (RO, CMO, ERS, etc) then you have to be in for 6 years before they will change your NEC to supervisory. I think an E5 can get it but they have to be EWS quald in order to do it and still wait out the time. I think there are some other combinations but not sure of them. So no qualifying EWS does not "automatically" give you that pay boost.
It is E5, over 6, Watch Sup
-or-
E6, over 5, Senior-in-rate
-
Reading even my own (diggity) posts, I can't help but notice the culture of negativity and cynicism ingrained in the enlisted folks in the program. While I guess we can't count on the 'Big Navy' to fix this one I am pretty sure it would help fix a lot of ills the program faces.
A buddy of mine is getting ready to re-up -- I hope you're sitting down for this one -- AFTER being the SNOB! He's been branded Judas Iscariot for making an informed decision at the end of his first sea term. Everyone loved him one day, and once he chose continued employment over college life a few people (most of whom, strangely enough, reported to the boat in shipyard and haven't even gone to sea) think they have grounds to ostracize him.
By the way folks. We just celebrated el Quatro de Julio (Fourth of July) weekend. I hope yours was as good as mine. I also hope you read a little from your Declaration of Independence this weekend. That faded old piece of parchment literally spoke our nation into existence. For at least a day we should all be inspired by that. While we may all be self-righteous behind the safety of our keyboards, those men made their bold statement and took up arms to defend it. I don't even think they had a blog saying 'How would you fix the American Revolution?'
To make it easier on all you folks, I have links in my signature to let you read our founding documents. True civics lessons in and of themselves. Enjoy.
-
...
I don't even think they had a blog saying 'How would you fix the American Revolution?'
...
If you're making a jab at those of NukeWorker and this thread, then I'd say while I have the luxury of not dodging mortars in a trench or storming a foreign beach I'll take the time to go back and forth on what's wrong with the NNPP.
If you're insinuating that we take up arms against our chiefs and officers, then I'd say that's not the road to take. It's much easier and more effective to just get out when you're time is up. When the navy wakes up one morning and they have only commanders and admirals to relieve the watch, they'll start to take our complaints seriously.
-
See the problem with Supervisory pay is that it is only 375/month. Now many of you may say "That's a good chunk of change!" but consider the other pays that the Navy just hands out..... and some of them do NOT require the level of certification or seniority that goes into what we get at SD-5 (or SD-2 for that matter)....
SD-2-150 SUBMARINE LAN ADMINISTRATOR
SD-5-375 RECRUIT DIVISION COMMANDERS
SD-6-450 OFFICER RECRUITER
SD-6-450 PRODUCTION RECRUITER
SD-2-150 MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND
SD-5-375 SURFACE SHIP INDEPENDENT DUTY CORPSMAN
Now aviation guys have this thing called "career enlisted flyer pay". Basically if they are on a flight crew, ship or shore based, they get pay based upon how many years of service they have (not rank)....It goes like this
<4 years 150
>4 <8 225
>8 <14 350
>14 400
Now I am not saying that these people do not deserve these pays, but I do believe that when a comparison of duties and responsibilities occur, you will find that us nukes are still inadequately compensated for what we do.
But the pay is never an issue when you are making enough to support your lifestyle. Where the retention issue comes in is in the happiness you enjoy in your job. Fix that, and retention will be fixed. Sounds easy, but if the pencil pushers in DC are having an issue solving this, I don't think any one of us alone could come up with a feasible solution that works with the Navy's mission.
Don't mistake me for a pro-navy guy or a lifer........I'm getting out shortly and very very glad I am.
Jason
-
Now hey there, Papabear, I think I may have the most complaints about the program on this here thread. I didn't mean any disrespect to anyone and I have no mutiny intentions. I was just saying 'happy fourth of July, don't forget that it's more than a day off of work.' I had no idea it would be a touchy subject and am greatly sorry if I made it one.
-
Now hey there, Papabear, I think I may have the most complaints about the program on this here thread. I didn't mean any disrespect to anyone and I have no mutiny intentions. ... I had no idea it would be a touchy subject and am greatly sorry if I made it one.
Not at all, I'm not that sensitive. Just didn't know what you were getting at.
... I was just saying 'happy fourth of July, don't forget that it's more than a day off of work.'...
N/A for some of us. I was standing hour 2 or 3 of my 12 hours of ESFPO.
-
Not at all, I'm not that sensitive. Just didn't know what you were getting at.
N/A for some of us. I was standing hour 2 or 3 of my 12 hours of ESFPO.
I was playing cards in Vegas. 8)
Justin
-
N/A for some of us. I was standing hour 2 or 3 of my 12 hours of ESFPO.
I was fishing on a lake after eating some grilled hot dogs. AHHH the joys of CIVLANTFLT. 8)
-
N/A for some of us. I was standing hour 2 or 3 of my 12 hours of ESFPO.
I was watching the movers, as I sat in my LazyBoy, for my final Navy move.
Don't worry PB, the pain will end one day.
Good luck!
-
I was fishing on a lake after eating some grilled hot dogs. AHHH the joys of CIVLANTFLT. 8)
But I was also fishing on a lake, eating grilled hot dogs... The joys of COMSUBLANT?
EDIT: COMSUBLANT for a couple more weeks, then off to COMSURFLANT to the GEORGE H W BUSH (PCU).
-
I did Pre-com duty back in the day as MM2....USS George Washington...still probably my favorite tour because of all the "you'll probably never do this again" stuff we did.
I was nine years old when you were an MM2. Or do you mean the Boomer George Washington (that's an old people joke)?
-
Or do you mean the Boomer George Washington (that's an old people joke)?
I ain't that old 8).
-
But I was also fishing on a lake, eating grilled hot dogs... The joys of COMSUBLANT?
EDIT: COMSUBLANT for a couple more weeks, then off to COMSURFLANT to the GEORGE H W BUSH (PCU).
Yes but some of us get EVERY holiday off. And if we don't, we get paid extra.
-
So do some of us navy folk.....
Not those of us on sea-duty or at shore-duty.
-
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/troubling.html (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/troubling.html)
This article here is pretty interesting. It applies to the Royal Navy, but I think some nukes can read it and identify a bit. The "observations of an Armchair Admiral" seem pretty spot on with this one, and while I think the USN has better job satisfaction numbers than the RN, the statement:
"It is a lot easier for a politician to fix a material issue than a personnel issue. The military can screw up a lot of equipment decisions, but once you start screwing your people, and let morale drop, it gets very difficult to turn things around."
Makes me think the author should leave his armchair and try out as an Active Duty admiral. Again I have to say that it sounds like our pals across the pond have more troublesome issues to face than we do over here. For now.
-
In a time where we already see rock star JO's get out without shore duty? Even as a blue shirt I would have to puke my pants if awesome officers got promotions frozen to "save money." I honestly hope the Royal Navy held a "Fiscal Responsibility" stand down before they pulled that one. We all see places where our
commands workplaces could trim the budget here and there without impeding operational efficiency.
-
it is simply not about the money.........it is simply things have not changed much in 20 or 30 years....the only difference is that I couldn't gripe about it on nukeworker back then........the system back then...( the hours, the bilge diving, the suck-ups who got their nams) drove people out after 6 years and then you had to deal the flag bearing captain america's or the people who stayed for the bone us..............
one thing troubling I have read about in the New London Day, is that they are taking people off the sub's and are being sent to the army(yes), and being trained as a guards for Iraqi prisons.............I would have to imagine only non-nukes at this point.............that would have to change peoples attitudes.... to reinlist for shore duty, only to be hijacked, sent to the army and ending in Iraq........Camp Bucca in Iraq with the sandbox sailors (individual augmentees)
-
LT Ammon was also previously a submarine ELT. On Eternal Patrol now...
I've been working with quite a few people who have gone on IA tours lately. As strange as it may seem some actually want to go back and serve in the other theater (Iraq to Afghanistan and vice versa). It's kind of wierd to see big, formiddable guys come back quiet and reserved, though. It's crazy to hear the stories from the senior MA's that went over and worked in the investigations units, and it's offensive to hear about the people who volunteer to go for a career enhancing billet and never leave safe areas for patrols and such. Kind of a bummer to hear about internal politics BS at the same time as truly heroic self-sacrifice. It does help, though, to hear people come back with an optimistic outlook on the situation over there.
-
This is possibly the only positive aspect of "n-cubed-alpha" = N3A = Nukes Need Not Apply.
My heart and prayers to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and their families who must try to move on without them.
-
300 a month is a 20,000 dollar car payment too :D
Not only that 300 a month - invested at 11.5% (the historic return of the stock market)
for 35 years is $1,704,034. Or a bunch of car payments.
When you get into the Control Room with us old schoolers, we'll teach you some math.
-
The navy is doing it exactly the way you think.... Guys decide to stay in for shore duty. They think they are going to recharge their batteries and spend quality time with the family. But some end up spending 6 - 12 months of their 2 year shore duty in Afghanistan or Iraq. I personally know 10 JO's that have done IA tours.
To quote my friend Jim, who is a LT, "You think we're stupid in the navy....We got nothing on the Army. They do things in the most $%^#$% up way. I'm stupider for having been associated with those a$$clowns."
I can speak from first hand experience. I'm spending 15 mo of my 2 yr shore duty on IA. Yeah...shore duty doesn't mean much anymore, although its supposed to get better as they mainstream IAs billets into the detailing process. I rolled the dice with shore duty thinking I might avoid the IA, but...here I am in the sandbox playing Army. Now, I understood the need for IAs at the beginning of the war, especially in areas that we, the Navy, could really contribute in like electronic warfare, but this is ridiculous. The Army spent 5 mos training me to do an Army job for 9 mo at which point I will go back to the Navy bitter and with useless skills for my job in the Navy and the Army has nothing to gain, except in the short term. I know the Navy is losing good folks because of this. I know many JOs who have decided to get out instead of rolling the dice. I know women who were planning on trying to start a family while on shore duty who decided to get out rather than risk the IA and either missing the career timing to have kids or screwing some guy who would have to take the IA because the woman was pregnant.
I also speak from experience in saying that it has really upped my appreciation of the Navy. The Army has us beat in sheer stupidity and the way they treat their soldiers. Although I can definitely say this IA has been alot of a$$pain, I will admit it has been rewarding and gives me another perspective on the War and what we are accomplishing here. I don't want to get political, I have my doubts about what we are doing over here, but I also see the good things we are accomplishing.
LT Jeff Ammon...God...I wish I had gotten to know him better. Of all places and coincidences, I only met him briefly in the 'Stan while deployed, despite both of us having served in Bremerton for several years and having several close friends in common. He was a prior and had his 20 in. He extended his tour here because he really believed in what he was doing. By all accounts, he was a great guy and a great nuke and will be sorely missed. I am better from having known him.
-
Thank you for standing the watch,...
Godspeed to you,...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks for being there.
Justin
-
As someone who still has yet to leave for boot camp, I can't say that I look forward to dealing with the d-bags. The only thing that makes a d-bag worse is one with power. The only thing that makes a d-bag that has power worse is when that power comes from the government (I'm a Navy civilian in an engineering office now so I know the type). I've learned it is inevitable. Not what I wanted to post about though.
I've read through this entire thread and I've come down to a few problems with some suggestions. It does sound like it is WAY too easy to get through the pipeline and this is letting in some pretty dumb people into the nuclear fleet. So boot out people that are stupid... fine. That makes sense, but you guys are more familiar with this than I am. The Navy is going to get what they want (Yes, I am already pretty cynical about that). If they cannot get the numbers from the program that they want, they will throw more people at it. It just doesn't seem (and remember I'm basing this argument on things I've read from you all) like there is the capacity to handle more recruits. The number of students to instructors would go way up and the quality of training per recruit would be drastically reduced bringing you right back to having insufficiently trained people reporting to their carrier/sub. Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment, but logically it doesn't seem possible to meet these "good recruit" ideas by kicking people out of the pipeline. At least not with the limitations of current facilities and staff. This is just one part of the problem that was posted about and I felt like addressing. Feel free to ridicule anything said above.
I can speak from first hand experience. I'm spending 15 mo of my 2 yr shore duty on IA.
I have respect for any man or woman that has to put his/her boots in the sand. Get back to a boat safely, Narmy.
-
As someone who still has yet to leave for boot camp, I can't say that I look forward to dealing with the d-bags. The only thing that makes a d-bag worse is one with power. The only thing that makes a d-bag that has power worse is when that power comes from the government (I'm a Navy civilian in an engineering office now so I know the type). I've learned it is inevitable. Not what I wanted to post about though.
I've read through this entire thread and I've come down to a few problems with some suggestions. It does sound like it is WAY too easy to get through the pipeline and this is letting in some pretty dumb people into the nuclear fleet. So boot out people that are stupid... fine. That makes sense, but you guys are more familiar with this than I am. The Navy is going to get what they want (Yes, I am already pretty cynical about that). If they cannot get the numbers from the program that they want, they will throw more people at it. It just doesn't seem (and remember I'm basing this argument on things I've read from you all) like there is the capacity to handle more recruits. The number of students to instructors would go way up and the quality of training per recruit would be drastically reduced bringing you right back to having insufficiently trained people reporting to their carrier/sub. Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment, but logically it doesn't seem possible to meet these "good recruit" ideas by kicking people out of the pipeline. At least not with the limitations of current facilities and staff. This is just one part of the problem that was posted about and I felt like addressing. Feel free to ridicule anything said above.
I have respect for any man or woman that has to put his/her boots in the sand. Get back to a boat safely, Narmy.
You have a fairly good grasp of the problem
We don't have enough good people
We have too many bad people, if we kicked out all the bad people either we would not have enough people for the job or the good people would get so overworked they will just get out or crack
The only solution the Navy is using right now is to throw money at the problem
-
Perhaps I'm just a nub speaking about stuff that's way over my head at the moment
[
Hey now, folks. Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid. Sometimes new, objective opinions (I guess an opinion derived from a gripe thread isn't too objective, though) are needed to keep the organization on track. I think that discounting opinions that come from those that are new to the game has lead to the Program's stagnant thought processes.
-
Hey now, folks. Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid. Sometimes new, objective opinions (I guess an opinion derived from a gripe thread isn't too objective, though) are needed to keep the organization on track. I think that discounting opinions that come from those that are new to the game has lead to the Program's stagnant thought processes.
No worries. I was expecting that. At least I was aware of that before I spoke.
-
You're right. It is by far the most powerful naval force in the history of humanity, but we want warm fuzzy feelings while we serve in the program. :P
-
The kid's basis for telling us how to fix the program comes from reading a thread on a website which features more disgruntled ex-navy folks postings then people currently serving.
Very good point. I worried a bit about posting my own little complaints here because I didn't want to demonize the program in front of new people and discourage them from joining. I have an idea, though.
-
The Navy may not be broke, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some fixing. Do you wait until you car doesn't start to address its problems? Same principle applies. There is always room to improve the process.
Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals. Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning. Of course, from the stories I've heard of surface ship manning, they could spare some people for us submariners. Perhaps larger submarine incentives and a shorter nuke chain of command on surface ships. Plus, defense spending could be reduced, unless the Chinese are really such a formidable threat that we need all the boats we have, in which case, what about bringing back diesel boats? Coners would probably love a chance to go to a boat where no one tells them they're dumb. ;D ;D
Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident. We must be doing something right.
We are. What we do right keeps taking longer though. The amount of supervision required to do anything keeps increasing, the watch officer is being given ever more control over all aspects of plant operation, and, during a casualty situation, especially a life of ship threatening one, that has the potential to be disastrous. People need to have initiative, the best way to do that is not to take it away, to give more responsibility to the operators, making it truly their watchstation, rather than having a JO with 3-12 months of experience trying to play puppet master. I have always felt that officers should only have to give one order for an evolution to happen, and after that just say very well or wait, rather than splitting things up into several orders that don't need to be. But, as soon as someone causes a critique the corrective actions make that impossible. Maybe sometimes it really is just a stupid mistake, and not a flaw in the way things are done. If nothing broke, then retrain and be done with it.
-
Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident. We must be doing something right.
You're right, however with the intelligence of some of the people I have worked with in the last couple of years makes me wonder if someday that counter will get reset.
-
The Navy may not be broke, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some fixing. Do you wait until you car doesn't start to address its problems? Same principle applies.
Dude, I've seen the tires on your car.
-
Just because the hoopa isn't active duty yet doesn't make his opinion invalid.
But it helps.
-
before you act on that idea,...
"Kid,.............. Have you rehabilitated yourself?,..... 8)
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant.
-
How would you fix the NNPP? Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that. I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk. Fun time.
-
The kid's basis for telling us how to fix the program comes from reading a thread on a website which features more disgruntled ex-navy folks postings then people currently serving.
Not to go BZ on someone, but if you don't know firsthand what you are talking about, then remain silent. Make it through Boot camp, then NFAS, then NNPS, then NPTU.....then you might have some credibility with me when you tell me how to fix the program.
Last I checked, we had steamed over 136 million miles without incident. We must be doing something right.
Oh I was somewhat agreeing with you up until the last sentence. That last sentence and the attitude it conveys sums up in a nut shell ALL of the problems with the nuclear navy. Are you one of the officers that believes that the only thing wrong with the navy is blue shirts complaining too much? :)
Justin
-
Ding, Ding.....we have a winner.
So much for being more of an "Unforgiving Nukeworker", eh?
Was their a particular part of his post you disagreed with or just the fact that he hasnt completed boot, A, power school, or prototype? Given that rationale it seems many of us would have a problem with you posting about commercial power. Yet no one tells you to shut it or discounts anything you say. At least until you start preaching about blankets of freedom. ;)
Hoopa, for someone who is just a nublet you seem to grasp a large part of the problem. My advice is when you get there be part of the solution.
-
So much for being more of an "Unforgiving Nukeworker", eh?
Was their a particular part of his post you disagreed with or just the fact that he hasnt completed boot, A, power school, or prototype? Given that rationale it seems many of us would have a problem with you posting about commercial power. Yet no one tells you to shut it or discounts anything you say. At least until you start preaching about blankets of freedom. ;)
Hoopa, for someone who is just a nublet you seem to grasp a large part of the problem. My advice is when you get there be part of the solution.
What is the saying?? DING DING DING we have a winner!!! ;D
Justin
-
How would you fix the NNPP? Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that. I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk. Fun time.
Oh thats right. A buddy of mine who just made MMC down there was telling me about yinz being on 12s. Luckily for you though, the Admiral is going to make it worth while.
Justin
-
How would you fix the NNPP? Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that. I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk. Fun time.
What happened down there??? I left and the whole place went to hell in a handbasket? PB, you've let me in on some of the nightmare and others have shared what a mess there is right now. I feel your pain for the 12's.
It sounds like the Admiral is bringing the hammer for some of the senior O-gangers on site and if I know him right, he's gonna swing a heavy hammer.
Good luck PB, and all my other NPTU warriors.
Peace,
Mike
-
When have I ever posted about what was wrong with the commercial nuclear industry???
I don't think I ever have. ::) ::) ::)
Cincinnattinuke......I said I would ask folks to not be so condescending about telling folks to use a search on the site.
Man, you need to lighten up a bit. This -----> ;D -----> means I was having a bit of fun. Twice in one week you skipped the smiley. :P <---- see this one??? :D
Justin
-
How would you fix the NNPP? Well, the Admiral is making a special visit down south to tell us how to do just that. I'll get to stay 2 hours after I get relieved from a 12-hour mid shift to hear him talk. Fun time.
Prrraps the Admiral has been reading this humble website, and has incorporated some of our folksy wisdom...
Or maybe he's gonna yank web access for the nublets! ;)
-
before you act on that idea,...
"Kid,.............. Have you rehabilitated yourself?,..... 8)
AHHH.....Good old Arlo! Classic!
-
Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals. Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning.
I always get leery whenever I hear "reduce the number of ships/subs/planes/Marines/etc.".
At any given moment, there is a submarine on station in each of at least four different geographical areas. (And sometimes more than four areas, and sometimes many more than just one submarine in a given area.) In addition to this, there are a number of submarines in drydock at any given point in time. And in between drydock and deployment periods, a submarine has a whole host of training/inspections/certifications that it has to accomplish. And golly, every once in a while, it's nice if a submarine actually gets to pull in and sit in home port for a brief little bit so its sailors can spend time with their families.
So just how many (or more to the point, how FEW) submarines do you believe it takes to cover all of these bases? Try playing the role of Admiral on this, and see how many chess pieces are really required just to stay in the game here.
Or should we maybe just draw down to the size of, say, the Iranian Navy? Or maybe the French Navy would be a 'good enough' model? I'll spare the long and detailed rant on this and get straight to the point: there is a definite (and often forgotten) deterrent value in the size of our Navy. As a pertinent analogy, remember that criminals look for soft targets that they're confident they can beat; nobody wants to get into a fight where they know that they're just going to get their *** kicked. [Their "asterisk" kicked, get it?]
But the bottom line is that cutting the number of ships isn't really a viable option.
Of course, from the stories I've heard of surface ship manning, they could spare some people for us submariners.
As an MMC(SS/SW), I've seen the surface Navy - and thank you, but I'd rather be short handed... :P ;D
what about bringing back diesel boats?
The debate on this is on-going. My personal line of thought is that a handful of diesel boats for close-to-home defense is probably worth some merit.
I'm still a big fan of the theory back in the Ronnie Reagan Cold-War-Spending days - bring four Nukes into the program for each job vacancy you have, and let the best one out of those four pull himself to the top and reach the fleet with a Nuclear NEC (and an enlistment bonus) of his very own.
Just my own thoughts...
Peace,
- Greg
-
I'm still a big fan of the theory back in the Ronnie Reagan Cold-War-Spending days - bring four Nukes into the program for each job vacancy you have, and let the best one out of those four pull himself to the top and reach the fleet with a Nuclear NEC (and an enlistment bonus) of his very own.
Just my own thoughts...
Peace,
- Greg
Well one problem with this is that there aren't 4 people for ever vacancy trying to sign up for the program that are initially qualified to attempt it. That leaves two options: Allow less qualified people to attempt the program or find a way to lure more qualified people to the program. I am sure most of us would agree that option 1 is not the best one(even though that is the apparent direction the Navy has decided to take). That really just leave option two. How do we bring in more people that would actually make it through if we returned to to the attrition rates of the 70s and 80s? Well(as unpopular this is going to be) I would suggest that we make it more difficult to go to college. Nowadays, just about anyone can go to college either through Lottery scholarships, specialized scholarships, and federal loans and grants(this also leads to many other problems when schools realize that if they raise their tuition, the government will just give the student more and more money when people complain about the high cost of school, which just repeats the cycle). If it were more difficult for people to pay to go to college, they would more than likely look at other ways to get it payed for such as the MGIB. Hence recruiting goes up and we start getting more and more recruits to choose from. We still wouldn't get the super steller types that get free rides for academics, but we would at least get those low A/high B students that weren't offered that free ride. Right now the only way we get them is if they fail out of college from partying too much and lose their scholarships or their parents cut them off or in rare cases they join for other reasons like family tradition, see the world, or something to that effect.
Well that is my 3 cents worth.
-
Why not just reduce the size of the nuclear navy, while maintaining the same recruiting goals. Same number of people, fewer ships, more leeway on manning.
At any given moment, there is a submarine on station in each of at least four different geographical areas. (And sometimes more than four areas, and sometimes many more than just one submarine in a given area.) In addition to this, there are a number of submarines in drydock at any given point in time. And in between drydock and deployment periods, a submarine has a whole host of training/inspections/certifications that it has to accomplish. And golly, every once in a while, it's nice if a submarine actually gets to pull in and sit in home port for a brief little bit so its sailors can spend time with their families.
So just how many (or more to the point, how FEW) submarines do you believe it takes to cover all of these bases? Try playing the role of Admiral on this, and see how many chess pieces are really required just to stay in the game here.
I think arduousartifice's suggestion might have to do with current U.S. foreign policy and whether or not we need all of those ships everywhere. I don't really know if I want to put my two cents into this.
-
Those sort of decisions are made by folks who wear stars on their collars.
The current 30 year ship building plan calls for a 313 ship navy. I don't know if we'll get there, but that is the plan.
Let's throw some reactors into IOWA-class! I will gladly go there.
I do have a question here that comes from a part of my daily reading: http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html) ran an article on USN Maritime Strategy vs. DoD National Defense Strategy issues. While it is not an official US Navy site, it does offer published documents from DoD and DoN. It looks like DoD's strategy is counterinsurgency/anti-terrorism while DoN's strategy is Cold War II/World War III. Why the difference and does it mean anything?
-
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/navys-new-cold-war-strategy.html)
Wow! The author here is able to craft what sounds like some very convincing arguments, while simultaneously being WAY off the mark. (And just who is this "Galrahn" character, anyway?)
Regardless of who he is, the author obviously has a next-to-zero understanding level of the capabilities of an SSGN or a Virginia-class submarine. Don't assume that the DoN or DoD are going to lay bare their true and exact plans/intentions. (Sorry if that sounded rude or snippity, it wasn't meant to be but I can't think of how to reword it. :-[) Anyway, the 'policies' cited in the article have been dumbed down considerably - and we're also probably missing a lot of context in the cut-and-paste clippings of the references cited.
Regardless of what the DoN says (or doesn't say) in the Press Box, I know that I sleep pretty well at night knowing that the SSGN's & VA-class boats are out there on our side. You and I will probably never know the real plan, but whatever it is I'm glad that we have these submarines working for us.
So I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle when two pre-processed (for the Press & general public) national defense policy statements don't mesh completely.
Peace,
- Greg
-
Wow! The author here is able to craft what sounds like some very convincing arguments, while simultaneously being WAY off the mark. (And just who is this "Galrahn" character, anyway?)
Regardless of who he is, the author obviously has a next-to-zero understanding level of the capabilities of an SSGN or a Virginia-class submarine. Don't assume that the DoN or DoD are going to lay bare their true and exact plans/intentions. (Sorry if that sounded rude or snippity, it wasn't meant to be but I can't think of how to reword it. :-[) Anyway, the 'policies' cited in the article have been dumbed down considerably - and we're also probably missing a lot of context in the cut-and-paste clippings of the references cited.
Regardless of what the DoN says (or doesn't say) in the Press Box, I know that I sleep pretty well at night knowing that the SSGN's & VA-class boats are out there on our side. You and I will probably never know the real plan, but whatever it is I'm glad that we have these submarines working for us.
So I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle when two pre-processed (for the Press & general public) national defense policy statements don't mesh completely.
Peace,
- Greg
You make a damn good point. I think the author of that blog is some never-been-in-the-navy computer nerd with a hard on for navy strategy. A bit wacky but good reading from time to time.
-
I was a Nuke Submarine electrician way back in 1979 and stumbled across this forum a few days ago. I note that the concerns about retention and frustrations of the job are the same they were 29 years ago. Back then I think the re-enlistment bonus was 30K and very few were staying in.
Since little has changed in 29 years I wonder if the "problems" are just part of the nature of the business. Perhaps the role of NNPP is to train technicians for private industry. The industry doesn't have to be civilian nuclear power. For example, I've heard that Intel Corporation hires a lot of Nukes. I'm a computer geek and the thinking processes I learned in NNPP have benefited me and my employer greatly for almost three decades.
Just my two cents.
-
I was a Nuke Submarine electrician way back in 1979 and stumbled across this forum a few days ago. I note that the concerns about retention and frustrations of the job are the same they were 29 years ago. Back then I think the re-enlistment bonus was 30K and very few were staying in.
Since little has changed in 29 years I wonder if the "problems" are just part of the nature of the business. Perhaps the role of NNPP is to train technicians for private industry. The industry doesn't have to be civilian nuclear power. For example, I've heard that Intel Corporation hires a lot of Nukes. I'm a computer geek and the thinking processes I learned in NNPP have benefited me and my employer greatly for almost three decades.
Just my two cents.
I had a similar thought a little while ago, that perhaps the navy could market itself as "join the navy and get prepared for commercial nuclear power." With the allure of a stable job and the GI Bill for college, and other things, it would be effective at getting people in for at least the first 6 years. The navy could even change the requirement to 8 years that would include an way engineered into the enlistment to attain a Thomas Edison like degree. Like at the end of the 8 years (or whenever your time is up) have 9 months in which the member is no longer "active"—but not separated—and continues to get their base pay while taking online classes.
Something along the lines of enticing enlistees via the possibility of being put in a competitive position for a commercial nuclear job post-navy would be a definite way to get people in initially, then there would be some people who choose to stay in because they like it.
-
We should come up with a slogan:
"The Naval Nuclear Power Program - it's a great stepping stone!"
;D
-
We should come up with a slogan:
"The Naval Nuclear Power Program - it's a great stepping stone!"
;D
It would increase enlistments, which invariably would increase retention without the navy having to really improve on itself.
-
Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back. (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)
Good for the NNPP, good for the Navy, and good for those individuals who make it through.
The only problem is that "The Donald" would never go for an advertising campaign which took such a heretical view of his program. (I wonder, who would get the first phone call >:( from the Donald after he saw such a commercial...)
-
Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back. (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)
Good for the NNPP, good for the Navy, and good for those individuals who make it through.
The only problem is that "The Donald" would never go for an advertising campaign which took such a heretical view of his program. (I wonder, who would get the first phone call >:( from the Donald after he saw such a commercial...)
My opinion of The Don is vastly different than of Ricky. If you switch the names in your post to use Ricky's, then I'd agree with you, but the other guy still hasn't figured out how to do his job.
-
"Re:How would you fix the NNPP" would seem to be in moot court territory......Some nuke JO's are thinking about recharging their batteries on shore duty only to be "temp assigned" to IA slots in the big sandbox (how much longer till IA slots are available for nuke enlisted?)(say ...you have a falling out with command about not reenlisting, so instead of going on a west-pac, they temp assign you to squadron, you help cast off the lines, then head over to the squadron office, and they say, "what are we supposed to do with you"......) .........with Iran pushing their limits and Israel flexing their muscle , tension in the middle east would seem to be not falling off for the near future..........so the question might be better suited to be Re:How would you fix the DOD........
-
Perhaps it would even increase enlistments to the point where they exceed the billet gaps, in which case some attrition could be brought back. (You know, those 5% of students who took up 95% of the collective staff's effort, and whom we all prayed to never have on our boat out in the fleet.)
Don't we need to work on first term retention as well? I'm a huge fan of pumping enough people into the pipeline to weed out the little sick ones, but I get irritated when folks make first class and complain about having to take a leadership position. It would be just swell to have enough sea returnees in sea going commands that first term folks have a lower likelihood of being put into a leadership position (I know a guy who became LPO with less than two years on board his first boat). It might even be better if it took longer to make first (I wouldn't like it, but oh well), making people old enough to take a leadership role and willing to accept it when the time comes.
In fact, I think I would rather have better retention than a larger influx of new people. Imagine sea-returnees on submarines having people of the same age in their divisions!
-
I assume that due to the lack of a :D or a :) that you're trying to pick a fight. You seem to do that whenever someone speaks a little too much on the FTN side of the spectrum. You're old, you remember the saying about judging a book by its cover? Rank has zero bearing on someone's insight; if they've had the right experiences, then they have the right insight. Come on down off that high horse.
When I was on watch in off-hull Maneuvering when Bowman visited, he walked in, glanced around while never breaking stride as he went directly to the SRO and asked him what he was looking at on the little TV monitor that had pressure and VOWF level on it, and some questions about the various temporary control switches in front of him.
Later in that availability when Donny visited, he came down the weapons shipping hatch, grabbed the flashlight out of the COB's holster, and proceeding to look for dust bunnies. He requested to enter Maneuvering, asked the SRO (me) some inane questions about the new Type II equipment like "What do you think of the color graphics? Is the equipment easy to do maintenance on?"
So one guy cared about how his primary watch stander was standing watch in this abnormal condition of being in off-hull Maneuvering; the other guy cared about how effective our field day was. I learned in the shipyard that supervisors enforce what they know. So if you don't know jack about the plant, then you enforce cleaning.
PM me, Gamecock, if you want to hear my other thoughts.
-
I am gonna have to side with PB here on a couple of things.
As much as we pride ourselves on being great operators, we all know there are some nukes that are in higher places of authority based entirely on being "Yes-Men/Women" or by virtue of being in for so long that they pick up rank.
As a prime example, and there will be people on this forum that know who I am talking about very quickly, at the Protohell we got in a 25+ year Master Chief who was slated to be an LCC. He was placed into EOOW quals as per S.O.P. and went about his quals in a manner that was more like a PXO than a Staff in training(for those who don't know, PXO are Pilot CDRs that are going on to carriers to be the XO, basically they get the royal treatment). Well it comes times for this guy's Final Watch Board with NRRO and he bombs it royally. No big deal, it happens. #2 comes up and he bombs it again. #3(special permission required) comes and he finally passes it, barely. Most comments are about his watchstanding ability are very poor. However, like PB said about The Don, he was all over cleanliness, stowage, and other aspects outside of perveyance of nuclear power specifics. I fully believed that the plant could be melting down, and as long as all the foxtails were lined up properly and all the watchstanders had a SAT haircut and shiny boots, his world would be nothing but roses. This is just one of a few examples I know about that proves that not all those in the highest levels of leadership(this particular guy went on to be the master chief for the MTS) are techincally compentent in the arena of nuclear power. We see it all the time with Politics, why would we expect anything less from the highest levels of brass, you know the ones that frequently have to deal with politicians.
While I have never met "The Don" in person, I have heard accounts from others that have while in Chucktown, that he does seem to harp more on non-nuclear stuff such as cleanliness. Whether that is just one of his pet-peeves or shows more about his level of competence I do not know. So feel free to add to this or agree or disagree.
-
Perhaps all of the Navsea 08's were the same when they took command. I can't recall exactly without researching it, but I don't think that Donny had a nuke intensive track record prior to his current position, so it's partly not his fault. Maybe Bowman was the same and it took him along time to figure it out. I met him at the very end of his 8 years and Donny in his first year, so...
I'll get to know him a little better this week when he comes for a friendly visit.
-
I can't recall exactly without researching it, but I don't think that Donny had a nuke intensive track record prior to his current position, so it's partly not his fault.
Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters. He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.
-
Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters. He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.
WarEagle, thank you for that information. Honestly it does make me feel better knowing that he really does know what he is talking about. Alluding to PB's post about him not knowing how to do his job may just stem from that unfortunate tendency that the higher a person gains in rank the more disconnected he gets from the deckplate level sailor.
-
Admiral Donald was an Engineer Officer, Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board Member, and worked in the Line Locker at NR Headquarters. He's as heavy a nuke as anyone in the Navy.
From: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=96 (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=96)
"He served as Commander, Submarine Development Squadron 12 from August 1995 to July 1997. From June 2002 to July 2003, he was assigned as Commander, Submarine Group 8; Commander, Submarine Force 6th Fleet (CTF 69); Commander, Submarines Allied Naval Forces South; and Commander, Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Force (CTF 164) in Naples, Italy. Most recently, he served as Commander, Naval Submarine Forces; Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Commander, Allied Submarine Command; and Commander, Task Forces 84 and 144 in Norfolk, Va."
It's not very good at giving a specific timeline, but it looks like he had a lot of non-nuke time in there...how often did he stand watch or oversee the shutdown maintenance plan for an engineering/reactor department as CTF 164 in Naples, Italy? Not very often...
He "was Commanding Officer, USS Key West (SSN 722), from October 1990 to February 1993," that's a lot of down time until he took N/S 08 in 2004.
-
It's not very good at giving a specific timeline, but it looks like he had a lot of non-nuke time in there...how often did he stand watch or oversee the shutdown maintenance plan for an engineering/reactor department as CTF 164 in Naples, Italy? Not very often...
I would say that his resume full of submarine experience keeps him joined at the hip with the NNPP throughout his career. As the Admiral responsible for the program I don't think he needs to have recent watchstanding in his training jacket. While no one can get to a high position without playing the political game, I don't believe a person could become NAVSEA 08 without a great deal of technical competence. The fact he has a great deal of command experience in other areas doesn't diminish his ability to lead the NNPP.
Maybe if someone who worked directly under him had something bad to say about him I could take the disgruntled point of view on this one. For now I am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for getting his job.
-
I would say that his resume full of submarine experience keeps him joined at the hip with the NNPP throughout his career. As the Admiral responsible for the program I don't think he needs to have recent watchstanding in his training jacket. While no one can get to a high position without playing the political game, I don't believe a person could become NAVSEA 08 without a great deal of technical competence. The fact he has a great deal of command experience in other areas doesn't diminish his ability to lead the NNPP.
Maybe if someone who worked directly under him had something bad to say about him I could take the disgruntled point of view on this one. For now I am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for getting his job.
I agree, technical ability/experience while nice, isn't a requirement to hold a job such as his. My company's CEO is the CEO of several companies, all having nothing to do with the other. To do his job requires more business like skills and a sense of the political arts. I am quite confident that an admiral that has never set foot on a nuclear powered vessel could do his job. Although I don't see that that could ever happen. My last site VP never actually operated a commercial plant. So what? Doesn't take the ability to physically operate one to macro-manage the facility.
Be that as it may, this guy does have nuclear experience. I wouldn't discount his ability/experience/knowledge so easily. If it is one thing I learned in the Navy, is that nuke COs are pretty much what I consider geniuses. They know scary amounts of scary information and I give them all the credit in the world for it. Now of course that doesn't lend anything to their abilities as a CO. But, good or bad, all of my CO's knew a lot of crap about a lot of crap. Besides, I don't care if the admiral knew the nitty gritty details anymore (but I bet he does), because that isn't his job. Its yours.
Justin
-
...all of my CO's knew a lot of crap about a lot of crap.
To a scary degree, now that I think about it. How do they know all that stuff and still do the CO job? Someone check for plugs in their heads like on the Matrix.
Besides, I don't care if the admiral knew the nitty gritty details anymore (but I bet he does), because that isn't his job. Its yours.
And that there was the knockout punch.
-
And that there was the knockout punch.
Yeah, I'm on the floor convulsing.
So if he's so well-equipped for the job and the deficiencies that I've pointed out are invalid, then why are we discussing in a forum called "How would you fix the NNPP?" He's doing a bang-up job.
Who here is posting about the differences between the two has met both of them?
[hand is raised]
-
Yeah, I'm on the floor convulsing.
So if he's so well-equipped for the job and the deficiencies that I've pointed out are invalid, then why are we discussing in a forum called "How would you fix the NNPP?" He's doing a bang-up job.
Who here is posting about the differences between the two has met both of them?
[hand is raised]
Like I said, technical knowledge doesn't = ability to lead. That said, the program is what it is and saying he is responsible for the state of affairs as we see it is like saying my CEO is responsible for the state of affairs at my plant as I see it. Sorry, I just am not buying it. They are in fact far removed from the deck plate, that we agree on. But I don't have a problem with that because like I said, it isn't their job.
I have met both. Bowman on several occasions.
Comparing one to the other has nothing to do with anything.
Justin
-
I've met both. I interviewed with Demars. At dinner, my wife asked Bowman if he'd ever met Elvis. True story.
-
When I was on watch in off-hull Maneuvering when Bowman visited, he walked in, glanced around while never breaking stride as he went directly to the SRO and asked him what he was looking at on the little TV monitor that had pressure and VOWF level on it, and some questions about the various temporary control switches in front of him.
Later in that availability when Donny visited, he came down the weapons shipping hatch, grabbed the flashlight out of the COB's holster, and proceeding to look for dust bunnies. He requested to enter Maneuvering, asked the SRO (me) some inane questions about the new Type II equipment like "What do you think of the color graphics? Is the equipment easy to do maintenance on?"
So one guy cared about how his primary watch stander was standing watch in this abnormal condition of being in off-hull Maneuvering; the other guy cared about how effective our field day was. I learned in the shipyard that supervisors enforce what they know. So if you don't know jack about the plant, then you enforce cleaning.
I think you are assuming way too much. Are you saying that ADM Bowman didn't use a flashlight to inspect the spaces? Try this one on:
ADM Bowman was quizzing the SRO because he wanted to sample the knowledge of the guy in charge of the plant. ADM Donald asked one of his prototype instructors for feedback on a system that the program is putting a lot of faith and dollars into. They both demonstrated different styles of leadership. I don't think you can say one is better than the other.
You could have just as well said ADM Bowman was asking me inane questions on plant status and ADM Donald had the gumption to ask a fleet operator for feedback on equipment the navy is using.
Having been subject to walkthroughs by ADM Donald, Bowman, and Demars, I can tell you there is virtually no difference on their expectations for cleanliness. I'd say it's probably worse on the prototypes because they show students what the fleet standard is supposed to be.
I think questioning ADM Donald's credentials is barking up the wrong tree. ADM Bowman was in charge of the detailers prior to being NAVSEA 08. Your utter contempt of Admiral Donald is obvious.
Are you saying, if you know the plant, then enforcing cleanliness standards is not required? I do agree that there are some who fall back on the easisest thing to look in charge about - cleanliness. I think that more deckplate leaders, lead based on what the CO/COB/EDMC/ENG told them was a priority or needed a round turn taken on.
DM
-
I think it is probably easy at this point with, er, MTSs becoming hot-fill billets to blame the guy at the top for being a bad leader; but we should probably take into consideration what would have happened to operators in a commercial plant if similar stuff happened. As far as I've heard from some old proto-pals, everyone is still drawing a paycheck, even if that paycheck might not come from nuclear duty.
I think that when we get in trouble as blue shirts, we spend so much time worrying about how bad we got screwed compared to other people who messed up that we don't appreciate the fact that we still have a job. I've been busted down in rank and put on restriction, and I spent probably six months being pissed that the next guy to stand in front of the green table got a suspended bust. I actually got mad at the command for the situation. It took some time to realize that the pain I experienced was nothing compared to trying to find a good job while explaining what I did to get fired from my nuke job.
Fact is, sometimes we get put in really bad situations in the Navy (even when OTHER people screw up), but the paychecks keep rolling in and we still have work to do. Many of the problems we see in the NNPP come as a result of command response to isolated incidents, and it doesn't make any sense to blame the guy with stars on his collar for the mess.
-
I think that when we get in trouble as blue shirts, we spend so much time worrying about how bad we got screwed compared to other people who messed up that we don't appreciate the fact that we still have a job. ... It took some time to realize that the pain I experienced was nothing compared to trying to find a good job while explaining what I did to get fired from my nuke job.
Yes but remember by that same logic, it prevents us from "firing" those that truely deserve to never operate a plant ever again. I know that we have the option of "denuking" a person, but I have never seen it done, and if it is still done it is not done nearly enough. Case in point:
A young EM2(STAR baby) is sitting throtlle man on #2 Main Engine during an Ammo Onload alongside with all that entails with that evolution. Well long story short, he gets the bright idea to DISASSEMBLE the throttle control handwheel. Well he goes to see the captain a few weeks later, which just so happens to be the same time that half of RX department is going up for a massive drug bust. Guy gets suspended bust and ends up an E6 6 months later. Was still a nuke after all that.
So while Justin is correct that it isn't the ADM's job to know the nuts and bolts of everything that goes on, it is his job to set policy and when his policy becomes "get as many through as you can, no matter what" and also "keep as many as you can, no matter what", then it does have resounding repercussions that resonate down to the deckplate level(alliteration aside).
-
That most definitely is NOT the policy. That is your perception of the policy. Did you ever hear the ADM say that? How about the CO? XO? Shift ENG? CMC? LCC?
In fact I did, on several occasions. One of the former PMC's at Charleston said "We are no longer a filter, we are a pump. I control the outlet valve and it is wide open." So yes there is the mentality that get as many through as possible on several levels. You can see it in everything that goes on there. From the mentality that you aren't allowed to give a student less than a 2.4 on anything other than a test. You know why? "It might dishearten them." I got a stern talking to because I gave a kid a 2.3 on a final board. This was a mechanic that didn't even know pump laws or that oil flows through bearings in parallel not series. The Training Manager told me that we don't give students less than 2.4 if they fail. When I told him that my interpretation was that 2.4 was close to passing and this kid was no where close, he reiterated his point. Same thing happened when our division was "informally" told that we couldn't fail a kid on his final watch after the 3rd time. When our LPO flat out refused to obligue the SIT and our LCC, they put him in ERLL and ran 3 drills that never affected him and put him with an ELT watchstander doing a proficiency.
Everyone has seen the shift over the past few years. It used to be two subject failure and you are out of the program. When I was a staff guy at Prototype, we were getting kids that failed two Academic boards and hadn't passed comp yet. So how is that NOT "get everyone through, no matter what". Yea we had 2 people fail out on academics, in the 3 YEARS I was there, and that was only after the kid failed 3 comps and it was found out he couldn't be book complete before his class graduated. That is compared to countless others that should have. Yea I stayed for hours on end after shift helping a guy out. I even stayed on site for over 18 hours just to sit a guys FOB re-board as his EWS guy. But it was because I believed the kid would make a decent operator over time.
This was on the local level. During CMC calls we were told that Bowman said "you will lower your non-academic attrition rates" by the CMC. So thus began so many policy changes that were rediculous. We actually spent several hours a day going to students apartments and doing inspections to ensure they weren't living in cardboard boxes. This wasn't Navy housing either. Although this was started on Bowman's watch, I have yet to see any change in this thought process by Donald. I am sure that there are others that will attest to this.
-
Sorry to continue to rant, but I remembered another wonderful instance of the new philosophy of the training pipeline.
As some of you know, at Prototype they now have qualified staff instructors go basically "TAD" up stairs to give checkouts all day to students. Initially it is supposed to be a good deal because it gets you off of shift work and onto a normal days routine for 7 weeks. You give checkouts to the brand new students and they all want the same basic ones. No big deal. Well during our first day they tell us how everything works, what they want from us, etc. One of the very first things the ETC up there told us was make sure you ask the students locations of stuff on the boat to ensure they go down to the boat. If they haven't been down to the boat, then they aren't ready for the checkout and kick them out of the checkout. Ok fair enough. I take this to heart and many upon many students felt I was being unfair that I was booting them for not going down to the boat. Well at the end of the 7 weeks, the students give feedback to the Off crew group about the temp instructors. Well since I had a torn ACL and couldn't stand watch I got elected to make a return appearance to the 7 week program the very next cycle. When I went to talk to the ETCM that was the head guy in the Off Crew group(the same guy who was PMC as above) he sat me down and read two feedbacks from students about how they hated to get checkouts from me and that I kept booting some of them out of checkouts. So he proceeds to tell me that I should tone down my checkouts, not ask as many questions, and not to harp so much on locations of things. He also tells me that the reason for my low numbers of checkouts(we actually had a quota that we had to meet each week) was because I wasn't doing checkouts fast enough(when actually I was gone for about 6 hours every week due to physical therapy for my knee). Well of course I was a little ticked at this point until I read the REST of the feedback in which there were at least 5 feedbacks that were positive, most to the effect that yes I more difficult than some to get a checkout from but that they learned the most from me.
Now I realize this was just one guy(the ETCM) saying this, but when I brought it up to the ETC after I got blackballed by the ETCM(I wasn't allowed to to give checkouts to students who were severly behind the curve or that weren't exactly the sharpest ones), he basically blew me off and said that "That is just the way it is up here." Even got talked to about my failure to meet quota by the civilian guy that was in charge of the off crew phase.
So Gamecock, I hope that this sheds some light on why I(and many others) feel that the mentality is "get them through, no matter what". Sorry to be so crast, but when you get told several times how to train a student by people that never have to deal with them again even though you do(Off Crews main focus was get them ahead of the curve by as much as possible and make sure they pass the exam at the end of 7 weeks, if they are broke let the crews fix them.), you get a little burned at the end.
-
I'm done debating the program. You guys probably know by now that I love the nuclear navy and love pretty much everything I've done in the navy. I'm sorry that the experiences of you guys don't match mine, because the nuclear navy has been very, very good to me and my family. And, knowing what my next job is already, I know its going to keep being good to me.
Henceforth, I hereby withdraw from further debate on this and all other opinion topics.
My posts from here on out will be limited to answering specific questions posed by individuals seeking help.
Peace,
GC
I am not saying that the program wasn't good to me in some instances. There are many things that I have seen and done and have the ability to do because I was a nuke in the pipeline. I am who and what I am today because I was a Navy Nuke. I realize I am in a relatively small group of people who have ever started up a nuclear reactor. I just hate seeing the program take the turn that it has. I hate the fact that there are people out there that are "giving nukes bad names" because they made it through the program even though they shouldn't have, have gotten out, and gone on to companies and are still incompetent, thus giving employeers bad examples of what nukes can do. I fully respect your opinion and debate on the matter, I just feel that unless you have been in an instructor billet in the past 5 years, you may not see the shift like others do. Then again you might have been and took it a different way then a lot of us have.
-
The boss agreed to put this topic back in here.
Thank Mr. Rennhack when you get a chance.
Cheers,
GC
Note: I took the liberty of removing the running GM commentary we had while the topic was in exile
-
Thanks Mike!
Thanks GC!
Justin
-
I have as little respect for those who tattoo "FTN" on their body and start FunTimeNavy webpages as I do for those who are equally blinded by the positives of the navy and the NNPP. The navy and the NNPP have positives and they have negatives. Some of us have had experiences that were driven more so by one than the other, hence our current outlook on the system. Neither person, the diggit or the dirtbag, have a realistic perspective because they've only seen the best/worst of the program: they're ignorant.
And as far as the talk earlier about the two Admirals and the one not having to understand what it takes for us to do our job on a daily basis, you're all wrong. Try picking up a book sometime on leadership. I recommend "The Carrot Principle."
-
I have as little respect for those who tattoo "FTN" on their body and start FunTimeNavy webpages as I do for those who are equally blinded by the positives of the navy and the NNPP. The navy and the NNPP have positives and they have negatives. Some of us have had experiences that were driven more so by one than the other, hence our current outlook on the system. Neither person, the diggit or the dirtbag, have a realistic perspective because they've only seen the best/worst of the program: they're ignorant.
And as far as the talk earlier about the two Admirals and the one not having to understand what it takes for us to do our job on a daily basis, you're all wrong. Try picking up a book sometime on leadership. I recommend "The Carrot Principle."
I agree 100% with your points on the views of the extreme diggits and the extreme haters. Neither view is a realistic illustration of life in the Navy nuke power program.
As to your second point, no one ever said that a leader doesn't have to understand what you do everyday. Whether they do or not is debatable and your summary dismissal of everyone's opinion as wrong, is wrong. I have read many many books on leadership. No one ever suggested that the Admiral doesn't understand what you do on a day to day basis, except you. Again, you are wrong. I am quite confident that the Admiral does understand what you do on a day to day basis. What he chooses to lay importance on is of his concern, and his alone. How you chooses to perceive his concerns is yours alone. I believe your perception is wrong. That said, I also believe that, again, it isn't his job to worry about what you do on a day to day basis, on a day to day basis. My CEO certainly isn't worrying about Justin everyday and I wouldn't expect him to. His daily concerns are going to be vastly different from mine. Just as the Admirals concerns are going to be vastly different from yours. Just because you perceive him to be only concerned about cleanliness or other petty issues, doesn't mean that he isn't concerned about a million other issues that day. He doesn't have to share with you his concerns, as my CEO doesn't have to share his with me. Finally, I am sure that the Admiral and my CEO have far more concerns about far more issues on a daily basis than either of us combined. CEOs and Admirals aren't evil simply because they are worried about different things than us.
Justin
-
I agree 100% with your points on the views of the extreme diggits and the extreme haters. Neither view is a realistic illustration of life in the Navy nuke power program.
+1. By the way PB, how'd the Admiral's visit go? Any nuggets of wisdom to pass on to the fleet?
-
I agree 100% with your points on the views of the extreme diggits and the extreme haters. Neither view is a realistic illustration of life in the Navy nuke power program.
As to your second point, no one ever said that a leader doesn't have to understand what you do everyday. Whether they do or not is debatable and your summary dismissal of everyone's opinion as wrong, is wrong. I have read many many books on leadership. No one ever suggested that the Admiral doesn't understand what you do on a day to day basis, except you. Again, you are wrong. I am quite confident that the Admiral does understand what you do on a day to day basis. What he chooses to lay importance on is of his concern, and his alone. How you chooses to perceive his concerns is yours alone. I believe your perception is wrong. That said, I also believe that, again, it isn't his job to worry about what you do on a day to day basis, on a day to day basis. My CEO certainly isn't worrying about Justin everyday and I wouldn't expect him to. His daily concerns are going to be vastly different from mine. Just as the Admirals concerns are going to be vastly different from yours. Just because you perceive him to be only concerned about cleanliness or other petty issues, doesn't mean that he isn't concerned about a million other issues that day. He doesn't have to share with you his concerns, as my CEO doesn't have to share his with me. Finally, I am sure that the Admiral and my CEO have far more concerns about far more issues on a daily basis than either of us combined. CEOs and Admirals aren't evil simply because they are worried about different things than us.
Justin
I stopped reading after the first or second sentence, since you and others didn't see fit to read my comments fairly I won't read yours. I never said "The Admiral has to know how to take a set of SEO logs as well as he manages the entire nuclear program." Everyone extrapolated and twisted my comments, from me trying to point out that a root cause to why my job sucks is that my supervisors don't understand what I have to do every day to get the work done, into the supervisor has to know every single minuscule facet of my job and how to do it. Sometimes you guys read a comment and take it for what it's trying to convey, the crux and nothing more. Then sometimes you read posts like they're RPM procedures or the US Code.
So we're back, again, to you're mistaken.
-
+1. By the way PB, how'd the Admiral's visit go? Any nuggets of wisdom to pass on to the fleet?
My crew was fortunate enough to spend day last (the morning of the Admiral's visit) cleaning like crazy and then allowed to pass on his arrival due to us still being on 12-hr shifts at the time. He talked to everyone, then had a special talk for the supervision complete with a master at arms outside the classroom to keep any eavesdroppers from hearing the yelling that could be heard down the hall. Apparently, he also has tasked the technical directors of the prototypes with defining The Gold Standard. Nice of him to finally get around to that.
The ptypes are hurting now, as far as how happy the Admiral is with us. NY is really bad, and we're only a couple more screw ups away from them.
-
It is my belief that the "Gold Standard" is already defined in everything that we are expected to be able to do. If you can possibly follow every little rule that is made out there, you are the gold standard. What needs to be defined is the bar between passing and failing. Sure you can argue that on a test that bar is pretty cut and dry. However, I can show you that same test's answer key and how there is no grading for understanding whatsoever. I believe the admiral is just wasting people's time with this directive.
-
In fact I did, on several occasions. One of the former PMC's at Charleston said "We are no longer a filter, we are a pump. I control the outlet valve and it is wide open." So yes there is the mentality that get as many through as possible on several levels. You can see it in everything that goes on there. From the mentality that you aren't allowed to give a student less than a 2.4 on anything other than a test. You know why? "It might dishearten them." I got a stern talking to because I gave a kid a 2.3 on a final board. This was a mechanic that didn't even know pump laws or that oil flows through bearings in parallel not series. The Training Manager told me that we don't give students less than 2.4 if they fail. When I told him that my interpretation was that 2.4 was close to passing and this kid was no where close, he reiterated his point. Same thing happened when our division was "informally" told that we couldn't fail a kid on his final watch after the 3rd time. When our LPO flat out refused to obligue the SIT and our LCC, they put him in ERLL and ran 3 drills that never affected him and put him with an ELT watchstander doing a proficiency.
Everyone has seen the shift over the past few years. It used to be two subject failure and you are out of the program. When I was a staff guy at Prototype, we were getting kids that failed two Academic boards and hadn't passed comp yet. So how is that NOT "get everyone through, no matter what". Yea we had 2 people fail out on academics, in the 3 YEARS I was there, and that was only after the kid failed 3 comps and it was found out he couldn't be book complete before his class graduated. That is compared to countless others that should have. Yea I stayed for hours on end after shift helping a guy out. I even stayed on site for over 18 hours just to sit a guys FOB re-board as his EWS guy. But it was because I believed the kid would make a decent operator over time.
This was on the local level. During CMC calls we were told that Bowman said "you will lower your non-academic attrition rates" by the CMC. So thus began so many policy changes that were rediculous. We actually spent several hours a day going to students apartments and doing inspections to ensure they weren't living in cardboard boxes. This wasn't Navy housing either. Although this was started on Bowman's watch, I have yet to see any change in this thought process by Donald. I am sure that there are others that will attest to this.
As a former NPTU Shift Eng, I can back up everything you said here as absolute truth. I can't even begin to count the number of times I and the SIT were crapped on by the OIC because the "potential" of attrition was high. I was overridden numerous times despite my recommendation not to give a student(s) a THIRD COMP or a THIRD FINAL EVALUATED WATCH. I have had to send Chiefs, Crew Master Chiefs and etc. to various students houses, who were UA for many days, just to coax them out so they would come to work(Yes, they were allowed to complete the program). I have pushed through so many E-2's and E-3's, who had been to Captain's Mast multiple times for various character issues, it makes me ill. I have also been reprimanded on more than one occasion for giving a student less than 2.4 on their final oral board(S).
The best was when the Admiral directed NPS and NPTU to form an "Attrition Commission" as one my fellow Shift Eng's liked to call it. One of the tasks of the Attrition Commission was to develop a plan to deal with NPS comp failures that were subsequently sent to NPTU. At the time, there was no "REAL" consequence for failing the NPS comp. The only thing that was done to comp failures was they were sent to an oral board, hands were slapped and then they were sent to prototype. The Attrition Commission's solution was to establish a NPS comp upgrade program and allow another comp prior to allowing students to advance to prototype.
I have read many prototype student files of NPS comp failures that stated something like, "Failed X areas of comp and failed comp overall. Student sent to oral board and it was decided that the student SHOULD "PROBABLY" do well at NPTU". One of my many advisees was a FIVE area comp failure. He failed his 50% exam, required multiple NPTU comps, multiple FEW's, two oral boards and an extension to finish prototype. I hope he made some boat and wardroom proud.
What is the root cause of all this? The Admiral's quotas and policy!!!! What the Admiral wants, he gets!
When I first joined the Navy Nuclear Power program, I received a letter(probably propaganda) in the mail that stated that those in the nuclear program were in the top 1% of the Navy. Definitely not true today!
-
As a former NPTU Shift Eng, I can back up everything you said here as absolute truth. I can't even begin to count the number of times I and the SIT were crapped on by the OIC because the "potential" of attrition was high. I was overridden numerous times despite my recommendation not to give a student(s) a THIRD COMP or a THIRD FINAL EVALUATED WATCH. I have had to send Chiefs, Crew Master Chiefs and etc. to various students houses, who were UA for many days, just to coax them out so they would come to work(Yes, they were allowed to complete the program). I have pushed through so many E-2's and E-3's, who had been to Captain's Mast multiple times for various character issues, it makes me ill. I have also been reprimanded on more than one occasion for giving a student less than 2.4 on their final oral board(S).
The best was when the Admiral directed NPS and NPTU to form an "Attrition Commission" as one my fellow Shift Eng's liked to call it. One of the tasks of the Attrition Commission was to develop a plan to deal with NPS comp failures that were subsequently sent to NPTU. At the time, there was no "REAL" consequence for failing the NPS comp. The only thing that was done to comp failures was they were sent to an oral board, hands were slapped and then they were sent to prototype. The Attrition Commission's solution was to establish a NPS comp upgrade program and allow another comp prior to allowing students to advance to prototype.
I have read many prototype student files of NPS comp failures that stated something like, "Failed X areas of comp and failed comp overall. Student sent to oral board and it was decided that the student SHOULD "PROBABLY" do well at NPTU". One of my many advisees was a FIVE area comp failure. He failed his 50% exam, required multiple NPTU comps, multiple FEW's, two oral boards and an extension to finish prototype. I hope he made some boat and wardroom proud.
What is the root cause of all this? The Admiral's quotas and policy!!!! What the Admiral wants, he gets!
When I first joined the Navy Nuclear Power program, I received a letter(probably propaganda) in the mail that stated that those in the nuclear program were in the top 1% of the Navy. Definitely not true today!
Thank you for giving my argument more weight than just my own experience. Unfortunately this is the norm these days and I feel that tragically we are just a few short years away from a significant nuclear incident in the Nuclear Navy. I hope that I am very wrong.
-
Thank you for giving my argument more weight than just my own experience. Unfortunately this is the norm these days and I feel that tragically we are just a few short years away from a significant nuclear incident in the Nuclear Navy. I hope that I am very wrong.
Don't you think plant design and operating procedures are conservative enough to make a dumb guy safe in the plant? The way I see it, a guy without deep knowledge of plant construction and operation doesn't really have what it takes to do something really bad. The smart guys are the really scary ones. The biggest problem with pushing struggling kids through the pipeline seems more like the fact that they become a load on the division and on supervisors. That drives quality of life down for the people that have to babysit the dumb kid, but it doesn't really pose much danger to the plant or the crew.
-
Don't you think plant design and operating procedures are conservative enough to make a dumb guy safe in the plant? The way I see it, a guy without deep knowledge of plant construction and operation doesn't really have what it takes to do something really bad. The smart guys are the really scary ones. The biggest problem with pushing struggling kids through the pipeline seems more like the fact that they become a load on the division and on supervisors. That drives quality of life down for the people that have to babysit the dumb kid, but it doesn't really pose much danger to the plant or the crew.
After giving it a little more thought, I am not sure that the actual reactor plant could be damaged by someone who truly has no idea what is going on. However, there is A LOT of other stuff in the engine room that a less knowledgeable person could easily destroy and even end up getting some people killed. Between all the electric plant breakers, pumps, valves, steam, and even the jacking gear, there is a lot of dangerous stuff that someone who is less than compentant could easily destory. But as the inspirational poster says "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" All you gotta do is have one person open a wrong valve and you could have an international incident on your hands.
Along those same lines, remember that all it takes is one perceived "major" incident and the public support of the Navy Nuclear Program goes out the window(see USS HOUSTON). As minor as that issue is, to a public that is largely uneducated about nuclear power it is a HUGE issue.
-
...and even the jacking gear...
Back in the fall of 2005, MTS 635 Crew B had the honor of instructing the "smartest" enlisted student ever to complete NPS. The kid graduated with a 3.98 GPA. One fine day/evening/night (I was on Alpha, this guy was a student on my roommates' crew), this brilliant fellow was under instruction in ERUL
xxxxx editted to remove actual equipment and an operating parameter xxxxx
I guess I'm not really making my point here, since the guy just made a rookie mistake (right?). I guess it was just amazing to me to hear that the smartest enlisted nuke ever very well could have destroyed a pretty important piece of gear. By the way, I'm pretty sure they put him in ELT school until his officer stuff got approved. What kind of S*** is that? Make him an ELT because he's smart and sucks as a mechanic.
-
Back in the fall of 2005, MTS 635 Crew B had the honor of instructing the "smartest" enlisted student ever to complete NPS. The kid graduated with a 3.98 GPA. One fine day/evening/night (I was on Alpha, this guy was a student on my roommates' crew), this brilliant fellow was under instruction in ERUL
xxxxx editted to remove actual equipment and an operating parameter xxxxx
I guess I'm not really making my point here, since the guy just made a rookie mistake (right?). I guess it was just amazing to me to hear that the smartest enlisted nuke ever very well could have destroyed a pretty important piece of gear. By the way, I'm pretty sure they put him in ELT school until his officer stuff got approved. What kind of S*** is that? Make him an ELT because he's smart and sucks as a mechanic.
I remember him, we were in the same boot camp division, and I edited the essay for his STA-21 package, but he didn't get picked up, and wound up on a boomer in King's Bay. I believe his division was jacked up and he had a very difficult time of it because he refused to live with the sleaze, that and, if you didn't know him, you would think he was a very funny looking individual, and not realize the brain he had.
I agree that a certain amount of clueless people is acceptable (RT, AEA, ERLL on most underways), from a reactor safety standpoint, say one person in maneuvering and two in the spaces who know what to do and you should be fine, but that leaves eight other people out there who aren't worth too much, and that would definitely make divisional workloads horribly unbalanced.
Besides, aren't we all fearing a bit too much about what is really a small minority of students that make it through the pipeline and shouldn't. I agree it is frustrating to have someone show up who's main use is as a flycatcher, but he can stand SRW, so as long as the pipeline doesn't crank out more that 1/3 waste product, everything will work out, just as it always has.
-
Besides, aren't we all fearing a bit too much about what is really a small minority of students that make it through the pipeline and shouldn't. I agree it is frustrating to have someone show up who's main use is as a flycatcher, but he can stand SRW, so as long as the pipeline doesn't crank out more that 1/3 waste product, everything will work out, just as it always has.
No, we are not fearing too much, that so called "small minority". The amount of time that was/is spent pushing these morons through the program significantly affected/s the rest of the students in the program, not to mention the quality of life of the staff. The crew Masterchief, SIT and myself had to generate/oversee a watchbill that required a crew staff member to come in on +4's to babysit/give checkouts to and prep re-exams for the nuclear challenged.
-
I might have been around for that. I remember one crew was putting in +4s to help dinq students for several months.
But back to heart of the matter, how do we fix this problem and maintain fleet manning?
-
I know. I know. I'm the insensitive one. Hey everybody look at me Mr. Insensitivity. :P
Seriously though:
These kids are in the fleet now. :( >:( You can't put the baby back in the womb. :o This is a disaster waiting to happen. :-X Heck some of the best Navy Nukes got sideways with the 2.5 (or less) from time to time. But, they busted there rear's off doing it. :)
Also, since I'm up on a box right now, this degradation of personal integrity is a real issue. We were told "Give us a reason!" and your gone. These kids don't deserve to be Navy Nukes that have crossed the lines outside of the GPA/Failure issue.
Of course I don't understand this whole 'touchie feelie' Navy anyway. :-[ >:(
But hey that's just me (aka Mr. Insensitive).
(sound of a ex-navy nuke getting off a soap box)
Jason
Don't leave the soapbox yet, preach on brother HoneyComb. Go tell it on the mountain.
I completely and utterly agree with you on this issue. I hate the fact that we have gone from the "boot in the arse and get qualified NUB" Nuclear Navy to the "Let me hold your hand and do your quals for you and nevermind that mean ole' guy that threw you out of a checkout becuase you don't know anything".
Unfortunately I feel that HoneyComb is right in that we have opened up the outlet valve from P-type to full open, have managed to lose the darn handwheel, and bent the stem trying to shut it with a "diggit" tool. As I have said on other threads, I feel that we are a few short years away from a major incident of some kind. It may not be directly related to the RX, but then again we are just one "limp wrist" and gundecked valve checks from having another USS HOUSTON situation.
It was one of my top 5 reasons for leaving after my P-type tour. I did not want to go back to the fleet with some of the "nuclearly challenged" students I saw leave with their NEC in hand. Also wanted to get out and find a job before the term "Navy Nuke" was sullied by those same "challenged" individuals.
-
I too agree with the both of you. There is a story I so want to tell but I am afraid it could still get me into some kind of trouble. :D
Justin
-
You're a civilian now, Justin. Wait until I get out next month; I have 2 cents on this topic as well.
-
You're a civilian now, Justin. Wait until I get out next month; I have 2 cents on this topic as well.
So are you telling me the stories they tell us when we get to Ptype as instructors of going after people when they get out were lies? :) I gotta tell ya then, I was gullible enough to fall for it. :)
Justin
-
So are you telling me the stories they tell us when we get to Ptype as instructors of going after people when they get out were lies? :) I gotta tell ya then, I was gullible enough to fall for it. :)
Justin
Classified information is one thing, your recollections of a broke training program are a different story in my opinion. Its pretty painful here at the moment; probably as bad as I have seen in my 3 years here.
-
(sound of a ex-navy nuke getting off a soap box)
Does that have Anchors Away in the background?
I've been lucky enough to never have received a direct hit from the Pump Policy, but I've seen/heard a handful of examples. I had the pleasure of being the staff adviser on several occasions for troubled students. The one kid was -20% when he departed for CCU. His CO's mast and going to CCU, and eventual removal from the program, I will gladly take credit for because of what a SPU told me who came to my boat before I transferred. I asked him about students not being removed from the pipeline and he said it's possible if the staff adviser documents enough in his ITR. So wrote pages upon pages for each problem kid of mine. And they were all removed.
My kids were enlisted, it's a lot more political to drop an officer. I've seen enough of the Pump Policy to know of its existence and practice, despite what Game Cock ever says. The blatant offenses to the integrity of the program are not as often as this discussion makes them out to be, but then again I'm not privy to everything. What I see more of is all of the little things that add up to the overall effect of "pumping." Like the exam keys for 50% and comps are absolutely embarrassing.
Whatever, the problems are significant and plentiful, hence my imminent separation and the separation of many more others. Others, like me, who had grand intentions of staying navy.
-
Does that have Anchors Away in the background?
I've been lucky enough to never have received a direct hit from the Pump Policy, but I've seen/heard a handful of examples. I had the pleasure of being the staff adviser on several occasions for troubled students. The one kid was -20% when he departed for CCU. His CO's mast and going to CCU, and eventual removal from the program, I will gladly take credit for because of what a SPU told me who came to my boat before I transferred. I asked him about students not being removed from the pipeline and he said it's possible if the staff adviser documents enough in his ITR. So wrote pages upon pages for each problem kid of mine. And they were all removed.
My kids were enlisted, it's a lot more political to drop an officer. I've seen enough of the Pump Policy to know of its existence and practice, despite what Game Cock ever says. The blatant offenses to the integrity of the program are not as often as this discussion makes them out to be, but then again I'm not privy to everything. What I see more of is all of the little things that add up to the overall effect of "pumping." Like the exam keys for 50% and comps are absolutely embarrassing.
Whatever, the problems are significant and plentiful, hence my imminent separation and the separation of many more others. Others, like me, who had grand intentions of staying navy.
I agree with your assessment of officers. As an officer trainer, I spent many many hours pre/post shift helping problem officers get through. The attitude was/is that the ETAs weren't doing their jobs if an officer was failing. I had to prove that a student failed a watch and didn't deserve to just have me "take the watch" and give it back when I was done un-screwing his situation. Then an ETC (my lead ETA and eventual LCC) whom I highly respected, pointed out to me the fact that it does NO GOOD for an enlisted person to fail an officer student on watch. So he never did even as a Chief because they had to be failed by an officer or civilian for any real consequences to happen. So, I stopped failing them on watch too. Saved me a lot of work! So I guess I am partly guilty of being just part of the problem. But to give credit to one of my LTs, he was all about failing officers that should be failing. So if I had a problem officer, he stepped in and stood watch with him and failed him. So it worked out in the end a couple of time. Point of all of this is that contrary to the belief of some, the officer side is broke too. I tried to be part of the solution, but it became too much work and trouble for me. A cop out? Sure, but I was ROAD and didn't give a crap by that point. I still managed high marks from officer student end of courses all the way to EAOS though. That could have had something to do with post watch poker games at my house though. ;)
My solution was to take the word of the ETAs more seriously. I didn't spend all of that time with them and stand all of those watches to have my opinion discounted in the end. We, the ETAs, know what we are talking about.
I am also guilty of pumping one guy (enlisted em) through out of spite. I apologize to anyone serving with this douche. I was chairing this young mans board one day. Before the board, I was reading his record and it was FULL of documentation stating that this kid was doing his best to fail out of the program. That made no sense to me since he passed his exams and all indicators showed that he was intelligent. But, before his board, his staff came to me and said that the kid intended to provide nothing but wrong answers because he wanted out of the program and out of the Navy. Well I decided that if I had to go to sea as a nuke, then why in heck should he get out of it? And sure enough, he provided the wrong answers to everything. You could tell he had to think of a way to answer it wrong. So when we called him back in after grading, I asked "how do you think you did?" He said "I am pretty sure I failed, right?" I said "Wrong shipmate, your a$$ is going to the fleet. congratulations." He wasn't happy. So that's my story. I don't remember his name or anything now, just the look on his face when he thought he was going to get out of the program and realized he was now a nuke headed to the fleet. Wrong, yes, and I am sorry. But I just couldn't bare the thought of letting him get away with something. Hindsight is that he is probably a pain in someones behind now and I feel bad about that. I also realize this story is off topic.
Justin
-
I agree with your assessment of officers. As an officer trainer, I spent many many hours pre/post shift helping problem officers get through. The attitude was/is that the ETAs weren't doing their jobs if an officer was failing. I had to prove that a student failed a watch and didn't deserve to just have me "take the watch" and give it back when I was done un-screwing his situation. Then an ETC (my lead ETA and eventual LCC) whom I highly respected, pointed out to me the fact that it does NO GOOD for an enlisted person to fail an officer student on watch. So he never did even as a Chief because they had to be failed by an officer or civilian for any real consequences to happen. So, I stopped failing them on watch too. Saved me a lot of work! So I guess I am partly guilty of being just part of the problem. But to give credit to one of my LTs, he was all about failing officers that should be failing. So if I had a problem officer, he stepped in and stood watch with him and failed him. So it worked out in the end a couple of time. Point of all of this is that contrary to the belief of some, the officer side is broke too. I tried to be part of the solution, but it became too much work and trouble for me. A cop out? Sure, but I was ROAD and didn't give a crap by that point. I still managed high marks from officer student end of courses all the way to EAOS though. That could have had something to do with post watch poker games at my house though. ;)
My solution was to take the word of the ETAs more seriously. I didn't spend all of that time with them and stand all of those watches to have my opinion discounted in the end. We, the ETAs, know what we are talking about.
I am also guilty of pumping one guy (enlisted em) through out of spite. I apologize to anyone serving with this douche. I was chairing this young mans board one day. Before the board, I was reading his record and it was FULL of documentation stating that this kid was doing his best to fail out of the program. That made no sense to me since he passed his exams and all indicators showed that he was intelligent. But, before his board, his staff came to me and said that the kid intended to provide nothing but wrong answers because he wanted out of the program and out of the Navy. Well I decided that if I had to go to sea as a nuke, then why in heck should he get out of it? And sure enough, he provided the wrong answers to everything. You could tell he had to think of a way to answer it wrong. So when we called him back in after grading, I asked "how do you think you did?" He said "I am pretty sure I failed, right?" I said "Wrong shipmate, your a$$ is going to the fleet. congratulations." He wasn't happy. So that's my story. I don't remember his name or anything now, just the look on his face when he thought he was going to get out of the program and realized he was now a nuke headed to the fleet. Wrong, yes, and I am sorry. But I just couldn't bare the thought of letting him get away with something. Hindsight is that he is probably a pain in someones behind now and I feel bad about that. I also realize this story is off topic.
Justin
They should make a movie of this!! :o :o
That story is funny and scary at the same time.
-
Okay...so how do we fix all these problems?
I have an idea to help on the ELT side of the house. GC, sir, if you have a link to any big whigs, I would really like this one passed on. We either need to send all ELT's to RCTQS (RadCon Tech Qualification School), or take 100% of the RCTQS cirriculum and implement it into ELT school.
I have a couple guys straight out of P-type in my RCTQS class right now (not SPU's, students), which is a great start (I have to admit I am extremely jealous -- I almost had to beg the detailer for it). I think they are learning too much "new" stuff here. They should know it already. I admit that I didn't know some of it until my boat was in overhaul for a bit, and that's a problem. A great deal of being in the Navy is OJT. I know that much, but Radcon is Radcon is Radcon. Based on that I think new ELT's should be exposed to as much of it as possible pre-fleet.
From what I understand, NPTU offers a great deal more radcon training now than they did when I was there as student/staff. That's good, but currently (if it hasn't changed too much in the last few years) ELT school is mostly submarine chemistry and time management (I think they added a surface chemistry finisher for applicable students). I know it would cost a lot of money to extend ELT school or send all ELT's to a 'finishing school,' but the benefit would be worth the cost.
-
I have an idea to help on the ELT side of the house. GC, sir, if you have a link to any big whigs, I would really like this one passed on. We either need to send all ELT's to RCTQS (RadCon Tech Qualification School), or take 100% of the RCTQS cirriculum and implement it into ELT school.
I have a couple guys straight out of P-type in my RCTQS class right now (not SPU's, students), which is a great start (I have to admit I am extremely jealous -- I almost had to beg the detailer for it). I think they are learning too much "new" stuff here. They should know it already. I admit that I didn't know some of it until my boat was in overhaul for a bit, and that's a problem. A great deal of being in the Navy is OJT. I know that much, but Radcon is Radcon is Radcon. Based on that I think new ELT's should be exposed to as much of it as possible pre-fleet.
From what I understand, NPTU offers a great deal more radcon training now than they did when I was there as student/staff. That's good, but currently (if it hasn't changed too much in the last few years) ELT school is mostly submarine chemistry and time management (I think they added a surface chemistry finisher for applicable students). I know it would cost a lot of money to extend ELT school or send all ELT's to a 'finishing school,' but the benefit would be worth the cost.
That is a really good idea. They could divert them to RCTQS from ELT school on the way to the ship. I think they should also work op-waterchem in there too.
Justin
-
Off topic and so wrong,....but tooooooooo funny,...heheheheheheheheheh
In my minds eye I can see that poor bastard changing brushes on an MG in Guam,...
In fact he may have ended up the bad attitude, poor ass bastard who always got to change the brushes,!!!!!!!! All the brushes, all the time!!!!! too funny,....
it's kinda like the Navy was always putting the good guys over the barrel, and the slugs seemed to get all the breaks, but once in a while, every now and then, even though you loathe a small part of yourself for succumbing to the temptation, you could use the ways of the Navy to really put it to some sob who just flat out deserved it,....
thank you for that story,.... 8)
No problem. :)
Justin
-
Well there are several approaches we have to consider on this issue. Most of the are "above my paygrade(thank you BHO)".
We have to maintain X number of qualified nukes in the program at all times. We make up for the ones that leave by training new ones. So in order to raise the overall quality of nukes we have to minimize losses of quality individuals and we have to raise the quality of new trainees. As the links provided earlier stated, 1 in 4 high school graduates are qualified to serve in the military. Now figure that is for all branches of service(we won't count Puddle Pirates at this point for argument sake). Supposedly Navy Nukes are the top 5% of the Navy. So now we are talking about 5% of 25%of all military candidates out of 25% of all high school graduates. So we are handicapped from the start.
Looking strictly at the new recruiting standpoint, we know that the truly intelligent high school graduates, for the most part, go off to college on scholarships. We might get a few of those kids if they party too much and lose their financial aid. So mostly our "pool" to draw from are those that made decent grades but not good enough to get a scholarship and have no other financial aid means to attend college. Of course there are the exceptions such as family tradition to serve, wanting to serve, and all those that really don't fit into any of those categories. Well now with all of these Lottery scholarships, easy to get college loans, and numerous other financial aids, that pool we had to draw from is getting smaller and smaller. So my solution is pretty simple. Get rid of a lot of these financial aid programs. I know that is going to ruffle A LOT of feathers, but if we truly want to see our military and in particular our Nuclear Navy get some better material to work with, it is an avenue that must be considered. It used to be that very few went to college. Those that did were either kids of rich parents, superstar athletes, or extremely smart individuals. Now anyone and everyone is in college and a lot of times it is for the wrong reasons(True story, heard a young lady-about 19 or so- say she wasn't in college to get a degree, she was there to find a husband to take care of her so she didn't have to work, and this was at a community college). I mean you can go to college to be a disc jockey on the radio. Hell you almost have to have a degree to be a disc jockey. So if we do away with all this Government backed financial aid and free college to anyone who wants to go just for the hell of it, then those that TRUELY want to go will see the MGIB as a viable option and head over to the recruiters office. As much as I hate to say it, but based on current events I don't think the "softer, more intelligent types" are going to be signing up in droves to be boots on the ground, which means they will steer themselves toward Navy and AF. VIOLA` we got a lot more people to choose from and can be much more selective in our recruiting process for Nuclear and afford to go back to attrition levels of the good ole' days. If all they give us is 6 years, well we aren't getting much more than that now but maybe, just maybe, a few might actually enjoy the job and stay on a little longer.
And that is how nuclear power works......
-
I keep hearing this over and over.
"It's the Instructors Fault for a students failure!"
1. Why?
2. What happens to the instructor for doing his job? Pass or Fail?
3. What can be done to eliminate this ridiculous thought process?
When I take a student for flight training I don't guarantee his/her success. Just that I'll do my best. The flight schools/instructors that guarantee success teach only to one examiner and don't teach the student to be a good pilot. And, since it is a guarantee they (the student) don't make any strong efforts on the behalf of the instructor. Because now the onus is on the Instructor.
I thought we were told you and you alone would make this (NNPP) a success or not. They provided what was necessary in resources and you provided the effort to make that happen. It was your problem if you didn't succeed. You knew it and you busted your butt.
What's wrong with blaming Students for there failure to succeed?
Jason
I would be willing to wager that, along with myself, anyone who has taught at P-type in the last 6 years or so has been told that "If a student fails, it means you didn't do enough as an instructor to prepare him/her". This applies not only to tests, but to watches, board, hell even life itself. I have sat through severl CMC calls in which the CMC talked about stupid things student have done. Case in point, Student gets license revoked for speeding on his motorcycle. Goes home for the weekend on his motorcycle. On his way back to Charleston, decides it would be a good idea to do 90 mph on I-26. Highway Patrol clocks him and begins to chase him down. Kid sees HiPo, and instead of pulling over, guns it to over 120 mph. Kid clips front end of car while weaving in and out of traffic, launches several hundred yards, almost hits tree. CMC's paraphrased comment--> "So what can we do as staff members to prevent this from happening again."
We have made it standard policy to go to students apartments out in town to ensure they aren't living in a cardboard box. They even tell us to check for alcohol and other stuff. They practically "make" the students sign the form that says they give us permission to go to their apartments(they never tell the students that they don't have to sign the form and they tell the staff advisors not to mention that they don't have to sign it. They being OCTG). I could go on and on about all the hand holding Staff Members are expected to do these days, but there are some older members on this forum and I don't want to be responsible for any heart attacks that might occur when they read what kind of idiotic cluster#$%^ the NNPP has become.
To answer HoneyCombs other questions, if an instructor fails a student on a watch, he has to fill out some paperwork as to why he failed, fill out paperwork for the student telling them what they screwed up and what they need to review for the next time, and inform about 3 other people about the whole thing. All this is done either before or after shift or if you are lucky, you are able to get it done at work IF you have enough people that you have a half off to write everything up. If it is for a board, you have to basically defend yourself and your reasons for failing the guy. But in the end, they either get better or they find someone else who won't fail them and send them on to the fleet. Of course, the civilians don't worry about what kind of operators they are in the fleet. They never have to see them again unless they come back as sea returnees. Their bottom line is how many they have graduate.
-
Heck we dismissed the smartest guy in my class (3.90+ GPA in Power School) two days before COMP due to integrity issues.
No double standards when I went through. Heck I was afraid of the CMC when I went through because of the Tough Guy talks he had with us. What happened to the Chiefs and the Quality Control of the blue shirts?
Who started this mess is were I'm going with these questions.........?
Can of worms. Must resist.
Justin
-
The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.
The stat I have heard used by the ADM is that only 17% of military age people in the US are recruitable...drugs, gangs, police records, obesity, etc.
-
The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.
The stat I have heard used by the ADM is that only 17% of military age people in the US are recruitable...drugs, gangs, police records, obesity, etc.
I've been waiting for you to chime in since this topic started back in May. You probably have a better perspective and insight then all of us combined.
-
I try to practice restraint of tongue and pen. ;D
It's been hard in this case.
I have my opinions, and I'll be happy to discuss them via PM.
-
The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.
AHHH yes, I remember hearing that particular "catch phrase/buzz word" several times at the P-type. It was thrown around by the higher ups all the time when talking about students. It was usually used with other catch phrases/buzz words that were equally ridiculous, yet somehow became the mantric chant of the masses. Things like "Gold Standard(the latest from what I am told)" , "Premiere Prototype", "Change we can believe in", and other things of that sort. There usually is a new one about every 2-3 years, whatever happens to be on the ADM's hit list that year.
-
Perhaps a refresher course is in order. Because you nailed it on the head. It comes down to that one word...responsibility.
"Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the person who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."
So, a good place to start to look when trying to answer the question posed, is to ask yourself what you are personally responsible for, and if you are fulfilling the obligation to that responsibility. Each of us needs to do that, each and every day...students included.
-
In answer to your first question....
Yes, we are told to "coddle" the students in the pipeline. There are dozens upon dozens of stories on this thread and others that illustrate this point. From the day they get off the bus at A school to the day we send them to the fleet as nukes, it is considered the Instructor's responsibility to ensure the student passes. It is the Instructor's resposibility to ensure the student does what he is supposed to and doesn't do anything he isn't supposed to.
As far as who's problem/responsibility it is, I don't believe their is a hard fast answer to that one. Is it a generational problem with today's youth? I believe that is part of it. I also believe that a good portion of it comes from the fact that sometime in the last 10 years, ADM Bowman declared that the attrition rate(academic, non-academic, pychological, character, integrity) was way to high and to fix it. I believe this occured roughly around the late 90s.
I believe the single best place to start is with the quality of people we are getting in the first place. How do we attract the intelligent ones and lure them away from college? Once we figure that out, we have more trying to become nukes. This way we can be a little more chosey when it comes to those we try to get into the program. I don't know if this is the case or not, but there should be a nuke at EVERY recruiting station just to weed out ones that have the test scores but would obviously never make it. If we start early and enforce some REAL academic and character standards, the need to coddle will go away.
On a side note, I never thought this thread would get up to 11 pages. :o :o :o
-
The only answer to your questions is "Yes."
I did it too...mainly out of a sense of self preservation. I wanted to avoid that set of orders to an oiler in the Indian Ocean that was haze grey and perpetually underway. And believe me, I got way more than I bargained for.
-
One thing is for certain, when I go through my checkout process print out of this discussion will be in hand. Note: with 0.7-inch margins, 8 point, Times New Roman, it's 70 pages.
Reading over what everyone's wrote in the last day, I have to think that there's a balance with it all. That is, the parts of the navy/nnpp that suck are just going to suck no matter what. So us sailors have to stop crying and put up with it. Likewise, it's not an instructor's fault if a student fails unless that instructor comes to work to sit on his butt until it's quitting time. It's the strategy of "making us field day for 4 hours in order to to get an hour or so of real cleaning done" (an E-8 on my boat). So tell us that it's our fault if the student fails, so we need to try our hardest to get him to succeed...because there are a lot of lazy instructors at NPTU.
The talk of "responsibility" is apt for some root causes to the problems mentioned here. Blueshirts cry a lot. We're also often very unprofessional and frequently don't do our job well. This creates a vicious cycle of our khakis not trusting us to perform without butt tons of supervision, so we stop caring and cut corners, so we get more supervision...
Sorry if you've heard this before (I hate repeating navy catch phrases): "How often when you pull your car into the driveway do you drive through the garage door? Never. Because you care enough not to do that." When it comes down to it, the mechanic that left the valve out of position or the electrician who messed up a tagout let that happen because they didn't care enough to do what was necessary to prevent an error. In other words, mistakes don't just happen. We let them happen.
In order for the problems to get fixed, the system and the workers have to simultaneously change. Us "deck-platers" have to step up to do our job the way we're supposed to, and the system needs to treat us not like teenagers/janitors/blue collar grunts.
It'll all work out in the end.
-
That is a really good idea. They could divert them to RCTQS from ELT school on the way to the ship. I think they should also work op-waterchem in there too.
Justin
Speaking of Op Water Chem, do any of the surface folks on here know if it's available for A4W ELT's? I was signed up to go to Op Water Chem when I was on the boat, but then I went under the knife and now I'm headed to the surface. I still want the school. It sounds really interesting, and it sounds like a great way to beef up some in-depth competence.
-
I will tell you how to fix the NNPP--Get an Admiral with some nads (obviously not Admiral Bowen who wanted more Nukes passed through the system) to tell Congress that we cannot have the quality of Nukes of 20 years ago with what budget/operations they want the Navy to be held to. Obviously the old corporate "lets do more with less" has been applied to the Navy and there is a huge bunch of careerists that won't speak up and let the higher-ups in the Navy know that something has to give. There are less ships/subs and more operations with less personnel now. Whenever a companies bottom line is more important than quality or doing the job right---quality suffers. This isn't just obvious in the Navy--look at the Generals kissing GW's bu%% and telling him morale is high and some told him we don't even need more troops in Iraq when it was obvious we did. Wouldn't want to mess up the old career though--so I won't rock the boat and not tell them what they want to here. It would be nice to get the horrible state of the quality of personnel in our NNPP known by the general public and a little piece about it on 60 minutes or Dateline would do it good. The way the NNPP is being run is hypocritical at the least with all the talk that integrity is the most important attribute of being a Nuke---that must not apply when it comes to shoving through the sub-par candidates to make the Admiral happy. ;D ;D
-
There is something I have been mulling over for a while now. My boat is in the yards, and working up for PORSE on Monday, so those in the know, know where I am. The weird thing is how we keep saying we aren't going to do anything different for an inspection, and then we decide to do something differently. We weren't wrong to begin with, we just want to look like we are really, really right, rather than just right. I keep thinking about the ORSE we did before we came into the yards, and the workup, and how silly the whole idea really is. If you know when the inspector is coming, you have plenty of time to prepare, to get everything all clean and all the normally screwed up stuff straightened out or hidden, to drill and drill and drill until you are finally "ready" for the inspection. And then after the inspection everyone is so burned out that the boat is back to pre-inspection status in a short time. And it cycles like that constantly, I would imagine on most boats, though I have not got multiple boat experience to draw from. Anyway, I keep wondering if, maybe, just maybe, it would be better if boats did not know months in advance when their ORSE or TRE or BSA was going to be. If ORSE could happen at any time, there wouldn't be standards that could be conveniently overlooked, the standards would have to be upheld at all times. I know squadrons are supposed to police their boats, and they do, to an extent, but they do not have the same power in the mind of a boat that an NPEB has. Just a thought, and a different idea to run with than beating the dead horse of the pipeline's problems.
After getting the fancy equipment that generated PB's gripe about Adm Donalds "dumb" questions (PB, I feel your pain, the install is a PITA, and the admirals all get goggle-eyed at the pretty colors and ask "dumb" questions, except Adm. McKee, who kept saying the RPCP looked "just like Charlie Brown said it would" (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs/membership.html#brown (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs/membership.html#brown) We looked him up after McKee left because we were confused.), which tells you when they started designing the Navy's latest and greatest I&C), I will say those fancy pants computers require just as much operator knowledge to operate, and I know far more about the new computerized stuff than I did about the analog. Just saying. But all that fancy stuff does for us is reduce RC Div's workload, since we were quite severely overworked to begin with, and were prone to miss many a noon tee time and have to settle for two, which barely allowed for the full 18 holes before happy hour. :'( Ahh, the hard life. ;D
-
I have been reading your posts on how to fix the NNPP. I am a newly commisioned officer however I have come from industry to the navy specifically as a NR Engineer. I will be working directly for XXXXX director of RadCom. and will along with six others be performing most of the audits you all complain about. When I go back in October I will show some of these posts to him and see what his suggestions are for some of your comments.
For others I will just say that no matter if you are in the "NAVY" or in "INDUSTRY" you will be most likely working 10-15 hour days with little time for your family depending on the job and location and above all your supervisor.
The NR Audit Engineers job is not to make you uncomfortable or feel like idiots although some of them do and are, it's their job to find things. To make sure everyone is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. In industry they are directly from EPA or FDA in the navy they are from NRL. They all are not looking to keep you in port and they are not out to get you I promise. Our job as auditors is to look at all of the books, procedures, and personnel, as a whole and to be nit picky and overly detailed because ultimately your safety relies on us. If you inadvertently do something wrong but didn't realize it, or wrote down the wrong number ect.... it could cause procedures to be modified based on those inaccurate entries and .... ok you see where I'm going with this. Auditors have the toughest job in the navy we are prescribed with the ultimate safety of the entire fleet and shipyards.
Being that I was an auditor for both EPA and FDA I will tell you that from experience everyone hates us. Try that out as a job. Everything you do or don't do everyone is mad at you. If you find something the "company or navy personnel" are angry you don't and your boss is angry. See you are in a no win situation. Every job has two perspectives one from the guy doing it and one from his boss. Most likely they see the same thing two different ways most of the time.
However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss XXXXXX and see what he thinks. They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.
And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.
Edited to remove a name in accordance with Site Rule #7
-
And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.
Another example of why I try to avoid weighing in on this. If you stay in it must be because you're mediocre. I retire in about three months. I will miss many aspects of being a submarine nuke. Any bitch about things I've hated, I blamed on individuals not the program. Sometimes it is very hard to do that when the individual is the "face of the command". As a CPO, I believe it is my job to either fix a problem or get on board with it. Sometimes that is tough medicine to swallow. I wasted lots of energy as a young CPO getting wrapped around the axle about how some things got passed down. I've learned to focus (or try to focus) on the message vice the manner in which it was delivered.
I think what pisses people off about audits is that they are inevitably graded against somebody else, vice against a hard standard. The men in the fleet churn to respond to the latest "best practice" vice meeting the requirements. Many steps taken recently to reduce requirements are a step in the right direction, but "leaving it up to the command" on how to document what they've done to meet requirements will inevitably force guys to train against audit and inspection reports vice the source documents. As a member of a squadron I audit records and review training plans. I try to do this against a standard, while at the same time trying to show ways to improve efficiency that I learned myself or have seen used effectively on other boats. I am probably a poor auditor because I remember how hard it is to meet so many requirements while still getting the ship ready to go to sea. I do not necessarily agree with most of the griping here; but I do respect the guys in the arena, fighting the tough fight.
With regard to audit comments, if you say, "Contrary to paragraph blah of blah, the ship failed to perform blah". I can fix that. If you say, "The effectivenes of the audit and surveillance program was reduced because the command never completed an overarching assessment of all the audit programs," I say stick it because there is no requirement for an overarching assessment. We need men to work in accordance with a standard, not spend time drafting reports with big thoughts on how to safely do paperwork.
That's all I have to say about that (for now).
P.S. I'm at least slightly above mediocre. What I lack in talent, I make up for with charisma.
-
To make sure everyone is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. In industry they are directly from EPA or FDA in the navy they are from NRL.
Our job as auditors is to look at all of the books, procedures, and personnel, as a whole and to be nit picky and overly detailed because ultimately your safety relies on us. If you inadvertently do something wrong but didn't realize it, or wrote down the wrong number ect.... it could cause procedures to be modified based on those inaccurate entries and .... ok you see where I'm going with this.
Being that I was an auditor for both EPA and FDA I will tell you that from experience everyone hates us.
Everything you do or don't do everyone is mad at you. If you find something the "company or navy personnel" are angry you don't and your boss is angry. See you are in a no win situation. Every job has two perspectives one from the guy doing it and one from his boss.
They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.
And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones.
Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.
I suggest that you get someone else to edit what you write before submitting anything to anybody that will be judging you by how well you write. For example, ect [sic] is an abbreviation for etcetera, which is properly abbreviated as "etc."
You defend your job by saying that you and other auditors are tasked to be nit picky [sic] (should be nitpicky, which is what I'm being at this moment). The definition for nitpicky is to be overly critical, especially on trivial matters; focused on only trivial aspects.
That is exactly what is wrong with the whole process. You are not the saviors of trivia, but another set of eyes prone to the same mistakes that everyone else can make. Every book I have ever read about quality basically states that there is no such thing as 100% inspection, which means that you will always miss something. You, mister, might also miss that something.
Your job should be to put quality into the product or process, not to inspect quality into it. What infrastructure are you helping organizations to build to help prevent these mistakes in the first place? This would be classified as the helpful approach. You see, you must find something to justify your job. You would not have a job if there is nothing to find. Moreover, because you are not in the business of helping to prevent the "defect" from initially occurring...there will ALWAYS be something to find!
By the way,did you know that some synonyms (words that do not sound the same but could be used to mean the same thing) for nitpicky are: Indecisive, inconsistent, changeable, capricious, vacillating, unpredictable, erratic, picky, choosy, and fussy?
Change your perspective, tell the folks how they can prevent potholes from occurring instead of pointing out a pothole they missed filling or repairing.
deltarho (on a rant--I did not take my Adderall, yet)
-
For others I will just say that no matter if you are in the "NAVY" or in "INDUSTRY" you will be most likely working 10-15 hour days with little time for your family depending on the job and location and above all your supervisor. ....
However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss Mueller and see what he thinks. They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.
And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.
I do not believe that I have seen one post on here that has stated that nukes were unhappy because we are overworked and need more time off when that work is meaningful and mission critical. I could be wrong. You WILL see posts about how nukes hate being kept around "just in case" and told to work long into the night to "field day" the boat for some darn audit or ADM's inspection. I have never heard a nuke complain about how long he has to work if they are overhauling a pump because they can't get underway without it. I have never heard nukes complain about pulling "Port and Re-Port" watch rotations on a duty day as long as they got the next day off, if it was feasible. I HAVE heard nukes complain about having to stay up all night painting a bulkhead because it wasn't pristine and then told they had to work until 2000 the next day also.
If there is serious work to be done, then nukes will do the work, do it right, and won't sleep until it is done. There will be no serious complaints about it(you might get a few comments on how crappy the coffee is). If it is some mindless BS that is done just for the sake of being done, then yes you are going to hear about it from everyone. To say that nukes are complaining about working too hard and needing time off is misleading and flat out wrong. Nukes are complaining about BS work and getting liberty withheld "just in case something happens" .
-
However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss and see what he thinks.
I would be careful about presenting this unfiltered commentary to XXXXXXXXXX, especially if you just started there.
Edited to remove a name....
Site Rule #7
7. Peoples name’s: Don’t use them, they lead to law suits. Some names are already censored because of this. Don’t use names in stories or messages that could in any way be taken wrong.
-
First of all I am an engineer not an english major. Second of all I am not a mister I am a madam thank you.
The comments I made come directly from the posts within the frame work of the question asked originally. So for the guy who keeps patronizing me because I inadvertently spelled etc ect. you are going to have to do better.
I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, along with a Masters in Polymer Chemistry, and a BS with Honors in Chemistry, I have worked for 13 years in industry before joining the Navy at Harris Nuclear Plant as the head chemist, Tunnell Research Institute re-designing their reactor, EPA, FDA, Exxon, Bayer, BASF, Philip Morris. So I know what I'm talking about. What's your experience again?
See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked. So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.
Sorry about the name didn't get to rule #7 yet. Wont make that mistake again. Thanks for the knowledge. First time here as of yesterday.
-
See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked. So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.
Hey, I understand that you're trying to help, however, people have been much more candid on this forum than they would have been if they had known it would be presented to a section head at NR Headquarters. Your boss and others may not receive some of the anecdotes in this thread very well. I've been around a while and I deal with headquarters from time to time. Its your decision to make and this is a public forum, but don't say I didn't warn you...
-
I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, along with a Masters in Polymer Chemistry, and a BS with Honors in Chemistry, I have worked for 13 years in industry before joining the Navy at Harris Nuclear Plant as the head chemist, Tunnell Research Institute re-designing their reactor, EPA, FDA, Exxon, Bayer, BASF, Philip Morris. So I know what I'm talking about. What's your experience again?
All of those whistlestops, divided into 13 years, average to about 1.5 years apiece. Many of the posters here run 6-10 times that exclusive to the NNPP. Check the attitude at the door.
See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked. So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.
Lots of conclusion leaping. If that is the quality of audit work you perform, I'd start typing another resume.
Is your "offering to help you guys out" a subjective, conditional offer based upon how we make you feel at the time?
Recommend ditching the ad hominem attacks. This could quickly degenerate to a "conduct unbecoming of a commissioned officer" issue. Don't think that NAVSEA 08 and ChiCom intel agents don't read this board, we've dealt with both over the years, long before 'help arrived'.
/end
-
I do not believe that I have seen one post on here that has stated that nukes were unhappy because we are overworked and need more time off when that work is meaningful and mission critical. I could be wrong. You WILL see posts about how nukes hate being kept around "just in case" and told to work long into the night to "field day" the boat for some darn audit or ADM's inspection. I have never heard a nuke complain about how long he has to work if they are overhauling a pump because they can't get underway without it. I have never heard nukes complain about pulling "Port and Re-Port" watch rotations on a duty day as long as they got the next day off, if it was feasible. I HAVE heard nukes complain about having to stay up all night painting a bulkhead because it wasn't pristine and then told they had to work until 2000 the next day also.
If there is serious work to be done, then nukes will do the work, do it right, and won't sleep until it is done. There will be no serious complaints about it(you might get a few comments on how crappy the coffee is). If it is some mindless BS that is done just for the sake of being done, then yes you are going to hear about it from everyone. To say that nukes are complaining about working too hard and needing time off is misleading and flat out wrong. Nukes are complaining about BS work and getting liberty withheld "just in case something happens" .
Nicely put PB. I can speak for your hard work ethic as truth...I remember how hard you worked while we served together; again I say thanks.
Now, back to the topic; how to fix the NNPP...I have no earthly clue; however, it was good to me and hopefully I was good to it. Now, I'm enjoying Navy retirement and the commercial industry.
Life is Good!
-
Recommend ditching the ad hominem attacks. This could quickly degenerate to a "conduct unbecoming of a commissioned officer" issue. Don't think that NAVSEA 08 and ChiCom intel agents don't read this board, we've dealt with both over the years, long before 'help arrived'.
I'm not sure what what you are referring to with this statement?
First it's possible to work more than one job at a time, and second I am a well respected auditor within the industry and have been for more than 8 years. So I wouldn't comment on someone's performance unless you have actually seen it in person.
Is your "offering to help you guys out" a subjective, conditional offer based upon how we make you feel at the time?
No, if you have a legitimate grievance with the NUPOC program I have no problem telling someone in Top Command about it.
So far all I've seen lately is attacks directly against my character to which you know nothing about. Perhaps I was a little aggressive in my defense, however the navy is a man eat woman environment and you attacked me.
So I will forgive your fous pax (?)(not sure if it's fou or fous, I can't remember) if you'll forgive mine since I'm new here and am still learning the ropes a bit.
-
I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, ...
First time here as of yesterday.
Here I go being nitpicky again, MADAM. Perhaps you can illuminate us with more clarification about the two doctorate degrees thing...So, was it "at the same time" or "in tandem" as you stated? You see, I'm a self-appointed auditor that is here to "help" you.
You have been here less than a week and you torqued Hydro Dave. I know Hydro Dave...that isn't easy to do, really. I digress.
I sincerely hope, (Don't confuse hope with expect. I hope to win the lottery; however, I don't expect to win the lottery.) you learn from rereading your own postings that people, and I hope you are a people, make mistakes.
For example, back to my original request in this post. You intimated that simultaneous can mean either at the same time or in tandem. I beg to differ! Tandem means back to back or one behind the other. At the same time would be side by side or in parallel--like at a photo finish. Crossing the finish line in tandem hardly requires a photo finish, unlike crossing simultaneously.
Please, stop while your ahead. I noticed you tried to raze me about the "etc." comment, but failed to weigh in about your use of the word nitpicky. Should I assume that I did do better?
-
First of all I am an engineer not an english major. Second of all I am not a mister I am a madam thank you.
The comments I made come directly from the posts within the frame work of the question asked originally. So for the guy who keeps patronizing me because I inadvertently spelled etc ect. you are going to have to do better.
I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, along with a Masters in Polymer Chemistry, and a BS with Honors in Chemistry, I have worked for 13 years in industry before joining the Navy at Harris Nuclear Plant as the head chemist, Tunnell Research Institute re-designing their reactor, EPA, FDA, Exxon, Bayer, BASF, Philip Morris. So I know what I'm talking about. What's your experience again?
See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked. So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.
Sorry about the name didn't get to rule #7 yet. Wont make that mistake again. Thanks for the knowledge. First time here as of yesterday.
cyclicrings,
You have a perception problem, in my opinion. Your first post alluded to two things that really chap my a$$. One, you opened with a statement that basically said the navy only retains mediocre people. To those who have served past their first tour that is a slap in the face. If you like NR and are retained there, does that make you mediocre as well? Second, you basically stated that auditors must find deficiencies, no matter how mundane, to cover their backs. I suggest that if auditors feel like they must find comments to please their boss, they find a different line of work. Any one in the program should feel an obligation to do things right and make the program better, not bean count the number of comments you can find.
One more thing about perception. You rattle off your academic accomplishents and experience with some amount of pride, and rightfully so. Somebody might just as well look at all the places you've worked in 13 years and think you don't know how to hold a job or don't work well with others. Others might think while you were in school, they were operating nuclear reactors in all the oceans of the world, sometimes in harm's way. Now you're going to come down and tell us how to do it better? There's some educations you can't get in school.
I have worked very closely with NR engineers and active duty personnel on a few occasions. For the most part, they are the finest professionals I have interacted with. Good Luck.
DM
-
I would be careful about presenting this unfiltered commentary to XXXXXXXXXX, especially if you just started there.
I could not agree more. In spite of your credentials and education, you will still be a "junior" NR engineer. Might want to get your paddle wet in the canoe club before you tip the canoe over and discover the water is over your head.
And please, think about what you are writing. Anything you say here, under the auspices of working for NR, can be construed as speaking for the program. Not a good situation for a junior NR engineer to be in.
Like I said before, restraint of tongue and pen.
'Tis better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and prove it.
-
First of all I am an engineer not an english major. Second of all I am not a mister I am a madam thank you.
The comments I made come directly from the posts within the frame work of the question asked originally. So for the guy who keeps patronizing me because I inadvertently spelled etc ect. you are going to have to do better.
I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, along with a Masters in Polymer Chemistry, and a BS with Honors in Chemistry, I have worked for 13 years in industry before joining the Navy at Harris Nuclear Plant as the head chemist, Tunnell Research Institute re-designing their reactor, EPA, FDA, Exxon, Bayer, BASF, Philip Morris. So I know what I'm talking about. What's your experience again?
See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked. So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.
Sorry about the name didn't get to rule #7 yet. Wont make that mistake again. Thanks for the knowledge. First time here as of yesterday.
In all that extensive college education did you ever take a critical thinking class? You completely missed the point of deltarho's post.
And don't accuse us of attacking you because you're a woman. No one here is like that, and you're unjustified in making that accusation. As previously stated, check your attitude at the door. Your college degrees mean as much as my barber's hairstyling license when it comes to first-hand knowledge of operating a reactor plant, madam.
You're also coming off like those people who hear about a puppy mill in their county, get all horrified, and when they hear of another one they race to the officials to blow the whistle, only to be disappointed by the lackluster response. Like everything else that's undesirable in this world, the problems of the NNPP aren't going to go away just because somebody waves the distress flag. It's been waved before, the whistle has been blown many times; just sit back and think of more strategically effective ways to make things better.
My old LPO used to hate it when one of us, or anyone else when he was EDPO, would come to him with a problem and no solution...he'd say "You're bringing me a turd. Go away and figure out a solution, then come back to me." You'd be doing that with going to your bosses with a printout of this discussion.
-
Cyclicrings,
Who is "Top Command?" When you use words like that, I think the Joint Chiefs. I am not sure they care about our musings here, right now. Maybe after this pesky war. :P
Ok all joking aside...
I must also reemphasize the caution on appearing to speak for NR. I made the grave error in judgment once on here when I said something along the lines of "the Admiral wants the plants back up ASAP." Didn't matter that I just said what he said to us at Ptype. My butt was handed to me because "who the heck are you to speak for the Admiral?" I was an MM1, you are just an ensign (maybe). Tread lightly.
Additionally, you stated in another post that you have just accepted a position, but here you said you are newly commissioned officer. Which is it? Either way, on what planet does a brand new employee get to walk into the CEOs office and tell him whats AFU with his company on the first day, especially when none of the research/experience is of her own doing? Just curious.
And no offense to you or your VAST experience, madam, but I would rather leave this to the experts in the field. The officers, Chiefs and COs who have spent a lifetime in the NNPP that can internalize and personalize all that is wrong with the program. They are better suited and better equipped to inform "Top Command" of the problems then some junior engineer who just put on her nice new uniform. Contrary to what you stated and might think, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. So your offer not to help, is accepted by me, for one.
I would rather you just went about your business and did your part to make the program better by being, as you say, nitpicky.
Thanks for your future service, though.
Justin
-
Justin,
I think her point was that alot of us on here had a huge gripe about higher ups in the COC not listening, not being informed, acting surprised when told of issues, etc. So, maybe she felt she was helping. Let her. If she feels that she can effect change from her vantage point, maybe she can, maybe not. Hell, it's better than trying to effect change through a website. ;-)
Cyclicrings,
Oh where should I begin. Ahh yes, you are a NR Engineer. So what your job entitles is that you have no NAVY experience, and you are going to come in and show us how to do things per our instructions. I don't know if you have read ANY of our RPM's, SPM's, RADCON, or Chemistry manuals yet, but as nukes, we take everything in those manuals very literally. If you put a should or a could, its optional. If you put a must, or a will, its law. As I overheard one of the fine people who wrote one of these books say, we as Navy Nukes take things way too literal, when we should be focusing on the simple requirements.
I do not know if you have seen or been trained on how NRRO performs their audits yet, but if you haven't I'm sure you are in for a surprise. Imagine if you will, seeing or issuing an audit, that the only hit on it was a "dirty catch". Then imagine taking yourself to that area, and seeing the catch has a minor layer of dust on it. If you would stand by for a few minutes, you would see a chief getting his panties all bunched up because his suboordinates did not have it spotless prior to the audit, even though less than an hour ago, there was a worker grinding in the area, creating a cloud of dust to sprinkle all over. The corrective action for this hit, was that the junior sailor was counseled, and the catch was cleaned and all compressible items were bagged as radioactive material. Wait you say, why are they making all this RAM? Just because the color of the catch is yellow.
Now thank you for your time to post on here and offer assistance, but as you can see, the problem is very deep ingrained into most levels of management because there are too few people who will tell an NRRO auditor that their hit is bogus (this is because the NRRO auditor gets to sit down and have a chat with the commanding officer of the ship after his audit).
What this program needs, is auditors that are STRICTLY by the book. Not this good practice crap. If you didn't violate any procedures, regulations, or requirements, you are within compliance. If you effectively lowered the man-rem for a job, hell get a pat on the back, not told that you still did it messed up and need to change your tactic next time.
Oh and as to my qualifications, I have spend 7 years in this company, completed one MS degree, almost done with the next MS, and yes, I have trained NR Engineers on some aspects of their job. I have seen the Navy do some terrible things to some good people, all because they couldn't "play the game" well. I have seen this same Navy commend and award buttkissers on a daily basis. You will see enough of this I am sure as well.
Oh well, enough of my ranting.....back to calling my congressman.....
Jason
-
Have to agree with JsonD on at least one aspect. The one hit I ALWAYS hated was the dreaded...
"Contrary to good engineering practices, ERUL did ....."
I have never seen a "good engineering practices" manual anyone at any command. If it exists I am sure that it is "good engineering practice" not to allow incompetent idividuals operate complex machinery, but we seem to have no problem doing that on several occasions. I am sure that it is "contrary to good management practices" to keep individuals at work for 4 extra hours on the last day of their shift week in order to having emergency training because of an event that was caused by one person who was just stupid for a brief moment, but you never see that on an audit sheet anywhere.
Ok enough of my rant, I agree that Cycle may have been attempting to help but was going about it the wrong way, not to mention not having test these shark infested waters before such a detailed post. I am sure that at some point in time we would all like to have a nice, candid, no reprecussions allowed talk to some O-6 and ups about things we feel need to be addressed. Some of us would be more PC than others, and all of us would have varying examples to point out what we feel is broken. As NavLi said, I don't have a hard lock answer. I know the NNPP made me a much better person through the numerous character building evolutions and I hope that I have left a positive influence on someone, somewhere in the fleet(for any students that went through the 626 in the last few years, hope you enjoyed the valve location book. That was my idea).
-
They have a valve location book now????? Wow that coulda made stuff so much easier when I was going through.....especially having to operate the 8k's lol.
Jason
-
Marssim,
so true, so true.....however, i was able to get good water outta the damned thing within 10 minutes cold by the time i left ;-)
-
They have a valve location book now????? Wow that coulda made stuff so much easier when I was going through.....especially having to operate the 8k's lol.
Jason
Yes they have several of them on the boat. I asked MOD if they could take all the valve locations from the small valve maintenence booklets and put them into a excel spreedsheet. Wasn't 100% accurate but it did give general locations which really helped when doing Valve Line Ups on Hydraulics and some other wonderfully infrequent ops. Students picked up real quick that they could use it for studying for watches for valve locations.
-
So would've a light off procedure that was couched in reality,.... ;)
Depends on whose reality you are couched in.....
Marssim,
so true, so true.....however, i was able to get good water outta the damned thing within 10 minutes cold by the time i left ;-)
Yes but it is much easier when you are distilling potable water into potable water. One on a carrier would take about 15 minutes to get going(30 if it was dead cold) and about 45 min to make good water after you got it going.
-
I have never seen a "good engineering practices" manual anyone at any command.
You must have missed it. Its right next to the "Book of Tribal Knowledge". ;D
-
You must have missed it. Its right next to the "Book of Tribal Knowledge". ;D
No that book was stuffed in the overhead between the main engines.
Ok, I am going to try to get back on topic.
Yes there seems to be the thought process that during an audit you MUST find something or else you aren't doing your job. Worst part is, it is usually something really small and easily fixed. No big deal, except that there is all the paperwork generated to fix it. You have the paperwork to document the hit itself, then all that gets put into the overall list of hits, which then have to be put into at least 3 different deficiency logs, then you have possibly open up WAFs and tagouts to immediately fix it, when it is fixed you have to document that it was fixed, close out the deficiency log entry, ensure that all the hits are fixed and send up some paperwork to the auditor saying that everything is fixed.
All that for something as minor as a screw missing on a electric panel or something else like that.
-
And in the land of commercial "little things", a screw missing on some breaker cabinets essentially inops its associated load.
Just one little eensy beensy thumb screw and you just inop'd a portion of core spray...
Bring on the paper work!!!
So what's worse, 6 pages of paper documenting a single deficiency or 66 pieces of paper caused by the missing screw that allowed just enough extra clearance that an errant drip of water was able to find its way into the cabinet and short out something that tripped something that broke something...
-
I have never seen a "good engineering practices" manual anyone at any command.
It's defined and discussed in the NRTBs.
-
Not trying to be argumentative here but, I'll take Broadzilla's position: Take the time to do some research on what the NR HQ organization does and what the NRRO field offices do before you post your gripes about them. Its obvious from the many mentions in this thread that alot of folks don't understand what the organization and its parts do.
Comments made out of ignorance don't make them valid except from the ignoramus' perspective. And that's fine, as long as you admit there are at least two sides to every story. What a second class petty officer deals with as a result of actions by NR or NRRO is very different from what the CO/RO/ChEng/Eng perceive or deal with.
I realize that perception is reality, but only your own reality.
In the end though, its all about compliance with directives and procedures to keep our ships and boats operating so that they can do what they were built to do...go to sea, in harm's way, and return...with everyone and everything safe and sound.
-
ok first and foremost, im just a recruit. And the only reason i am connected the the nuke program is a piece of paper that says i will have that chance. So i don't have first hand experience on what is or isn't wrong with the program. But as i read through these post i see a lot of fingers pointing at problems (some bigger than others) , but no hands on how to fix it (outside of telling someone else whats wrong). I know the hoops i had to jump to get a chance and i believe i know how hard i will have to work to make this happen for me, so i have respect for everyone who has done it before me. Im sure the average IQ on this post is over 140 so get in gear and find some answers. No boss navy or civilian wants to hear a problem with no solution. But in the end im just a recruit.
-
Thanks for your input, but I have to disagree with you. As I read through the thread and filter out the personal anecdotes and gripes, any real problem someone suggests they most often do present their idea of a solution. I do agree that if you remove the personal stories, this thread would probably be 5 pages long. I also look forward to your take in a few years.
Jason,
I agree, she can help anyone can... I just don't think the idea of a junior engineer (ensign), that has no clue what the problems really are, printing this thread out and carrying it to "top command" is a good plan. Although my response to her was crafted in the same spirit as hers, that is all I was trying to say.
Justin
-
Its obvious from the many mentions in this thread that a lot of folks don't understand what the organization and its parts do.
Comments made out of ignorance don't make them valid except from the ignoramus' perspective. And that's fine, as long as you admit there are at least two sides to every story. What a second class petty officer deals with as a result of actions by NR or NRRO is very different from what the CO/RO/ChEng/Eng perceive or deal with.
I realize that perception is reality, but only your own reality.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you to a point, but I am not sure I agree that it is right. I understand that a 2nd class Petty Officer will see things and will have to deal with NRRO differently than the ENG, but why is that so? Why shouldn't he be shown the true meaning behind a "stupid hit?" If you believe that blue shirts complain simply because they don't understand, then why not help them to understand? Why wouldn't you educate him so that he isn't and ignoramus anymore simply because he perceives thing differently then you? More often then not, the complaining blue shirt is just disregarded and that is as much of a problem as him complaining out of ignorance. Additionally, I think you are too quick to dismiss a complaining PO2 as ignorant. I think you are wrong in your assertion that people in this thread are ignorant about how things work on "the other side." I actually think this thread is full of evidence that blue shirts are quite aware of how things are. Dismissing them as ignorant isn't going to get you anywhere.
Would you mind providing some examples of our ignorance, and then set us straight so that we can stop being ignoramus'?
Thanks for your help.
Justin
-
Not accusing anyone here of being ignorant or an ignoramus. Just pointing out that a person's perspective is limited.
NRRO guys are people too. Feel free to stop one of them when you see them down on the boat and actually talk to them. Yes, a few bad apples can spoil the bunch, but thats true anywhere. For the most part, you'll find them to be personable, interested in what's going on, and willing to listen. But you have to recognize that by virtue of their position, they aren't always going to provide you what they are thinking because they have the larger program interests to protect. Could the COC provide more perspective? Probably. Why don't they? I don't know.
The PO2's perception is his reality...I think I agreed with that. Like I said, not trying to be argumentative here. The PO2's of the world make it go round, so I'm not dismissing anybody.
And I'm certainly not in any position to defend any comments provided by someone else. So don't ask me about "BS" hits, because I can't speak to it.
Again, my comment was not intended to call anyone ignorant...perhaps I should change it to perceptually challenged? ;D
That said, I stand by my opinion that there is alot of misinformation out there about NR and NRRO. Its not my place to correct that in a public forum. As I (and others) stated implicitly in previous posts, only one person speaks for the program, and that's the ADM. I'd be happy to discuss what I do for living with any of you privately.
-
Not accusing anyone here of being ignorant or an ignoramus. Just pointing out that a person's perspective is limited.
NRRO guys are people too. Feel free to stop one of them when you see them down on the boat and actually talk to them. Yes, a few bad apples can spoil the bunch, but thats true anywhere. For the most part, you'll find them to be personable, interested in what's going on, and willing to listen. But you have to recognize that by virtue of their position, they aren't always going to provide you what they are thinking because they have the larger program interests to protect. Could the COC provide more perspective? Probably. Why don't they? I don't know.
The PO2's perception is his reality...I think I agreed with that. Like I said, not trying to be argumentative here. The PO2's of the world make it go round, so I'm not dismissing anybody.
And I'm certainly not in any position to defend any comments provided by someone else. So don't ask me about "BS" hits, because I can't speak to it.
Again, my comment was not intended to call anyone ignorant...perhaps I should change it to perceptually challenged? ;D
That said, I stand by my opinion that there is alot of misinformation out there about NR and NRRO. Its not my place to correct that in a public forum. As I (and others) stated implicitly in previous posts, only one person speaks for the program, and that's the ADM. I'd be happy to discuss what I do for living with any of you privately.
I think the NukeLDO narrows it down. ;)
Anyway, that larger program interests you mentioned, that is what I am talking about. Maybe those PO2s should be told the larger program interest. Give them the proper perspective so that they can understand why they are being told "this is a best practice" etc. There really shouldn't be a "us vs them" perception, but there is, IMHO.
I am sorry that I misunderstood your original post. I read it as you were talking about specific things said in this thread, and wanted some clarification.
Justin
-
Damm underline function!!!
10% rule applies.
Back to the topic....where did our new helpful junior NR engineer go?
-
I defense of my previous posts, there is nothing wrong with doing something better than the last guy. The problem lies when that is the expectation, your COC tells the auditor that that is the law of the land, and then the auditor writes up a deficiency based upon that. No real rule has been broken, however you didn't do something the way they wanted to see it. So then immediate corrective action follows, and et cetera. I just think that its wrong to say "hey this is the best way to do it, so its how it MUST be done". This leads to your technician just blindy following because when they tried to use their brain, they got smacked for it. ;-)
Jason
-
An Essay On Perception
"This could be very damaging to your career." Say that exact phrase to 99% of the blue-shirt population, and the responses you'll receive in return will usually have the flavor of "What planet are you from originally?". In contrast, among the majority of the Officer population (and a significant percentage of the CPO population), the exact phrase given above is generally closer to saying "You will be put to death by firing squad, and your family will be billed for the bullets we use". I'm not 100% sure how the Ensign population at large is delivered to the fleet with such an inflated sense of doom and danger about their individual career progressions. Even if you level the playing field for age (to account for a few years' difference between the average ages of a newly-reporting Ensign and a newly-reporting PO3), there is still a tremendous disparity between the average "fear factor" levels which members of these two groups have for own their individual careers.
And I think that the military (it's not just the NNPP or even the Navy) has a way of wielding "career" like a 9lb hammer with its Officer corps. Every Department Head and Div-O gets a FitRep from their CO, and every CO gets a FitRep from their Commodore, & so on & so on right up the line. And surely the heavens will fall and the seas will part if there is anything on said FitRep which causes an Officer to get passed by for promotion. But FitReps and the "career hammer" are used all the way down the line to ensure that Brass gets what Brass wants; after all, they are the ones who ultimately have their finger on the button of everyone's career below them. And this "career fear" is an intrinsic part of the lives of so many Officers - sometimes even on a day to day basis.
So why do I bring this up? Because so many times, I have heard the "I have a broader perspective" argument brought up as a cover story, when the most honest wording of the rebuttal would have been ultimately closer to "because that's how the Brass wants it to be, and I really don't want to be passed over for my next promotion". An even more disturbing fact is that the setup of this particular system actually protects its own existence; there are no whistleblower protections in the military - if you piss off the Brass, you're going to get f***ed, end of story and welcome to the world of the 9lb hammer.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that everybody uses "I have a broader perspective" as a method of obfuscation. And NukeLDO, I am not trying to say that this is what you are doing. But you should understand that enough of your predecessors and peers have use this tactic to dilute the true import when YOU speak these words. (More to follow on this in a few moments.) And Justin, keep in mind that "the broader perspective" at times will really come down to something that most PO2's won't give a rat's ass about - how would you propose to motivate the troops in light of this?
My next observation about the "I have a broader perspective" statement is an evaluation of the simple merit of this statement on its own. Let's assume that the speaker in this particular example truly does have a broader perspective than his audience, such as in the case of ENS SuperJO talking to Lower-Level Louis. Odds are good in this little tableau that Lower Level Louis has a more in-depth perspective of the equipment on his watchstation than ENS SuperJO, by virtue of the fact that he actually operates said equipment regularly. So then, naturally, the debate shifts to "which is better - a broader perspective, or a more in-depth perspective?".
To which I reply, "the answer is obvious: if you had to pick one, which type of perspective would you rather be without?" The answer to this question is obvious, because the answer to this question is 'neither'. Neither perspective is inherently "better" than the other. Thus, the "I have a broader perspective" statement by itself is essentially meritless, and can usually be effectively countered with the equally meritless "I have a more in-depth perspective" statement. If either statement is the most definitive or persuasive one that a speaker can come up, then they might as well just stick with "because I said so, that's why".
NukeLDO, I do value your inputs and insights - and I am sure that others in this forum do as well. But you are going to have to do better than "I have a broader perspective" and "a person's perspective is limited". Keep in mind, after all, that your own perspective is limited in its own way (just as the particular perspective that I myself have is also limited).
I know that you can do better than this...
As always,
Peace,
- Greg
-
Wow, well said. That is a two reader to make sure I caught it all. Thanks for the effort and perspective!
Justin
-
Thanks for your input, but I have to disagree with you. As I read through the thread and filter out the personal anecdotes and gripes, any real problem someone suggests they most often do present their idea of a solution. I do agree that if you remove the personal stories, this thread would probably be 5 pages long. I also look forward to your take in a few years.
Jason,
And this is when i insert foot in to mouth. i made my first post having not read all the post (there's only so many i can read on a 15 min break). It takes some time to find the answers, but your right they are here.
-
...there are no whistleblower protections in the military...
SECNAVINST 5370.7C "Military Whistleblower Reprisal Protection"
Anyway, thanks for your post. It's rare here to read an actual debate-level response.
-
Not accusing anyone here of being ignorant or an ignoramus. Just pointing out that a person's perspective is limited.
NRRO guys are people too. Feel free to stop one of them when you see them down on the boat and actually talk to them. Yes, a few bad apples can spoil the bunch, but thats true anywhere. For the most part, you'll find them to be personable, interested in what's going on, and willing to listen. But you have to recognize that by virtue of their position, they aren't always going to provide you what they are thinking because they have the larger program interests to protect. Could the COC provide more perspective? Probably. Why don't they? I don't know.
The PO2's perception is his reality...I think I agreed with that. Like I said, not trying to be argumentative here. The PO2's of the world make it go round, so I'm not dismissing anybody.
And I'm certainly not in any position to defend any comments provided by someone else. So don't ask me about "BS" hits, because I can't speak to it.
Again, my comment was not intended to call anyone ignorant...perhaps I should change it to perceptually challenged? ;D
That said, I stand by my opinion that there is alot of misinformation out there about NR and NRRO. Its not my place to correct that in a public forum. As I (and others) stated implicitly in previous posts, only one person speaks for the program, and that's the ADM. I'd be happy to discuss what I do for living with any of you privately.
After reading "The Rickover Effect" I understand a little more of what NRRO is all about, but not enough. Why does it have to be so secret? From reading the book it's explained why NRRO rep's are so anti-social: it's because Rickover wanted it that way. His philosophy was that if you get buddy-buddy with the people you're monitoring, then you're more apt to accept their excuses for why they're not operating IAW the procedures. Basically it's to keep the monitor more objective. Fine, that makes sense. How about some more data points that would help sailors see things as NRRO sees them?
One of the reasons why "things always go wrong when NRRO is watching" is because they come down to the boat with the mentality of searching for discrepancies while we come down to the boat thinking about what has to get done today, what was done yesterday, what do I need to do to setup for X that's happening in a couple days, etc. all the while the assumption is mixed in there that everything is being done correctly. Therefore we're not tuned-in to searching for discrepancies.
-
Definitely not saying I have ultimate or better perception. I too am perceptually challenged.
That said, the approach to things is conceptually different. If you walk down with the mindset that something is wrong, you are probably going to find something wrong. If you approach the subject with the mindset that everything is OK, whatever is wrong is probably going to find you. If more folks approached their tasks with the former mindset, we probably wouldn't have half the problems that find us.
As for which perception is better...I agree it doesn't work as an argument, but remember, I wasn't arguing. But, 99% of the field office NRRO reps have been there, done that. They were Lower Level Louis at one point and have the in depth perspective that comes from having been an operator. They've been the chief of the division and gained some management experience. Consequently, they have a pretty good idea of where the skeletons are. They then gain perspective through performance of their duties as NRRO reps. Lower Level Louis end up learning more than he ever wanted to know about switchboards, chemistry, etc. So in that sense, it is a broader perspective than that of the operator. Who would you rather have working for you?
Additionally, the NRRO of today is not the NRRO of yesterday. Usta' NRRO walked around carrying a big stick and beating people with it. Today, NRRO still carries a big stick but the marching orders aren't necessarily to use the stick. ADM Bowman wanted NRRO to "help." So there has been some shift in that direction over the last 10 years. Ask any SY worker. However, there are still some dinosaurs around. ;D
-
Several good points have been brought up, but first I want to applaud NukeLDO. Thank you for your level-headed response to my point. I didn't get the sense that you were trying to be condescending or antagonistic about "broader perspective", and I tried very hard to reciprocate that in my post. You, sir, are a credit to the Navy and an asset to the NNPP.
SECNAVINST 5370.7C "Military Whistleblower Reprisal Protection"
Thanks for the research! I've never seen this instruction actually in action - do you think it works (or would work, which ever the case may be)?
... His philosophy was that if you get buddy-buddy with the people you're monitoring, then you're more apt to accept their excuses for why they're not operating IAW the procedures. Basically it's to keep the monitor more objective.
You hit it pretty much dead-on. It's similar to the reason a court judge has to recuse himself from a case if he has a personal relationship with anyone on the case. And then finally, there's the fact that HGR believed that anything worth doing, was worth going way to the extreme... :) I am glad that the extremism in this particular area is moderating, as NukeLDO pointed out. And I can bear witness as to having seen this moderating trend before I retired earlier this year. And IMHO, the Field Office in the Portsmouth Naval SY is leading the pack in this trend - I've never dealt with an NRR Office which was better to work with in general than them.
How about some more data points that would help sailors see things as NRRO sees them?
One of the reasons why "things always go wrong when NRRO is watching" is because they come down to the boat with the mentality of searching for discrepancies while we come down to the boat thinking about ...
You actually answered your own question pretty well there. For starters, NRRO does have a different focus than Ship's Force. As you illustrated, NRRO's focus is (of necessity) more limited in its breadth than SF's. Even for the members of Engineering Department, Ship's Force does a ton of stuff which has nothing at all to do with nuclear power. PT, GMT, Quarters on the Pier, Ship's Quals, Section Tracking Party trainers (for ERS's, AEA's, and EOOW's), gun shoots, Career Review Boards, OPTEMPO, and on and on ad infinitum. All of these 'other' things can be - and are - very significant time consumers for SF. When you go down to the boat, all of these things are pinging at you throughout your day. When NRRO comes down to a boat, it's generally for a 2hr Monitor Watch, or to observe some specific special evolution; they are there for a relatively short stint of time, and they have a highly-focused objective to accomplish within that short period of time. As such, they can ideally be completely nuclear-related (i.e. no non-nuclear distractions are occurring) during their entire stint on your ship. (On a side note, this is actually harder than it sounds - try walking through the Engineroom for two straight hours, thinking only thoughts about nuclear requirements & ensuring that said requirements are being met. Then, repeat many many times over - you'll start getting a feel for where they're coming from.) And NRRO's undistracted focus is actually a good thing from a plant safety standpoint, because they can point out things that SF is missing while they're battling with the multi-headed hydra which we call day-to-day shipboard life. And finally, if plant safety is at risk of being undermined by non-nuclear time consumers, NR has the clout to rearrange priorities (up to and including cancelling underways and keeping the ship in port) as necessary to ensure that nuclear requirements are given the time and attention that they need.
One of the things which I misunderstood and underestimated while I was in the Navy is the connection between NNPP and the non-military side of the house (particularly the Department of Energy). For instance, there are a LOT of parallels between DoE RadCon and NNPP RadCon. I'm intrigued by the potential connections between DoE and NNPP now; just how many of the NNPP rules which we know but don't agree with (or perhaps understand) have been brought over to us by NR from the DoE's way of doing business? And similarly, from a purely academic standpoint, how much does the NNPP bleed over into DoE? If NukeLDO or cyclicrings or anyone else could offer a peek behind the curtain here, I would be very interested.
And for JsonD13, "best practices" are one of the best ways to start a fight that I know of - it ranks right up there with politics & religion. Probably the biggest part of the problem is that the definition of "best" is frequently very subjective. What is "best" in one situation (or at one location, or for one person) does not automatically guarantee that it will be the "best" universally. But, the other side of the coin is that any given "best practice" obviously had/has some merit, or else it never would have earned the label "best" practice.
If a best practice ever came around that I didn't agree with, I took it as a homework assignment because often it meant that there was some benefit which I wasn't aware of or didn't fully appreciate/understand. If nothing else, it became a chance for me to make myself "smarter than I used to be". Of course, after looking into them, some of the touted best practices actually turned out to be low-IQ turds from someone simply trying to inflate their own sense of importance. (And FYI, this particular occurrence happens on the commercial side of things also.) But either way, I usually learned something from doing the research. And don't unduly limit the research that you do into new best practices - pull down books from the shelf that you haven't dusted off in several months, and ask people from outside of your current command. If you don't agree with a best practice, then make good and sure that you aren't just sticking with your side of the story; fully understand the other side before you discount it.
So yes, I believe in well thought out best practices. If somebody has built a better mousetrap that I can use, then I want to know about it so I can look into it. I won't guarantee that I'll use it exactly "as-is", because like I mentioned earlier, "best" is a very subjective term.
To throw another wrinkle into the discussion here, I am not a fan of "everybody has to do everything exactly the same way". For example, let's take a look at doing daily primary samples. Without going into any classified details, I will tell you that there is no such thing as "one best way" to do a primary sample. I myself am left-handed; I will reach around and operate valves/switches inside the Primary Sample Sink in a manner which is not identical to how a right-handed person draws a sample. A standardized routine which works "best" for the majority of ELT's would actually be detrimental for my performance inside the PSS. Similarly, tall people and short people reach around inside the PSS in different ways; not to miss an opportunity for a pun, there is no one-size-fits-all "best" practice in this instance. For valid and logical reasons, there are occasions where there are multiple "best" practices in friendly coexistence.
And finally, it is my opinion that "everybody has to do everything exactly the same way" stunts growth. I cannot begin to count or explain all the things I have learned from the junior ELT's in my division (even on my 3rd LELT tour, and during my tour as the Squadron LELT), simply because they had a new way of doing things which had never occurred to me. I could go on and on about all the truly clever things I learned from watching other people doing things in different ways - it is simply not possible to overemphasize this particular point. Of course, the flip side is that without a "everybody has to do everything exactly the same way" mentality, you get some really dumb ideas popping up too. But the way I see it, you have one of two choices; you either:
Take the good with the bad, keep the "good", correct the "bad", and continue growing & evolving as a Division (and as individual people).
Or you all stay exactly the same today as you were yesterday, doing things exactly the same way as everybody did them yesterday, and exactly the same way you will all do these things tomorrow - never changing, for all of eternity, world without end amen.
For me, the choice was an easy one...
Just one guy's ramblings - I'd love to hear (and learn from) everybody else's thoughts & ideas.
Peace, everybody!
- Greg
-
Thanks for the research! I've never seen this instruction actually in action - do you think it works (or would work, which ever the case may be)?
The research took me all of 2 minutes. I have bookmarked the website for OPNAV and SECNAV instructions. While in the shipyard, during my enlightenment, I would spend hours skimming through said instructions and others, anything I could find, that related to sub life or military/navy life. You know how many "requirements" I would find that my command, or the navy in general, were not adhering to? So many that I would frequently find myself in the goat locker having a "conversation" with a few chiefs. I mention all this because it goes back to what I was trying to convey earlier about wanting my supervisor to crack a book open every now and then and refresh their knowledge on how they're supposed to do their job.
Did you know it's a requirement that the CO must maximize in-port duty section rotation so as there are the minimum number of people on-board (OPNAVINST 3120.32C)?
So, no. It's not a very useful instruction unless you're blowing the whistle on the command lighting a suspected homosexual on fire. The mundane things like, "Hey, COB. You know that I'm supposed to get Friday off because I have duty on Saturday and Monday is a holiday?" don't go over very well.
...try walking through the engine room for two straight hours, thinking only thoughts about nuclear requirements & ensuring that said requirements are being met.
I would do that, and frequently point out NRRO-level comments—the annoying little, "petty" stuff that no one wants to deal with. So, they don't get dealt with because it's just ET2 pointing them out, not N R R O. We've conditioned ourselves to ignoring ourselves when we find discrepancies that we would otherwise jump on if NRRO pointed them out. We're very good at shooting ourselves in the foot.
..."best practices"...
It's been shown in the workplace that like-minded thinking inhibits creativity and innovation and, therefore, reduces productivity. So the best companies foster and encourage the whole "thinking out of the box" stuff. We should do that too. How often when you were in the navy did you train on flooding from a S/G overboard line? Think about that one and all of the things that the watch team would have to do. But no one's trained on it because no one thinks it's okay to be creative. We're too consumed by worrying about the best practices for shifting pumps. How long did it take the RPM to get a casualty procedure for feed rupture?
-
Just a couple quick comments:
"Best practices:" my experience is that this phrase is most often heard from the NPEB/PORSE guys. Yes, its nice to have a benchmark of what works well, but there is certainly more than one way to skin the cat. If your way of skinning it meets the requirements, no issues. Might have some ideas on how to make it easier on yourself, based on what we've seen (27 DMP/SRA/EOH/ERO/PIRA avails has given me a little time to see what folks do and how it varies from ship to ship) and would be happy to share those if you'd care to listen. Take it or leave it, makes no difference to me until it doesn't get done right.
Now for a little bit of the research I suggested earlier: NR, and by extension NRRO, are part of DOE, now the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Agency). However, having only been on this side of the house, I can't speak to migration issues. I'm sure there must be someone here who has worked both sides of the house that can talk to that. Part of it is obviously the chicken and egg question.
Just because there must be separation of church and state, doesn't mean we can't engage in conversation and discussion. Probably not going to go have a beer together after work, but if we each respect the other's position, it'll all work out fine. Case in point, my fishing buddy prior to commissioning was the Plant Leading MLPO. He rendered my first salute. We still fished together, but at work, it was Mr. and Chief. And that's OK, as long as my boss was aware of the situation and I was capable of recusing myself if necessary.
Lastly, appreciate the sentiment and level-headed discussion.
-
Best NRRO attitude I ever saw went something like this...
NRRO: Request permission to enter EOS.
SRO: (Still staring at panel and PMP) State reason.
NRRO: Naval Reactors Regional Office observation.
SRO: Enter
NRRO: (Walking over to Throttleman Panel) I don't believe I've met you before.
SRO: (Turning head to look) No sir, you don't look familiar to me either. (Turns head back to RPCP)
NRRO: (Removes hard hat, which has bold "NRRO" lettering on front, and places it and clipboard on Throttleman Log table.) Say, did you see the Superbowl last night?
SRO: (Still looking at RPCP and PMP) No, had to take wife out for anniversary.
NRRO: You didn't miss much. (Reaches for hard hat and slowly places it on head)
SRO: I saw the highllights.
NRRO: SRO, may I see your logs, please.
SRO: Let me make an entry first, "NRRO enters to tour and observe."
-
Best NRRO attitude I ever saw went something like this...
NRRO: Request permission to enter EOS.
SRO: (Still staring at panel and PMP) State reason.
NRRO: Naval Reactors Regional Office observation.
SRO: Enter
NRRO: (Walking over to Throttleman Panel) I don't believe I've met you before.
SRO: (Turning head to look) No sir, you don't look familiar to me either. (Turns head back to RPCP)
NRRO: (Removes hard hat, which has bold "NRRO" lettering on front, and places it and clipboard on Throttleman Log table.) Say, did you see the Superbowl last night?
SRO: (Still looking at RPCP and PMP) No, had to take wife out for anniversary.
NRRO: You didn't miss much. (Reaches for hard hat and slowly places it on head)
SRO: I saw the highllights.
NRRO: SRO, may I see your logs, please.
SRO: Let me make an entry first, "NRRO enters to tour and observe."
I refer you back to post 52 of this thread for my illustration of the worst NRRO attitude. :)
Justin
-
I refer you back to post 52 of this thread for my illustration of the worst NRRO attitude. :)
Justin
I think the take-away here was that he made a B-I-G production regarding the doffing of his puddin'-head cover (I never, ever expected to use that word in the civilian world (doffing, that is). Once he was done conjobbling, he did a reprise to his Emmy-winning performance and donned his bump cap.
-
Not to brown-nose too hard here, but I figured it out. How to fix the NNPP: Put folks like (maybe including) G-reg, Gamecock and NukeLDO in charge. Problem solved.
What do you think, G-reg? You know, John Elway "retired" before his second Super Bowl championship.
On a serious note, I really do enjoy reading what you gents have to say on this or any other matter. Great insights from all angles of the game, entertaining to read, and an invaluable lesson to any person looking to take a leadership position in this or any other field. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
-
Sadly, I pulled all of my transcripts & training records, and all I'm qualified for is Armchair Quarterback in this case... :)
I know that the NNPP (like everyone else) is trying to do more with less $$$, but I think that the pendulum has swung way too far in this case. I've beat this drum before, but I miss the hyper-inflated military budgets of the Reagan era. Back then, the NNPP had enough money to throw around that they could cut people from the program (both during and after the pipeline) when they couldn't or wouldn't measure up to the program's ideals.
So then: if I were in charge, in the absence of sufficient Congressional spending for the NNPP, the first course of action would be mandatory NNPP bake sales to raise money and increase our funding as step 1 of the get-well program.
(In other words, be careful what you wish for...) ;) ;D
-
So then: if I were in charge, in the absence of sufficient Congressional spending for the NNPP, the first course of action would be mandatory NNPP bake sales to raise money and increase our funding as step 1 of the get-well program.
(In other words, be careful what you wish for...) ;) ;D
Can we wear pink aprons that say kiss the cook? ;D
And have you considered the merits of an NNPP bikini carwash. Imagine how much money we'd get paid for putting our clothes back on. ;)
-
Sadly, I pulled all of my transcripts & training records, and all I'm qualified for is Armchair Quarterback in this case... :)
I know that the NNPP (like everyone else) is trying to do more with less $$$, but I think that the pendulum has swung way too far in this case. I've beat this drum before, but I miss the hyper-inflated military budgets of the Reagan era. Back then, the NNPP had enough money to throw around that they could cut people from the program (both during and after the pipeline) when they couldn't or wouldn't measure up to the program's ideals.
So then: if I were in charge, in the absence of sufficient Congressional spending for the NNPP, the first course of action would be mandatory NNPP bake sales to raise money and increase our funding as step 1 of the get-well program.
(In other words, be careful what you wish for...) ;) ;D
I kind of disagree. The problem isn't money, USN is throwing all the money they can at the program but people won't stay. Non-nukes think I am crazy for not taking the 90k offered for re-up but I can safely say it's not worth it. Not because we can make more money out side, I know several people who took pay cuts and still make less than they would have in the Navy (non-nuclear jobs), but because the program does not treat its people well. I don't think I need to elaborate on that matter since this thread is full of cases where people where treated worse than farm animals. It would not be a problem if this was the exception but it is the standard.
-
Can we wear pink aprons that say kiss the cook? ;D
And have you considered the merits of an NNPP bikini carwash. Imagine how much money we'd get paid for putting our clothes back on. ;)
Who did you have in mind to wear the bikinis? Don't know about you, but my first thought wasn't my fellow submariners; although they wouldn't let wild horses keep them from strapping some on. :)
-
Dang what happened to the uniforms!!! I was really looking forward to wearing them summer whites :D
-
A question? Maybe a comment. How about not demorilizing those that make a "No Harm-No Foul" mistake during their time at NNPTC!
Yup, the kid needs a boot in the butt for what he did. No excuses. It does seem to be a related charge to most of the masts under the current command.
He was consideirng following the path of his "Mixed" family, Seafarers, Enlisted and Commissioned going back to the days of tall ships. But it seems that a "he said - she said" incident involving a minor NP student and alchohol (non-sexual non-contact) might change that into a FTN attitude. There is less than 1/2% of all Navy who can honestly say they are inoccent of same charge.
When I was active duty we worked hard and played hard. Sometimes outside of the rules on liberty, elisted and officers alike. We got the job done and in a safe manner. When you were out of line we took it up on a peer or first supervisor level first, we pushed it up if the situation became detrimental to indiviudal, crew or beyond.
You might want to call me a dinasour but my peers of that day, still active, are now Command Master Chiefs.
I'll stop for now to see some discussiuons be for I over illlunimate!
Who hasn't given your noob a beer!
-
There is less than 1/2% of all Navy who can honestly say they are inoccent of same charge.
Who hasn't given your noob a beer!
Maybe on your boat.
It's the slackitude that you are promoting, that helped get the program to where it is today >:(
-
HydroDave, good for you. You are of the 1/2% in the Navy's history.
Punitive action is necessary. The question for leadership is, how much action is beneficial without being detrimental to the command and or the sailor?
Is the command finding that balance?
Are the needs of the Navy being met through NNPTC?
-
Just a note on statistics, I have no idea what the true percentage is of us that have or have not given an under age sailor a drink after hours.
I was hoping to see some discussion on appropriate NJP for the offence.
Why the negative Karma? How does that work?
-
Just a note on statistics, I have no idea what the true percentage is of us that have or have not given an under age sailor a drink after hours.
I was hoping to see some discussion on appropriate NJP for the offence.
Why the negative Karma? How does that work?
While I have never given an underage sailor a drink, however when I was underage I did drink a couple of times.
I do agree that the punishment for underage drinking is too harsh. Story time
One night during prototype my crew (students only) had a little end of swings party. Alcohol was consumed by most of the attendees most of which where underage. Alcohol and youthful stupidity lead to impromptu wrestling matches in the front yard (Greco-roman not the WWF BS) the last of said matches resulted in one of the participants breaking his ankle (knee pointed in the air and foot parallel to the ground. He was drunk and underage so he would not go to the hospital until the alcohol was out of his system. Instead he insisted that several people carried him from the law to his apartment room about a block away. We could only carry him for a short distance at a time since due to the pain. Ultimately he was taken to his apartment the alcohol wore off and he went to the ER.
If he had gone straight to the ER he would have been treated and faced much less risk than he put himself in. However he would have been written up and sent to mast as well as every attendee of that party.
We all did the wrong thing that night and we all did it out of fear of captain’s mast and possible removal from the program. I don't know what the appropriate punishment for underage drinking should be, but I have seen the foolish and dangerous lengths that sailors will go to avoid the current "award"
-
I do agree that the punishment for underage drinking is too harsh. Story time
How many DUI-induced fatalities would it take to change your mind on that?
It's also an integrity issue, if you'll willfully break the law on drinking, ya might just think radioing chem sampling or blazing off PMs is minor and silly as well.....
-
I have to side with Dave on this. I don't care what anecdotal evidence to the contrary there is, the law is the law. I don't care about arguments like "they are old enough to die.." The law is the law. If you break it, you must pay. When it involves alcohol, I don't think the punishment could ever be too harsh. Especially if it involves drinking and driving or other stupid things that occur when drunk. Sailors drinking underage should be busted down and money taken away. Suppliers should get worse. IMHO.
Justin
-
Just a note on statistics, I have no idea what the true percentage is of us that have or have not given an under age sailor a drink after hours.
I was hoping to see some discussion on appropriate NJP for the offence.
Why the negative Karma? How does that work?
It usually means that you have offended and/or angered someone with something you said. In this case, probably your condoning supplying alcohol to under age people. I know that is why I gave you -K. Most of us though, are very generous with +K and stingy with -K, saving it for special occasions.
Justin
-
This is only the second time I have felt the need to interject on nukeworker. I would like anyone that thinks that underage drunk driving punishment is too severe to talk to any mother or father that has lost a child or any child that has lost a parent to a drunken driver. I'm sorry if certain personnel's limited life experiences leads them to believe that it's okay to drink and drive, but here are the stats from 2006
In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year (which equates to 1.54 deaths per hour) . In 2006, more than 8,200 (55%) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes who had been drinking had a BAC of .15 or greater. This is just a snippet of available data on-line. I also probably will get some negative karma for this but here goes: Someone that doesn't value human life enough to realize the punishments are severe probably will just continue drinking when they are of age, thereby furthering the cause of Darwin by taking themselves and hopefully not others out of the equation, I can only hope its the former. I bet some more "seasoned" individuals know/knew at least one person who has been injured or killed by a D.D. Sorry for the rant but the offending post set me off.
There is no room for drunken driving on roads I pay taxes for. Do it in your own hovel. thanks.
-
How many DUI-induced fatalities would it take to change your mind on that?
It's also an integrity issue, if you'll willfully break the law on drinking, ya might just think radioing chem sampling or blazing off PMs is minor and silly as well.....
The issue at bar here is underage drinking not DUI
DUI and underage drinking are two completely different cases however both are "awarded" the same, max allowable under UCMJ
I'm not defending DUI I won't.
-
Speaking about integrity issues...
I want to go on the record to say that doing an EDPO long tour on a crusier stinks! I cannot imagine having to do it on a carrier...
I actually had an Electrical Officer call one of the AC spaces to see if anyone would answer. He had the IC types rig it so that it would continuously ring and call his stateroom if anyone answered. Word is that the first 'no-call' violation was a freebie. I believe the first no-call was a wake up call to everyone, after we heard from one guy who failed his wakeup call, it was never heard of again--catch my drift. I by the way was on a different rotation than he was...
-
I thought the topic here was underage drinking. I've seen a DUI in the Navy punished by removing a person's frocking to first class. That means the guy had to wait until he was paid to wear first class. Not busted down, no fine, no restriction; just had his frocking witheld. I've seen a guy get a DUI and only have to face the fact that he'd never screen for command. Another DUI just got swept under the carpet because the guy was a good worker.
I've seen a few kids who planned to get wasted, act retarded and pass out in a hotel room (or get a cab back to the barracks) without driving get hammered, and even get kicked out of the Navy. I don't advocate their behavior or their plans, but I don't think they should face harsher penalties without DUI than those of legal drinking age who get behind the wheel under the influence.
Strongly enforcing the drinking age is an important way to maintain order at NNPTC nowadays. A lot of young guys and gals under stress from their newly-found military lifestyle and the brisk pace of the training pipeline could/would make some terrible decisions if you throw some alkeyhol in their systems. The UCMJ allows Commanding Officers to make examples of those that stray, which is a great way to remind the student body that the charming NNPTC campus is still a military training facility.
If a kid gets all poopy-pants about going to mast and decides to piss away his/her Navy contract, so be it. It can just as well act as a "special calibration" for wayward children. Besides, NJP is one of the only ways the pipeline is a filter anymore.
Get busted down in power school and you will still get to your first boat wearing a crow if you admit you screwed up and work through the problem. Oh, man. I'm ranting again.
-
The law is the law. If you break it, you must pay. When it involves alcohol, I don't think the punishment could ever be too harsh.
I quite agree. The law is in fact law, that's why its called law, and I agree that there must be consequences for breaking the law, though I would be careful about making statements about no punishment too harsh. That sort of mindset is dangerous. Underage drinking is such a common infraction, and by far and away the majority of underage drinkers never get injured, never hurt anyone else, that the punishment in the civilian world is much less than that for DUI with good reason.
See, the thing about no punishment too harsh is that you are saying it about this one instance of illegal activity. But what about all the other illegal activities. Do you ever speed? Or roll through a stop sign? Or gun it to make it through a yellow light? All of those are illegal, but I don't see anyone lining up to hand out the maximum sentence for any of those. The thing is, drinking is a choice, just like breaking traffic laws is a choice. Why must one choice be punished so much more severely than another if no one suffered any harm from it? Maybe the key is better enforcement of the law. If no one gets away with illegal activities, then no one will want to partake in them. But then you have to consider what your society would be, and the answer is not what you want, I guarantee it.
Perhaps the real issue is not actually nineteen or twenty year olds consuming alcohol. Perhaps the real issue is the society we live in that fosters irresponsibility and immaturity. Maybe instead of continuously fighting the symptoms of the disease like they were the disease itself, we should try to cure the actual disease. And that discussion is something that exceeds the scope of this particular forum.
One last thought. If freedom is the ability to choose what you will do, even if its wrong, and justice is the punishment if you choose to do wrong, and perfect justice catches or prevents all wrongdoing, then if you can no longer choose to do wrong without facing punishment, are you still free?
-
Andrew, your style of delivery belongs in the Gold Member: Polysci section. Go gold
-
I know that is why I gave you -K. Most of us though, are very generous with +K and stingy with -K, saving it for special occasions.
Justin
I was not trying to be "Special" nor was I condoning underage drinking or supply. Certainly not DUI.
In the 80's we had a different substance abuse issue so having a beer with your crew didn't seem like a big thing. Come to think of it, the club served 18 and above at my last duty station. I guess I am a dinosaur!
I'm glad to see the discussion progress, thanks for your input but not the (-) Karma! I won't reciprocate.
I agree with owning your mistakes, learing from them and then busting butt to be a greater asset.
I'll hope for the right balance of "Award" that allows for and reinforces the previous statement.
Jus Me.
-
Here you Go!
-
I quite agree. The law is in fact law, that's why its called law, and I agree that there must be consequences for breaking the law, though I would be careful about making statements about no punishment too harsh. That sort of mindset is dangerous. Underage drinking is such a common infraction, and by far and away the majority of underage drinkers never get injured, never hurt anyone else, that the punishment in the civilian world is much less than that for DUI with good reason.
See, the thing about no punishment too harsh is that you are saying it about this one instance of illegal activity. But what about all the other illegal activities. Do you ever speed? Or roll through a stop sign? Or gun it to make it through a yellow light? All of those are illegal, but I don't see anyone lining up to hand out the maximum sentence for any of those. The thing is, drinking is a choice, just like breaking traffic laws is a choice. Why must one choice be punished so much more severely than another if no one suffered any harm from it? Maybe the key is better enforcement of the law. If no one gets away with illegal activities, then no one will want to partake in them. But then you have to consider what your society would be, and the answer is not what you want, I guarantee it.
Perhaps the real issue is not actually nineteen or twenty year olds consuming alcohol. Perhaps the real issue is the society we live in that fosters irresponsibility and immaturity. Maybe instead of continuously fighting the symptoms of the disease like they were the disease itself, we should try to cure the actual disease. And that discussion is something that exceeds the scope of this particular forum.
One last thought. If freedom is the ability to choose what will you do, even if its wrong, and justice is the punishment if you choose to do wrong, and perfect justice catches or prevents all wrongdoing, then if you can no longer choose to do wrong without facing punishment, are you still free?
I respectfully disagree. Drinking under age is in no way similar to speeding or the other traffic infractions or any other minor infraction you can think of. It is not a minor infraction, IMHO.
Freedom isn't really freedom when limits are imposed. Therefore, just as the law is the law, freedom has limits. Therefore no, you are not ever truly free. It is a figment of your imagination.
Also, I am sorry if it seemed I suggested underage drinking and DUI should have the same harsh punishments. In fact, it looks like I did just that. I didn't mean it that way. What I mean is that a sailor who under age drinks should get rank and pay taken away. A sailor that DUIs should go to prison. But I guess that is kind of beyond NJP. In that case, then yes, under age drinkers should get the max under NJP.
Justin
-
I respectfully disagree. Drinking under age is in no way similar to speeding or the other traffic infractions or any other minor infraction you can think of. It is not a minor infraction, IMHO.
The problem with treating underage drinking as a major infraction is enforcement. How do you enforce the law on something so common without government and law enforcement intruding into our lives even more than they already do (Civilian world)? In the military, same question, but substitute commands and security/base police? And then, how much more enforcement are you willing to pay for? Is the enforcement worth the cost?
Freedom isn't really freedom when limits are imposed. Therefore, just as the law is the law, freedom has limits. Therefore no, you are not ever truly free. It is a figment of your imagination.
I agree, true, absolute freedom would actually be scary. I accept that my freedoms must be limited, it is necessary for society to exist; even anarchists accept certain limitations of their freedoms in their theories. However, limited freedom does not make freedom a figment of my imagination, though a large central government teetering on the brink of socialism certainly might.
I certainly did not want to provoke a statement like freedom is a figment of your imagination, that scares me just as much as a blanket no punishment too harsh statement. If freedom is just a figment of my imagination, I guess it won't really matter if that figment vanishes, since it wasn't real anyways. What a convenient and frightening next logical step. Freedom may not be tangible, I can't hold freedom in my hand, but that does not make it any less real. When freedom is relegated only to the imagination, what a sad, sad day that will be.
It's also an integrity issue, if you'll willfully break the law on drinking, ya might just think radioing chem sampling or blazing off PMs is minor and silly as well.....
If I casually disregard the speed limit... Or is that different, and if so, how?
-
If I casually disregard the speed limit... Or is that different, and if so, how?
55 in a 45 on a county road, vs. inoperable 4kV bus from PK blocks left off during gundecked maintenance, recovering from a hangover (see original topic). It's about having one's head in the game...
-
55 in a 45 on a county road, vs. inoperable 4kV bus from PK blocks left off during gundecked maintenance, recovering from a hangover (see original topic). It's about having one's head in the game...
What about 35 in a 25? What if that 25 is one of the thousands of streets in modern construction in which the roads are the county minimum code of 50 ft wide? It's residential, so there's children at play and pets around. Sure 55 in a 45 on a country road...hell 75 on that county road isn't a problem. It's all about context.
Similarly, a guy on board a ship with a hangover who isn't assigned any maintenance who can go hide out in berthing until he sobers isn't a problem.
This is pointless arguing over whether speeding or underage drinking is worse than the other. All of us can make up a scenario that supports our argument. You know what that tells me? That underage drinking, in and of itself, is harmless. Drinking is harmless. It's not like having a minimum age has been some winning piece of evidence for the claim that adults are more responsible. It's like arguing over whether prior enlisted make better officers or not.
-
PapaBear 765,
Your avatar scares me. It always has wierded me out...
-
PapaBear 765,
Your avatar scares me. It always has wierded me out...
Avatar, that ain't no avatar...that's his drivers license photo :P
Sorry PB, I just couldn't help myself. Hope all is well in GC.
Note to Moderator: please don't delete this for being off topic because in all actuality, it is impossible to be on topic because there really is no way to fix the NNPP. ;)
-
Here you Go!
Welcome to the Gold side. K to ya for seeing the call by GC.
I thought the topic here was underage drinking.
I couldn't help but chuckle at your opening line...actually the topic is how to fix the NNPP. But don't worry know one actually cares about being off topic. This topic is so old, even the Moderator forgot what the topic was...
I find myself agreeing with you more and more every single day.
You can't anyway....you have to be a Goldmember to effect someone's Karma.
Oh well, GC, my humblest apology. I hope not to offend. K to ya for understanding.
Heck, K to all of you. I'm in a great mood.
-
One last thought. If freedom is the ability to choose what will you do, even if its wrong, and justice is the punishment if you choose to do wrong, and perfect justice catches or prevents all wrongdoing, then if you can no longer choose to do wrong without facing punishment, are you still free?
Wow, that's deep..... :)
makes my freakin head hurt deep..... ;)
-
I thought WE were about to fix the NNPP with this thread!
Are you fellers saying this was just a healthy place to vent with no tangible results or punishment? I quit! :P
-
it's all right here;
You can't go!!!,....all the plants are gonna die!!
(karma if you can source that movie quote,...no googling)
Would that be Idiocracy ?
-
I think if you combine the predictions of "Idiocracy" and "Wall-E" you'll get an accurate depiction of the future.
-
Welcome to the Gold side. K to ya for seeing the call by GC.
A little slow on my part, but, thanks NaVLI4, now I get to jump in the GM PolySci stuff too!
Now, thar be som deep thinkin!
Seriously, and funny too.
I thought WE were about to fix the NNPP with this thread!
Are you fellers saying this was just a healthy place to vent with no tangible results or punishment? I quit! :P
... for those still in it, venting, with (you) the community providing positive reinforcement or a kick in the butt when needed, can help to make it better without any official action...
Jus a theory.
Jus Me
-
PapaBear 765,
Your avatar scares me. It always has wierded me out...
Actually, it's an unfair slam on Khalid Sheik-Mohamed, he's not nearly as far loonie left as Rosie, and at least he believes there IS a god (just picked the wrong one is all).
-
Just a note on statistics, I have no idea what the true percentage is of us that have or have not given an under age sailor a drink after hours.
I was hoping to see some discussion on appropriate NJP for the offence.
Why the negative Karma? How does that work?
Just another note on statistics - 80% of all statistics are made up.
DM
-
Just another note on statistics - 80% of all statistics are made up.
DM
I always thought it was 90% :P :P :P
Anyway, Benjamin Disraeli said there are three types of lies, "Lies, Damn Lies,...and Statistics."
-
I always thought it was 90% :P :P :P
Anyway, Benjamin Disraeli said there are three types of lies, "Lies, Damn Lies,...and Statistics."
Actually I thought that was Mark Twain that said that. Then again it could be just a lie or a damn lie.
-
Actually I thought that was Mark Twain that said that. Then again it could be just a lie or a damn lie.
Not that I would ever use Wikipedia as a real source of data for a formal paper (But its okay for message board rhetoric)....
Wikipedia says
Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.
-
So I guess we are both correct, from different point of views.
-
Are nuke school hours still segregated into S, M and O?
AND, is there a "No hours suggested or required" option that is actually allowed and used?
What do they stand for?
S sugested
M Mandatory
O ?
-
Way back like 10 year ago when I was a foolish nub......(insert snide comments now).......
the hours program was basically just two sets of numbers. The first number was total hours required for the week, the second number was number of required hours per day. For example
15-3 would mean you had to put in 15 hours a week, 3 hours a day minimum.
10-0 would be that you had to have 10 hours a week, but not any set number of hours a day
0-0 was essentially study as long and when you felt was necessary
40-5 was essentially the equivalent to waterboarding with acid and Barbara Streisand music on continual repeat.
-
I remember the daily and weekly breakdown aspect,...
It was also very dependent on your Section Adviser (a euphemistic term for chief or disgruntled PO1),...
I know what you mean by that. My section advisor was an MM1 over a bunch of MMs, but he insisted that there was no way to get through school without putting in at least 10 hours of study. So he put in place that even if you were 0-0 hours, you had to put in 10 hours a week regardless. I tested him on it and only did 8.5 and he put me on 10-0 the next week. He was really perturbed when after comp I told him that I never studied at all during those 10 hours a week and that he was stupid for putting people on them.
-
Interesting data point for the discussion...
A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement. They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff. No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane are being heard. My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.
It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.
On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.
-
Interesting data point for the discussion...
A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement. They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff. No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane are being heard. My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.
It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.
On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.
Curiously did anyone recommend axing NPTU in general, and sending people to the fleet after NNPTC? I don't mean to offend any of the staff at NPTU but what is the point no one fails now or even 10 years ago when I went through, what's the point? NPTU Charleston teaches the S5W platform which has been out of service for years, neither NPTU teaches truly current designs. Not only today but looking back 10 years to when I went through what was the point. No one failed and every student was passed off to the fleet to be vetted.
How can you tell the training program is truly broken?
- when while at a shore command, the CPOs are teaching the E6s how to fill out and compile the necessary paperwork/evidence to remove the NECs of people who never should have made it into the fleet with a 33XX NEC's while referring to this as the "no child left behind nuclear navy".
-
This is a valid perspective I have not considered before. NPTU's train and vet Navy personnel, and perform design and mods testing, the latter do not need Navy operators. If the NPTU's are not serving the vital function of filtering out personnel who should not be allowed to manipulate Navy Nuclear Power Plants why are my tax dollars being spent to support the entire infrastructure? The NPTU's should not be maintained just to give sea returnees a place to be assigned shore duty. They are expensive facilities. The housing for the NPTU personnel in my hometown includes gates, gategaurds, fencing and an entire dependents support infrastructure in the middle of nowhere New York. Civilian operators (could be many ex-Navy) would not require or desire such an outlandish expenditure of tax dollars. If the only legitimate function these NPTU's currently serve is design and mods testing, civilian operators are the way to go. It seems to be evident the Navy program has evolved to the point that the NPTU's are no longer needed to screen out potential Navy operators who are unfit to operate plants. This would be evidenced by the near 0% attrition rate. If the fleet can perform this function, and we already have to pay for a fleet, the NPTU's mission scope may be in need of serious reconsideration. Times are tough for government finances and they look to be getting tougher. An all civilian NPTU for design and mods testing can realize cost savings by minimizing Navy infrastructure spending, and civilian jobs for the local market, albeit government paid. Indeed, NPTU may not be needed at all, perhaps the design and mods can be all computer based. It should be considered.
4.0 !!! Couldn't agree more....what he said!!!
-
I guess I can chime in on this. On CVNs we have two sides of the wall as far as machinery goes, thus we have two groups of MMs as such, one for each side of the wall. There are RM and M Div, RM taking car of RX auxillary stuff and M taking care of Engines, D/Us, and TGs. On many of those CVNs we have non-nuke MMs operating the equipment. Some carriers allow Conventional nukes to qualify everything but CMO with other stipulations such as can't operate throttles unless dire emergency, can't stand TG watch with pumps, etc. That being all said, we have these fresh out of the womb, non-nuke nubs that are able to qualify these watches, some of which qualify pretty quickly, with no additional training other than apprentice school for 2 weeks. So as far as mechanics go I say that we can send them out to the fleet immediately after NPS. EM and ETs I feel should have about a month or so of IDE type hands on experience just for the sake of operating switches. Very minimal overhead for that. As far as when NECs are assigned, make it contingent upon them qualifying their first in box watch, and the RX officer has to sign off for final approval of NEC. EOOWS should also go to the IDE type atmosphere and get some hands on training there. I only say this because I personally saw an EOOW that was super stellar in NPS, but couldn't supervise the plant to save his life or anyone else's.
Now if your heart is dead set on having students operate a plant before operating a plant(is that redundant or just redundant?). I say take the Ole Mobile Chernobyl and turn her into a permanant training platform, not only for nukes but for the entire Navy. You could do carrier quals for new pilots, DC training, and nuke training. She wouldn't do 6 month deployments, but rather like 2-3 week underways. Since you wouldn't need a regular ship's complement like AOs and other rates, you could house all the nukies onboard the ship just like they do now. Thus also saving money on BAH for students and being able to control students better by restricting liberty for those not ahead of the curve if needed. The staff types would enjoy the fact that they would be at a sea going command that would not deploy for 6 months at a time.
Those are my 3 cents.
-
You know taking a carrier and making it a mobile training platform might be good idea. But I don't see a cost savings there so much. If you are to train the pilots and such too, you really have to keep most of your rates on board. You aren't going to be saving much money there. You will still need galleys, racks for everyone, and the such, so it would be tough to do this. Now if you just make it so that you are doing it for nukes, you will be able to save on getting rid of Air and AIMD departments. The only time you would need an extensive engineering (not reactor) department is in port for refurbishing and repairs. Pay and support services could be maintained on board. You would still need navigation and deck departments if you were to take it underway.
Personally, as being a former instructor at NPTU, I would agree with taking the prototypes away. This would allow more personnel to be on board our ships and allow for more of a normal non-nuke type shore tour for those eligible. If we removed prototypes, and just decommed the prize, we would have alot more people, maybe even enough to make 5 and 25's the standard. But that's probably just wishful thinking ;-).
Jason
-
You wouldn't need an AIMD department really because you could just wait to fix the plan back in port. AOs would be useless because you wouldn't be arming planes. You could have a minimal galley staff since ships company would be reduced. You wouldn't really need the ADM staff or CTs. PN, SKs, and other paper pushers could be reduced by a decent amount, along with HMs and DTs since you wouldnt ever really be deploying and would be within flying distance of major US hospitals. Of course you would need a few just to stabilize a patient. If you really think about it hard, there are a LOT of people that you would be able to cut out of a training platform. Plus just think of all that money you save in BAH per student sailor and all that money that is now being required of staff at NPTU when they go to the students apartments to do "health and comfort" inspections. Not to mention the money saved paying all those Bettis employees in Charleston and NY, plus you get the civilians out of the qualifying loop and let the Navy guys that have to stand watch with students decide who is worthy and who isn't, instead of just trying to get their numbers up.
-
Curiously did anyone recommend axing NPTU in general, and sending people to the fleet after NNPTC? I don't mean to offend any of the staff at NPTU but what is the point no one fails now or even 10 years ago when I went through, what's the point? NPTU Charleston teaches the S5W platform which has been out of service for years, neither NPTU teaches truly current designs. Not only today but looking back 10 years to when I went through what was the point. No one failed and every student was passed off to the fleet to be vetted.
How can you tell the training program is truly broken?
- when while at a shore command, the CPOs are teaching the E6s how to fill out and compile the necessary paperwork/evidence to remove the NECs of people who never should have made it into the fleet with a 33XX NEC's while referring to this as the "no child left behind nuclear navy".
Sort of...I suggested (among more tenable ideas) to reduce NPTU to 3 months and eliminate the goal of qualifying them as watch standers. Who are we kidding when we sign that ET3's card at his final board? Can he really go down to the plant and stand watch safely? Not at all. He can't even tell me what his duties and responsibilities are. Moreover, he can't even do it administratively (in my opinion) since his qualification was neutered from the beginning by NPTU not being allowed to runs certain drills on him. So we're not allowed to run a fast leak, or the more probable SLR, on him, but he can stand watch by himself? Buffalo sierra.
On a different note, it doesn't make a difference with regards to the aim of NPTU that it's an S5W and not something that's found in the fleet. We're trying to teach them the basics of watch standing and the qualification process. So if they completely forget how the seawater systems work here or if they remember them 4.0 but they're completely different at their ship, it doesn't matter. Knowing the concept of their role in the plant and why they're important is key, not what's the valve number for the cross-connect and where it's located. The times to alarm for a loss of the primary fresh water system on my sub were different than at MARF, but when I got to the boat I knew that I had to know them. It's about teaching the students what's important to know.
That's just a thought that's independent of the question raised as to the necessity of NPTU, however.
-
You actually said something I agree with for a change.
Don't let it go to your head.
-
Wow, some really good thoughts lately. I like the idea of reducing PType to more of a familiarization course. Not that it isn't that already, lets just admit it and cut it.
Justin
-
I think your post actually illustrates the query as to wether NPTU is necessary in todays NNPP;
Whatever training is instilled at the NFAS and NPS level must be sufficient to weed out those personnel who are book smart and hand stupid. Or, the watchstanding scenarios at NPTU are no longer rigorous enough to weed out those students who become incapable of proper action when placed in a stressful situation. I reiterate these must be valid conclusions if the failure rate is near zero percent. It appears the fleet can perform these functions adequately in the contemporary NNPP, thereby making NPTU a redundant and unnecessary experience in developing Naval Nuclear Power Plant Operators. If this scenario is legitimate, as it seems to be, then, as a taxpayer, I am concerned at the expenditure of funds to give NNPP students an expense paid trip to New York, South Carolina, etc., with no added value to the NNPP. If there is no demonstrable earned value to the NNPP from NPTU, then NPTU has outlived one of its useful missions and that part of the mission should be considered for termination.
Would that be termination with EXTREME prejudice????????????????
I still think that even if you get rid of NPTU that you would have to have some mechanism to be able to "denuke" those who proved to be good students in the classroom but incompetent operators. Perhaps give students their NEC out of NPS with a 6 month to 1 year "probationary" period that if they prove to be completely incompetent operators the RX officer or Eng can pull their NEC with CO concurrence or soemthing to that effect. I only recommend this becuase I have seen way too many "above average" GPA students from NPS that are competely unable to grasp the concept of being able to stand a watch.
-
Not to say whether to keep or get rid of prototype, but the electricians we get never seem to understand the electric plant. We have to teach them how to operate the EPCP. I'm pretty sure AC paralleling and the electric plant layout is virtually the same on S5W, S8G, and S6G, yet you have to fight to extract the paralleling requirements from them. It took me a while once on board to figure out the EPCP, but I'm an ET, so I didn't learn it in prototype. Still, its not that complicated. And I also thought part of the point of prototype was to teach students how to use the phone circuits, yet we consistently have to train all the new SEOs how to use the damn things.
So as far as mechanics go I say that we can send them out to the fleet immediately after NPS. EM and ETs I feel should have about a month or so of IDE type hands on experience just for the sake of operating switches. Very minimal overhead for that... EOOWS should also go to the IDE type atmosphere and get some hands on training there. I only say this because I personally saw an EOOW that was super stellar in NPS, but couldn't supervise the plant to save his life or anyone else's.
I thought about this, then I read your post, curse you for beating me to it. :) To add a little to it: Mechanics need exposure to a plant before they go to the fleet. But I don't think it needs to be operational exposure. Rather, set up the program so that during NFAS and NPS students can go down to the MTS and be shown what they will be working on in context, perhaps even get in there and operate, under close supervision, SSTGs, HPDs, feed pumps, etc. I remember the visual aids we had in power school, it was a room full of equipment that wasn't connected to anything, was just sitting there, leaving us to imagine (wrongly) how it fit into the plant physically. The fusion of the two curricula would necessarily lengthen NFAS and NPS, but eliminate the need for NPTU. For EMs and ETs, a lot more hands on work could be built into the NPS side, so that after learning about reactor theory or electric plant ops they could go and conduct startups and shutdowns on an IDE, shift the electric plant, learn about casualties, then see them run on a simulator, learn the theory behind the CPs. I remember a simulator at NPS for the EPCP, but a full IDE would be more useful, also we didn't get more than about an hour to look at the EPCP simulator, and it was shared among 25 of us.
Also, I thought the MTSs were just training platforms. Are they still used to test new equipment or is that only done up in Ballston Spa? And, just a comment, but there is no prototype for the Virginia class. SSN 774 is the prototype. Proves the necessity from that end. Though they could have used a bit more testing on some of the equipment, as it seems prone to catching fire, but its nothing prototype worthy.
-
I think your post actually illustrates the query as to wether NPTU is necessary in todays NNPP;
Whatever training is instilled at the NFAS and NPS level must be sufficient to weed out those personnel who are book smart and hand stupid. Or, the watchstanding scenarios at NPTU are no longer rigorous enough to weed out those students who become incapable of proper action when placed in a stressful situation. I reiterate these must be valid conclusions if the failure rate is near zero percent. It appears the fleet can perform these functions adequately in the contemporary NNPP, thereby making NPTU a redundant and unnecessary experience in developing Naval Nuclear Power Plant Operators. If this scenario is legitimate, as it seems to be, then, as a taxpayer, I am concerned at the expenditure of funds to give NNPP students an expense paid trip to New York, South Carolina, etc., with no added value to the NNPP. If there is no demonstrable earned value to the NNPP from NPTU, then NPTU has outlived one of its useful missions and that part of the mission should be considered for termination.
Nothing can substitute for hands-on learning, so prototype has a purpose. I think its purpose is ill-defined, or at least ill-understood and, therefore, not being implemented very well. The better way to go about it is a mixture of what everyone's been saying, i.e. the crux is: not to qualify anyone but to show them how the navy nuclear power works.
I don't know about the near-zero attrition notion, but the attrition due to academic issues is the lowest of the several reason for losing a student. So, yes. I guess NPTU doesn't really serve a function since the students don't learn the basic watch standing concepts we're supposed to teach them, nor do they really learn how to operate the plant sufficiently. Those things are learned in the fleet—the fleet way. So why bother with prototype? Because Hyman wanted it that way and it's hard to go against Hyman.
I don't know if it's a fair comparison, but would the laborious process of the NNPP pipeline be better suited for commercial training due to the vast difference in complexity of the plants? We always talk about how great a skilled monkey would be at standing reactor operator (we should really get some of them damn monkeys on the payroll)...so if it's that easy, then why not shorten the pipeline to something more workable?
And, no, the Virginia is not the test platform entirely. A lot of its new stuff was experimental when I was in training.
-
I gleaned a lot of my perspective from you;
The picture you're painting of impending screw up of some magnitude at the NY p-type would be in my backyard, and it would appear the issues are not all administrative (the parts that always suck), they cross over into the operational,....
Commercial nukes have problems too, when they get bad enough they shut 'em down, they don't keep training students,...
If things are this bad and this institutionalized, perhaps it's best to just get rid of the institution,....
Maintain the prototypes for a maximum three month stint? If that's all the hands on the NNPP needs that's an awful lot of real estate that may just as adequately be performed by forces afloat,....
I could be wrong, I'm just not hearing where anyone seems to promote that prototype serves a vital and necessary function to the NNPP, not one "digit" post yet as best as I can tell, and NO ONE saying they love their job at prototype, and feel proud of the product they are sending to the fleet,....
What am I supposed to surmise?!?!?!?!
Just keep throwing money at a waste of a program?!?!?!?!
C'mon, that ain't good, sometimes the cure is to move on,....
Hyman's gone, maybe it's time parts of his paradigm moved on with him,....
Forgive me for possibly talking in circles, some posts are time-sensitive and can't be taken out of the context of the posts around them.
Maybe the best answer is to simply eliminate the whole prototype portion. I say that hands-on training has no substitute because it doesn't. But if they can get that in the fleet, then why bother with a prototype, right? But if there's a better way to use the prototypes that someone hasn't thought of yet, or they haven't tried because it's a radical idea, then maybe it should be explored to see if it's viable. The facilities are already built and being used, so it would be a waste to just shut them down without exploring different ways of using them.
When I said "NY is bad" I was talking about their current condition post-inspection after not doing very well at all. And from other discussion threads from a while ago from other people's posts, it doesn't sound like a good place to work either. But things change with the changes of commands, so that could be different now.
My "lazy instructors" remarks are just to show that I'm aware of the whole picture: that I'm not here complaining about the Bob's being the source of why the NNPP needs fixin' that us blueshirts have an equal piece of the "reasons why it sucks" pie.
And an "impending screw up of some magnitude at the NY p-type" wasn't directed at NY, it was at Charleston. But it wasn't anything along the lines of a reactor accident, the systems are designed too fool-proof to allow that. I was just saying that Charleston was close to following NY in a post-you-failed-ORSE stand-down.
-
Interesting data point for the discussion...
A task group was compiled a couple weeks ago to scrutinize the NPTU portion of the pipeline, to see if it's current format is sat or can use improvement. They're going to the prototypes soliciting input from the staff. No restrictions: all ideas, radical and mundane, are being heard. My group and I had our round table discussion with them during their first week.
It would be wonderful if they weren't putting on a show of sincerity, and that their report doesn't fall on deaf ears.
On a side note, I've managed to pave the way for an eventual revision to the PTM.
A follow-up on the above... Went to a job fair today and spoke with a woman who's in the position to assess how to improve the NNPP and how to handle the conversion to 688-platform MTSs. She was open to some things I said. I brought up the task force that was assembled a couple months ago and we both admitted to having read their report that was distributed yesterday. I pointed out how my input made its way to being an official recommendation in the report. Pretty cool. I also pointed her in the direction of this forum for the most candid insight available.
-
A follow-up on the above... Went to a job fair today and spoke with a woman who's in the position to assess how to improve the NNPP and how to handle the conversion to 688-platform MTSs. She was open to some things I said. I brought up the task force that was assembled a couple months ago and we both admitted to having read their report that was distributed yesterday. I pointed out how my input made its way to being an official recommendation in the report. Pretty cool. I also pointed her in the direction of this forum for the most candid insight available.
Awesome. I am optimistic about the Navy making real changes towards improving the program. I'm glad there are guys like you that can think outside of the box to enable real change and still keep the integrity of the program alive...I believe this is possible.
PB, you have something I don't have and that is the ability to see the program with tomorrow's eyes. I hate to admit it, but even though I'm a Gen-X'er, I still see the program "the way it was when I was a young sailor..."
Good luck in your future endeavors where ever they may be and I really hope you will be successful in paving the way towards a better NNPP.
-
Any recommendations you can summarize and post here without violating security?
-
PB, you have something I don't have and that is the ability to see the program with tomorrow's eyes. I hate to admit it, but even though I'm a Gen-X'er, I still see the program "the way it was when I was a young sailor..."
I wouldn't go so far to say that. I can think "outside of the box," but I value many aspects of "the way things used to be." So don't knock your perspective, it's as valid as anything from myself.
From reading the above mentioned report and the engineering memorandums on the evaluation of the adequacy of the training facilities at NPTU Charleston, it's a large undertaking (to say the least) to figure out what the best course of action.
Anyone else ever think that it would be a good idea to revitalize a portion of the old Charleston Shipyard for a new location for NPTU? From my limited view, it seems logical to permanently stick an MTS in one of the drydocks and use the buildings around it. Then you wouldn't have the problem of finding an available drydock for a DEMA, and nothing brand new would have to be built.
-
For pure academics, we only had one person out of the 7 classes I saw get de-nuked. However, they got rid of about 30 people for various reasons. Better there then on a ship.
I.e. people going "sad", bologna medical reasons, desertion, etc.
Its not like A school or power school are doing much of a job filtering people anyway.
-
Its not like A school or power school are doing much of a job filtering people anyway.
One section of the 90-page report was a history of the training program. It had a bar graph of attrition back to about '96. The attrition for NPS and NPTU has been virtually constant since then while NFAS went from being in the 60% ballpark down to where it is now...right around the time of the grassy knoll speech.
As far as the recommendations in the report, they're pretty mundane. Nothing too interesting. However, the report did acknowledge sea-returnees view NPTU as an undesirable shore tour and the navy needs to explore incentives to entice sailors to want to go to NPTU.
-
*edited* Sometimes I just need to learn to keep quiet. I guess that makes one more faux pas for me.
-
Your concerns are understandable, but there is a truth you are going to learn very soon. That being that you learn the important stuff that you need to know on watch and through experience. Sure, anyone can memorize a list of facts about something, but it doesn't really lend anything to true understand. The whole qual path in prototype is BS, and you are seeing what it is really like. They just want you on watch. You can't test or learn instinct and experience in a book or a checkout. You don't need to be able to classify a bunch of pumps or spout off a memorize paragraph about why water is a good moderator to stand watch, and that is why they are being liberal with the pen. You will see, trust me.
Justin
PS It should be noted that rather refreshingly, the commercial world has yet to require me to memorize useless things like the classification of the bilge pump.
-
I haven't looked at all the past posts on this topic, so please forgive me if I'm repeating anything here.
When I was in prototype (NY), things seemed to be a little bit more difficult. Yes, there were some sigs that got blazed, but I really did have to know at least the basics (and sometimes, a very deep understanding) for most of the checkouts. It was ESPECIALLY difficult for End-of-Cards. I'm not whining about that, though. I actually learned a lot.
Now, I have been on the ship for a little over a week, and I have really only had one sig not blazed, while all of the rest of it (more than 3/4ths of the qual sheet) had some hot pens working. I almost feel cheated. I really do want to learn this stuff, and some of the sigs did include some of the senior guys teaching me what I was supposed to be telling them, but overall the feeling is that I just give my card to people so they can sign and then I'm on my own for board. Why not just have people have to put in a few hours in the plant and then go to board when they feel ready?
I feel that I learned more in prototype, but I haven't been out here long enough to say too much. Maybe the learning will be crammed in right before my board. *shrugs* I sure as hell don't know how people get dinq here.
Only a little jaded here, that's all. ::)
The EDM (Engineering Department Manual) delineates what, as a minimum, shall be required for qualifications. Each watch station qualification card has to contain these requirements or there is a "finding" during audits. The manual even shows what types of questions and the weighting compared to those supplemental questions not required by the EDM for watch standing qualification tests.
I am not sure when these requirements were first created, but they cover all bases from the bottom--up so that if an outside agency were to audit the program it would be considered sound.
Many believe the requirements they are graping are perfunctionary, just getting in the way of what you "really need to know" to stand watch. Hopefully, the sigs that were blazed were those items that you should be able to pick up on as you go. It does one a disservice when items like "Draw the BFPL curve. Show all..." are signed. Items like this is not a gimme and prototype should have taught you enough for you to know what you should be learning on the ship.
My best recommendation is to find someone about 3 months ahead of you in arriving time--same rate. This person can keep you 80% clued in to what you will run into. I also recommend finding someone out of rate for the same reason, for the cross-rate systems. You will never go wrong learning drawings and locations. Ask for the EDM and have someone show you where the knowledge requirements are so that you can write them down as homemade TGOs (Topical Guide Objectives). You will be the "heavy" and gain respect.
Always use your watchstanding time to your advantage. If you are the phone talker not actively taking logs or in a casualty response mode put on the sound powered phones and walk over to the EO, RO, Throttleman and get some systems training from the panels. Study notes. Pull out RPMs and SPMs and study. It is always nice to shoot the breeze about the movie you saw on AFRTS last night, but that won't keep you in line with your qualification curve.
Hope this helps...
deltarho
-
I haven't looked at all the past posts on this topic, so please forgive me if I'm repeating anything here.
When I was in prototype (NY), things seemed to be a little bit more difficult. Yes, there were some sigs that got blazed, but I really did have to know at least the basics (and sometimes, a very deep understanding) for most of the checkouts. It was ESPECIALLY difficult for End-of-Cards. I'm not whining about that, though. I actually learned a lot.
Now, I have been on the ship for a little over a week, and I have really only had one sig not blazed, while all of the rest of it (more than 3/4ths of the qual sheet) had some hot pens working. I almost feel cheated. I really do want to learn this stuff, and some of the sigs did include some of the senior guys teaching me what I was supposed to be telling them, but overall the feeling is that I just give my card to people so they can sign and then I'm on my own for board. Why not just have people have to put in a few hours in the plant and then go to board when they feel ready?
I feel that I learned more in prototype, but I haven't been out here long enough to say too much. Maybe the learning will be crammed in right before my board. *shrugs* I sure as hell don't know how people get dinq here.
Only a little jaded here, that's all. ::)
Yeah, that's how it was for me too. Checkouts were legitimate at ptype, and far from it on my boat. Usually the treatment that you're describing (unless you're exaggerating) is reserved for sea-returnees: their cards get signed to keep them ahead of the curve but it's on their a** to be ready for board.
Don't let it keep you from learning about your plant, though.
I used to be in the group that said "what you really need know" but I've found more common ground. There are a lot of pointless checkouts at ptype, stuff that's too detailed to be required knowledge for a student who barely grasps how his panel works let alone the Support & Services Systems. So, the ptype qual card could stand to have its fat trimmed drastically. But in the fleet, on the boat that you're assigned to for ~4 yrs, on which you'll be standing watch as the sole person responsible for X...you should probably know as much as you can about the plant.
It's why people look down their nose at those who graduate from a trade school vice a research university—the graduates from college know more than the guy from the trade school who only knows "what he needs to know." I guess you can argue that to operate a naval plant you don't need to know some things, but then there are those times that you do need to know them, the times that are unpredictable.
I was the forward watch stander this year for our yearly reactor accident drill, the accident was on my MTS while I was on watch. Without getting into the details, because I knew the classification of the recirc pump I was able to thwart their drill scenario. They had to tell us to "ignore that" and continue as they had planned for us. Sure reactor accidents are the most unlikely situation, and I don't ever expect one to happen, but it shows that in those unpredictable situations having some "not required" or "superfluous" knowledge can make a difference. More reasons why I don't like the perspective that when a ptype student passes his final board that means he's ready to stand watch.
-
The EDM (Engineering Department Manual) delineates what, as a minimum, shall be required for qualifications. Each watch station qualification card has to contain these requirements or there is a "finding" during audits. The manual even shows what types of questions and the weighting compared to those supplemental questions not required by the EDM for watch standing qualification tests.
I am not sure when these requirements were first created, but they cover all bases from the bottom--up so that if an outside agency were to audit the program it would be considered sound.
...
deltarho
The EDM was on Rev. 4 when I left for the good life at ptype, and it's been rev'd a couple times since. I don't remember it being that specific. I remember having to create/revise our department instruction that was essentially the ptype Volume I. Has the EDM become as specific as you describe?
-
I haven't looked at all the past posts on this topic, so please forgive me if I'm repeating anything here.
When I was in prototype (NY), things seemed to be a little bit more difficult. Yes, there were some sigs that got blazed, but I really did have to know at least the basics (and sometimes, a very deep understanding) for most of the checkouts. It was ESPECIALLY difficult for End-of-Cards. I'm not whining about that, though. I actually learned a lot.
Now, I have been on the ship for a little over a week, and I have really only had one sig not blazed, while all of the rest of it (more than 3/4ths of the qual sheet) had some hot pens working. I almost feel cheated. I really do want to learn this stuff, and some of the sigs did include some of the senior guys teaching me what I was supposed to be telling them, but overall the feeling is that I just give my card to people so they can sign and then I'm on my own for board. Why not just have people have to put in a few hours in the plant and then go to board when they feel ready?
I feel that I learned more in prototype, but I haven't been out here long enough to say too much. Maybe the learning will be crammed in right before my board. *shrugs* I sure as hell don't know how people get dinq here.
Only a little jaded here, that's all. ::)
qual cards get filled out quickly... good luck on your boards if you think they are going to be easy. Keep in mind your PA, and ultimately the RO and Captain have to sign your qual cards. if you think they are going to blaze your card, you are in for a rude awakening.
once you start getting in the plant, you will realize how LITTLE you do know.
edit : as far as blazing quals, that one's completely up to you. You should be able to distinguish between someone who will give you a real checkout and someone who will just sign your card. both have their place, but dont "complain" that your RAR tour got "blazed" off. Also, if you get stuck on boards for bneq, start bugging RT for a LR qual card and start on that while you wait.
-
As far as cards getting blazed off, I agree that sometimes it is not a big deal because the item being signed is something that almost never happens or is not really applicable because of the way things are operated. Most people that sign your card will usually tell you when this is the case, sometimes they will even tell you the right answer too(this is why it is good to find "salty" types to sign your cards, they really do know a lot).
However, I will attest to the fact that no matter how difficult or easy your checkout and qualification process is, you will not know anything until you stand the watch, on your own, for at least a dozen times. Even then you will not learn much until you do the start ups and shut down and drills. It is only in a dynamic plant do you really get to see how things work together. Steady State steaming will teach you how to take your logs efficiently and that is about it. Drills are your friend for learning your watch. You will know when you have truly mastered your watchstation when you no longer fear drills, could effectively(though not recommended) start up your equipment with no procedure, and you have trained a few people that are new on how something works. Oh and throw in some infrequent maintenance procedures on your equipment for good measure.
Once you have mastered all those watches for your rate, then you can move on to supervisory watches such as ERS, CMO, CRW, EWS, PPWS, etc.
-
On a different subject: I think perhaps the phrase "one crew, one screw" is used too much. To preface this post, I am not impartial on this subject, much of what I discuss frustrates me greatly, and I am seeking a bit of perspective on it from those who have a better perspective than I.
Anyway, it seems to me that many people do not get out of the Navy because they don't like nuclear power, or because they don't like going underway, but because it is somehow one of the most frustrating experiences they encounter in their life (to that point at least). I am not referring to the host of work controls and procedures, they have their place, but to the inane and ridiculous things commands do to solve perceived problems.
Examples:
1. One day the squadron's shipyard representative and the COB were touring through berthing and they lifted a rack pan and a found partially crushed soda can someone had used as a spitter. I agree that is disgusting and wrong, and the responsible party should be punished appropriately. However, I do not believe the whole crew was responsible, or that the command response was appropriate (ban cans and dip, whole crew field day aft berthing at 1830) and productive for a boat trying to come out of overhaul.
2. The day before Thanksgiving much of the crew spent the morning and early afternoon without any real guidance on what to do to get out, the command had put a ban on PMS greater than weekly so nothing would break before fast cruise/sea trials, so most divisions did not have much work to do. Round 1500 we were mustered topside and given a sizable list of things to finish before anyone could go home. We ended up finishing the work day around 1800, but we could have been done by 1500 if the command, who knew what needed to be done, had put it out to people at morning quarters.
3. Another time the command decided to ban all portable electronics that play music. The reasoning, as near as I can determine is as follows: We caught an electrician charging an Ipod in maneuvering, he refused to surrender the Ipod to the Eng (problem). Electrician relieved from watchstanding pending punishment (immediate corrective action). Why was Ipod being charged in maneuvering? Because there are no power strips in berthing, so he can't charge it in his rack, and there is some turd who likes to burgle people on board until he's caught and TDU'd. Possible solutions: Put power strips in berthing and try to find the thief, or ban electronics. Solution: Ban electronics, mast electrician for article 92 (failure to obey lawful order), EMI for other maneuvering area watchstanders.
I stopped at three, but could go on. The point is, many times the problem is isolated to an individual, or a small group, or no one, but everyone suffers for it. I think the "one crew, one screw," "the shaft's back aft" mentality is highly detrimental to the Navy, in retention and moral. I remember being in three section shiftwork and the cook's were supposed to feed us after our shift, but when we'd get up to crew's mess at the same time every day there'd be no food, and they'd have some lame excuse. Once they tried to tell the swing shift that they should come in an hour and a half early for an eleven hour shift if they wanted food. Now, counter that with the cone doing attack centers and training up in control. They can't get people on station, can't run scenarios on time so we shift lunch from 1100 to 1200 at around 1030 that morning to accommodate them, instead of saving plates because they can't do their jobs right. Nukes get off a long shift and get no food, are unable to eat during because everyone is on watch, that's too bad.
Anyway, I know that sometimes it is just an individual who sucks, but after seeing a full command change out and the same crap continue, I'm beginning to think its a problem inherent in the Navy's way of thinking. I wish I had some solution, some brilliant philosophical or practical insight I could contribute, but I don't. Instead all I have to say is that there are a few things which seem very important: planning, execution, delegation, perspective, moderation. Planning not just the overall ship's schedule, but also the day's work. I have seen failure to plan/poor planning coupled with stubbornness on command level, department level, and divisional level, and questioning the plan seems to always be treated as heresy. Execution and delegation seem to fail simultaneously. When there is a plan it goes like this: item X will happen, then we can do Y, which allows Z, go. Then nothing happens because no one was delegated to execute the plan. Perspective and moderation also go hand in hand. So often the command seems to respond in a knee jerk, choosing a poor response to a perceived crisis that was only a problem, then, unwilling to retract their knee jerk (for fear of undermining command authority?) they keep on their flawed path, to the frustration of all. So perspective seems needed in making decisions, or at least a couple deep breaths, and a sense of moderation, rather than rushing to an extreme (this is now banned because we found one where it shouldn't be) immediately.
That's my thoughts, I know from where I am I don't always see things the way they actually are, but perception is reality (man, are the people in charge fond of quoting that one), so for me that is reality. I find it disturbing that as nukes we are trained to know the why, to always analyze trends, to do all this critical thinking about the plant. They train us for it, then when we use that training to examine command decisions, they suddenly want us to just accept it and do as we're told. I know its a military way of thinking, but a military way of thinking was also once "let's line up in a large field across from each other and shoot each other, then we can charge and get some good hand to hand combat in." Different situations call for different solutions. Finally, someone can only be told what is effectively "we own you, so do what you're told or else" before they realize they're only owned for X amount of time longer and decide not to make that time any longer.
-
I think the "one crew, one screw," "the shaft's back aft" mentality is highly detrimental to the Navy, in retention and moral.
Yes. I, too, could supply similar scenarios. In fact, it sounds like you're describing my old boat.
Rickover
Avoid over-coordination. We have all observed months-long delays caused by an effort to bring all activities into complete agreement with a proposed policy or procedure. While the coordinating machinery is slowly grinding away, the original purpose is often lost. The essence of the proposals is being worn down as the persons most concerned impatiently await the decision. The process has been aptly called coordinating to death.
The problem with the navy is the military side of it...
Rickover
1. More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.
2. Sit down before fact with an open mind. Be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you learn nothing. Don't push out figures when facts are going in the opposite direction.
3. Free discussion requires an atmosphere unembarrassed by any suggesion of authority or even respect. If a subordinate always agrees with his superior he is a useless part of the organization. In this connection there is a story of Admiral Sims when he was on duty in London in World War I. He called a conscientious hard-working officer in to him to explain why he was dissatisfied with the officer's work. The officer blushed and stammered when Sims pointed out that in all the time they had been working together the officer had never once disagreed with Sims.
4. All men are by nature conservative but conservatism in the military profession is a source of danger to the country. One must be ready to change his line sharply and suddenly, with no concern for the prejudices and memories of what was yesterday. To rest upon formula is a slumber that, prolonged, means death.
5. Success teaches us nothing; only failure teaches.
6. Do not regard loyalty as a personal matter. A greater loyalty is one to the Navy or to the Country. When you know you are absolutely right, and when you are unable to do anything about it, complete military subordination to rules becomes a form of cowardice.
7. To doubt one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man. Don't defend past actions; what is right today may be wrong tomorrow. Don't be consistent; consistency is the refuge of fools.
8. Thoughts arising from practical experience may be a bridle or a spur.
9. Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous.
10. A system under which it takes three men to check what one is doing is not control; it is systematic strangulation.
11. A man, by working 24 hours a day, could multiply himself 3 times. To multiply himself more than 3 times the only recourse is to train others to take over some of his work.
Why do we need the military bearing factor while standing watch? There's a seminar given to all students at NPTU that explicitly demonstrates that reactor safety is a higher priority than following the orders of a superior rank.
-
After looking at this topic quite a few times, I am wondering, why couldnt the Navy bother to emulate civilian plants and design them to operate with the same personnel on shift that they do? From a first glance, this would lower personnel requirements, give people more time off, and create a higher morale. Possible downsides include more personal responsibility for junior personnel, a higher LOK required. Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on this? I'm sure to be able to operate most everything from the control room has one hell of an initial price, but the savings would probably be mirrored in recruitment and retention.
This would probably require a rating merger and/or a creation of a nuclear rating, longer initial training (in hours per week), and a tour would potentially involve either being operation personnel or maintenance personnel (so every few years you could switch what you were doing).
Food for thought.
Jason
-
After looking at this topic quite a few times, I am wondering, why couldnt the Navy bother to emulate civilian plants and design them to operate with the same personnel on shift that they do? From a first glance, this would lower personnel requirements, give people more time off, and create a higher morale. Possible downsides include more personal responsibility for junior personnel, a higher LOK required. Has anyone ever done a cost benefit analysis on this? I'm sure to be able to operate most everything from the control room has one hell of an initial price, but the savings would probably be mirrored in recruitment and retention.
This would probably require a rating merger and/or a creation of a nuclear rating, longer initial training (in hours per week), and a tour would potentially involve either being operation personnel or maintenance personnel (so every few years you could switch what you were doing).
Food for thought.
Jason
Well first you have to get the Navy to stop saying silly things like "Commercial plants strive to do things like us." I bet that is harder than it sounds. Secondly, I think the whole point of the Navy nuke design is to be idiot proof.
Justin
PS Just as a funny side not, last week I experiences some of the navular BS that we are all used to, here at my plant. My license class scored well above average on last weeks exam, which has traditionally been a low scorer for classes. So now there are questions being asked as to why we did so well. ::) It couldn't be the 20+ hours each of us put in studying. >:(
-
I think that a lot of those problems can be attributed to the perceived need to have commands bring down the hammer on themselves least an outside organization do it. While I fully support the need for outside monitoring of our actions and transparency, there should be an understanding that the commands will police themselves effectively in the way they best see fit. An outside organization won't known that ET3 Scmukatelly is constant screwup, yet when he gets caught goofing off in Manuevering during a SRO watch, NRRO is going to assume it is somehow universal thoughout the Nuke department. Therefore, the COC has to have the kneejerk reaction for the entire department because it has this innane fear that if they don't NRRO is going to start relieving the boat of its keys and its command personnel. That reaction is tough at first and overly rediculous most of the time, yet after a while it becomes easier to work with, and that is why it is never un-implemented. However after about a dozen knee jerkers, you get a climate where everything is so bound down in double/triple checks, paperwork, oversight, and whatnot that you get an inefficient system. That inefficiency leads to longer work days, which breeds contempt for the proper way things are supposed to be done, which leads to guys short cutting as much as they can in order to reduce the work time, which inevitably leads to more mistakes, thus repeating the cycle.
The NNPP needs to evaluate the fact that a singular person can and will screw up. That person should be upgraded. This does not mean that the ENTIRE department needs an upgrade, UNLESS it becomes a common occurance. NRRO needs to learn that the level of corrective action they expect may not be the best action depending on the command.
<brushes off soapbox> Ok who's next?
-
... why couldn't the Navy bother to emulate civilian plants ...
One of the main reasons is that it's really hard to compare Navy vs. commercial is that it's difficult to build a sea-going vessel which exists (for all practical intents) in only two states: S/D or 100% power.
Commercial plants never take their reactor plants under the ice, where lives depend on keeping the plant running.
Commercial plants aren't built to ever do a surface transit through a busy shipping lane, where the ability to rapidly and repeatedly change power is a MUST.
A question I have is how you view "personnel". How many HP's are at your plant? How many Chemists & Chemistry Technicians? My last submarine had only six ELT's, and those six people alone fielded all the Navy-equivalent HP/Chem jobs & routines. Sure, there's only one HP Tech and one Chem Tech on shift at any given time in a commercial plant, but that doesn't mean that the plant's entire HP/Chem manning is only 2. And on a wild guess, I would speculate that the number of PEO's alone at your plant is larger than the whole Nuke department on a submarine.
(Carriers are a whole 'nother animal, so I'm not gonna go there :P...)
Just some point/counterpoint, is all. No flaming was intended.
Peace,
- Greg
-
Commercial plants never take their reactor plants under the ice, where lives depend on keeping the plant running.
Commercial plants aren't built to ever do a surface transit through a busy shipping lane, where the ability to rapidly and repeatedly change power is a MUST.
Peace,
- Greg
Nor are they built to withstand depth charges or collision (such as with an underwater mountain or another vessel). ;)
-
The design characteristics of a plant to be resistant to shock and temperature stresses do not really play into how many people you need to operate a plant. This is a personnel issue, most of your valves and switches that are operated on station could be rigged to be operated out of the control room. Less supervision than is now required in the Navy, hell right now for someone to operate a primary valve, you need to have at least 4-5 people involved. This can substantially be lowered with a change in thought process (on the Navy's part) to streamline things and make things a lil more cost effective.
As far as variable power, every nuclear power plant has to gradually increase power to get to that 100%, and is subject to those same temperature and pressure stresses, albeit that they do not occur that often, but the design is still there. Most of these commercial plants are also operating just as long as a Navy nuke plant too. If you rig most of your valves with motors (or hydraulics) and switches to be operated from the control room, it shouldnt be too much of an issue. The big thing I foresee would be ensuring the wiring and motors operate in a flooding or shock scenario, and since the Navy has this technology, it should be able to be implemented.
As for your question, I view personnel from a departmental/divsional standpoint. If you took those 6 guys, added the 10 mechanics that you should have on a sub (just a guess cause I'm on a carrier), trained those mechanics on how to cover a job and do chem analysis, and split them up between the ONE mecahical operator, and ONE chem tech on shift, you would easily have an increase in time off for those other personnel, because your manning requirements stay the same, however your watch requirements decrease. Better yet, if you have one nuclear rating, everyone has to learn everyone elses job (and you cant tell me that it cant happen or else how could someone qualify EWS/PPWS?) Oh yeah, on my carrier there are roughly 25 ELT's, myself being one. ;-)
One of the things that would have to change for this to work is the training structure of the pipeline. It would have to become more rigorous.
Not out of the Navy yet, but darn close ;-), and the BWR that I'm going to has about 10 HP techs.
I love a good intellectual debate, thanks for not getting flamed over it, Greg.
Jason
-
"IMHO"
As I was reading this long and involving thread, I was enlightened with something that I wanted to toss into the mix. It may have been brought up already because I was 80% finished reading through before I skipped to my reply. (80% being the magical made up number for statistics)
I've read through some of the nub-bashing, both inter-generational and intra-... I agree too that the quality has declined through the pipeline. You should have met some of the nicely packaged turds we had shipped in on our boat right before I left. Frankly, I was glad that some of them got de-nuked, regardless of how much pain and suffering they endured. I KNOW that we weren't the only sub/carrier that got them, so does that mean that we are just recruiting the turds who are promoting laziness, incompetence, disregard for rules and integrity, etc.? Where's the common variable?
I think we need to stop telling these kids right from the get-go that they are the "cream of the cream of the crop", the "top 10% of the Navy's intelligence", etc. They get it in their heads at the recruiting station and from the MEPS classifiers. Heads become further inflated at NFAS, straight off the plane from RTC (they did it 9 years ago, I'm sure they still do). This feeling of invincibility and superb-ness is bred into our replacements by ourselves, and we sit here and wonder why we catch them blazing logs, being dink, blah blah.
-
JsonD13,
Good ideas. I've thought for a while now that having the different ratings is pointless, that there should be just one "nuclear operator" rating.
You'll have to contend with the counterpoint that even now with 4-5 people involved in operating one primary valve that that valve doesn't always get returned to its proper position, i.e. mistakes are still made even with so many people involved.
I don't buy that rationale. When I was taking physics in college, the teacher kept making the exams easier and easier, trying to preclude students from failing. Got to where he was telling us that the 10 questions for the exam would be selected from the 15 questions of the homework assignment. People still failed the exam. I think that if you make some things too easy, it has the opposite effect in that people stop trying. So because there's no many people involved with that one valve operation, no one feels a sense of ownership and feels like someone else will catch a mistake.
And that's what happens during critiques, everyone tries to avoid the truth: they failed to pay attention, they failed to care about what they were doing. Hence all of the new policies, instructions, revisions, etc. When you say the navy has realize that only a single person may be the sole root cause to something happening, you're assuming that that guy fessed up to his mistake during the critique and didn't try to partially blame something else.
-
The idea of a single "Nuclear" rating is intriguing.
At first, I was daunted by the prospect of adding a ton of extra qual cards to nubs who already have an uphill battle to stay off the Dink list. To illustrate this, I showed up on my first boat as a brand new ELT and was given about 6.022x1023 blank qual cards I had to complete. Now imagine piling on even MORE qual cards on top of that for AEA, SEO, RT, EO, RO, SRO, Throttleman, etc. Egads!!!
However, with the one-rating nuclear program, AEA and SEO would be dissolved and incorporated into the other watchstations. That's just one example; a lot of other quals/watchstations could be merged and restructured.
Casualty response becomes another sticking point. Many casualties (such as fire and flooding) require the instantaneous application of a ton of manpower. How can you automate firefighting, for example? If you only put one or two people in the EngineRoom - to cover the entire EngineRoom - then you could find yourself severely hamstrung when the poop hits the fan. When a submarine is on-station and completely steady state doing "knots to nowhere", you could probably get away with just three people outside Maneuvering (one upstairs, one downstairs, and one EWS) and three people inside Maneuvering (RO, EO, and EOOW, with either the RO or the EO covering Throttles). Again, for steady-state low-risk situations, that's probably fine. And while S/D in port, one person in the spaces and one in the box is fine; if a casualty gets out-of-hand in port, there's always the "muster on the pier/burn, baby, burn" option.
And one final point on automating casualty response. Any casualty action or indication which is remote or automated MUST - absolutely - positively - MUST - be kept in tip top working condition at all times. Lives could depend on it. Think about all the things you'd have to automate in order for casualty response to be literally at the tips of your fingers. Now, take all of those things that you just automated and basically put the full spectrum of "Remote Op" controls on every one of them, just as if each one of those new controls was its own RCLIV. Remember, the lives of all hands on the boat may depend on that automated/remote piece of equipment. Suddenly, cutting back on the number of underway watchstanders doesn't look like such a big reduction in manpower anymore... We could probably trim down a few watchstations, but I don't see a wholesale revamping in my crystal ball. (Of course, my crystal ball is a lying bitch sometimes...)
And I don't mean to get pissy (well, maybe just a little bit on this part) but it took the better part of a week to go from 10% to 100% PRx after the last outage here. That rate of power change isn't exactly going to support "Stop the Shaft" or "Emergency Deep". 10% to 100% PRx on AIIIC is properly measured with a stopwatch, not a calendar. Saying that a commercial plant does transients too is like me going up to Ahhhhhnold and saying, "Yeah, I lift weights".
[Sorry, but that part really did stick in my throat for some reason. Maybe I forgot to take my medicine or something...]
But you are dead-on regarding the overmanagement point. It's almost like at every critique, the top brass ends up thinking "This would have never happened if I had been there supervising it, so obviously we need more supervision applied here". What they really need to be doing instead is their own f'ing job and making sure that their operators are people who are properly and adequately trained to do the things they are supposed to do (such that they don't REQUIRE twenty-seven layers of oversight to touch a valve or a switch). Needing frequent additional layers of supervision is simply an admission that the training program has not produced reliable plant operators. Why can't Big Navy see that?
OK, I'm just about typed out for now, so I'll step down from the soap box before I get going on another "rant branch"... :P
- Greg
-
The EDM was on Rev. 4 when I left for the good life at ptype, and it's been rev'd a couple times since. I don't remember it being that specific. I remember having to create/revise our department instruction that was essentially the ptype Volume I. Has the EDM become as specific as you describe?
I'll have to admit that I was going by what I used in 1988 while the Training Department LPO on board the Tommy T.
-
All,
I'll weigh in on this more after 31DEC, but you should know there are studies being done to design plants with 4 total watchstanders in the ER (2 in man, 2 roving).
774 class eliminated one MM and combined RT and AEA into one watchstander.
DM
-
G-reg,
Good stuff, but I don't think that if the navy made it to the point of combining all of the rates that they wouldn't also have changed some other things along the way. Like the watch stations: combining them would be a must, to which Derek has alluded.
Also, I don't think the remote op level of work control would/should be applied to all of those other systems. Flood control is there to save lives, as well as fire extinguishers, but neither have remote op level of work control. Moreover, the remote op requirements are silly. If guys would just employ the standard litany of controls that are already in place for everything else (without skipping steps), then we'd never have a loss of remote op. Also, from the testimonies of my fellow surface co-workers remote op isn't a big deal.
...What they really need to be doing instead is their own f'ing job and making sure that their operators are people who are properly and adequately trained to do the things they are supposed to do...
- Greg
The deckplate is properly and adequately trained. The guys there just don't do what they're trained to do. They don't do what they're trained to do because they think it's unnecessary or unimportant—they don't care. They don't care because of all of the negative quality of life issues we've already gone over. The navy needs to improve the quality of life in order for the plant to be operated correctly...thereby restoring the margin to thermal limits.
-
For what it's worth ADM Rickover had his philosophy on management that takes into account trusting guys to do the right thing, inspiring ownership in their duties. If you haven't read this speech he gave at Colombia University, check it out.
http://www.govleaders.org/rickover.htm
He might have been a tyrant, but his philosophy seems sound. I think his words and intentions have been twisted since his death. Bummer.
-
It would be worth it for every nuke to read "The Rickover Effect."
-
PapaBear,
True, I exaggerated about the scope of additional work controls (mainly in order to make a point). Flood control would have been a better analogy than remote op.
One thing to keep in mind is the redundancy and backup built into already-existing casualty control equipment. Even flood control has backups - manual hydraulic valve operation & EMBT blow, for instance. Additional controls for fire extinguishers aren't as extensive, because we have several of them on board (ie, lots of backup); if one of them doesn't work, it isn't a show-stopper. Automating tons of casualty control actions [whether you throw in extra backup relays/actuators/etc. for everything, or whether you make one-and-only actuating equipment that you have to baby-sit] just strikes me as a marginal manpower savings. You'd spend a lot of your newly found off-watch time inspecting, maintaining, and repairing those hundreds of additional pieces of equipment throughout the plant (which freed up all of that watchstanding time in the first place). Automating the EngineRoom just strikes me as more of a manpower tradeoff than a manpower savings. Mebbe I'm wrong, I dunno... I am interested in hearing about the 4-person watchteam.
The deckplate is properly and adequately trained.
From the "pump vs. filter" discussions on this thread, I'm not 100% sure I can buy stock in this.
The guys there just don't do what they're trained to do. They don't do what they're trained to do because they think it's unnecessary or unimportant - they don't care.
Much of this I agree with. As to why they don't care, I don't think your explanation is wrong, but perhaps it is incomplete. Part of it certainly IS due to QOL. But another part of it is that they don't care because, quite frankly, they have been trained that they don't HAVE to care (again I refer to the "pump vs. filter" discussions). I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but accountability used to be a huge, recurring part of the training program. If you didn't meet the bar (be it in the classroom, on watch, doing maintenance, or whatever), you were DONE. And now, student attrition rates are more important than student accountability, and the students learn this. They have been trained to this, and have seen it reinforced through the experiences of students around them (and possibly even through their own experiences). As longs as the gods of attrition come down from the mountain and declare that a body in a billet is more important than accountability to a standard, then I don't know how anybody could take accountability in the NNPP seriously. God bless the people that have enough of their own personal accountability to overcome that.
Clearly not all training comes from a system drawing or a procedure, and the accountability portion of the training program has atrophied to almost nothing. This is also true in the fleet, whereby command supervision will keep deadwood aboard simply because there is no immediate replacement available. Which, in the eyes of the beholders on the deckplates, simply becomes more reinforcement of said training. We don't need to be totally draconian, where we're bringing in the full firing squad for every single offense (because that old-school style of "accountability training" is/was just as dysfunctional), but this particular pendulum really needs to swing closer back to the center.
So I think one of the big reasons why people don't care (but certainly not the only reason) is the "you don't have to care" training they receive, along with a healthy smattering of relevant theory to practice data to support it. You CAN train people (most people, anyway) to care, but it requires the existence of an integrated training program. Having a few good people say "You should care because..." does little good when the rest of the program says (and lives) the exact opposite.
- Greg
-
You're right about the complaints of the Pumped Students vice the Filtered Students showing how untrained they are. I should have been more specific. I mean that the knowledge requirements haven't changed. ETs and EMs still have the same 5 mechanical drawings they are required to draw from memory now as they did at the other p-type when I was a student. The problem is what you've identified: accountability. No one is expecting an ET to draw any of these systems at their final board, or at any other time prior.
*Why* they should care is my little piece of the making-things-better pie. It's what I emphasize at every training event and every checkout.
Going back through this discussion you can find examples of the Attrition Police exercising their full authority at thwarting the removal of unworthy students from the program. But I contend that more students would be removed if the staff would do their job and document the ITRs appropriately. Every student (about 3) that I had on-crew who was a dirtbag (the worst achieving -20% prior to mast) was disenrolled due to what I logged in their ITRs. Staff who write "Should never be allowed near a reactor" are not helping the command justify to NRRO that the student should be removed.
-
I remember being in three section shiftwork and the cook's were supposed to feed us after our shift, but when we'd get up to crew's mess at the same time every day there'd be no food, and they'd have some lame excuse. Once they tried to tell the swing shift that they should come in an hour and a half early for an eleven hour shift if they wanted food. Now, counter that with the cone doing attack centers and training up in control. They can't get people on station, can't run scenarios on time so we shift lunch from 1100 to 1200 at around 1030 that morning to accommodate them, instead of saving plates because they can't do their jobs right. Nukes get off a long shift and get no food, are unable to eat during because everyone is on watch, that's too bad.
Ahh...I remember this well. I mean how hard can it be to figure out how much food to prepare for a three section captive audience? As EMC, I got tired of my guys getting off watch only to have PB&J. Told the cooks that as the head of PhLAP (PHILADELPHIA Light and Power), it was our job to provide them with electricity, and their job to provide us with food. Until they could figure out how not to run out of food, I would run out of electricity. Removed rack lights and starters from the entire MS division racks. Within a week, we always had food, including dessert, when we got off watch. ;D
-
Ahh...I remember this well. I mean how hard can it be to figure out how much food to prepare for a three section captive audience? As EMC, I got tired of my guys getting off watch only to have PB&J. Told the cooks that as the head of PhLAP (PHILADELPHIA Light and Power), it was our job to provide them with electricity, and their job to provide us with food. Until they could figure out how not to run out of food, I would run out of electricity. Removed rack lights and starters from the entire MS division racks. Within a week, we always had food, including dessert, when we got off watch. ;D
Unfortunately this is what has to happen on occasion to get your point across. We had an overzealous CHENG on the carrier that insisted that Rx Dept run drills during GQ(even though we ran drills every night when everyone else was asleep). Well since we had a dedicated Rx Plant drill team, we had to be the ones to run all the drills, which mean that we would be up for very, very long hours if we ran GQ drills. So we started running SLR from the Reboiler(this is what supplies hot water to all the ship effectively) which required it be shut down and restarted. This process took a while depending on who the Reboiler watch was. Well after the first couple of times when there was no hot water for showers, we got told to secure from Rx Plant drills during GQ.
-
Ahh...I remember this well. I mean how hard can it be to figure out how much food to prepare for a three section captive audience? ...
This one very special MS3 once forgot the onions in the French onion soup.
-
Soft toilet paper might help this program...... I could sand an entire car with a roll of the stuff we have.
-
Soft toilet paper might help this program...... I could sand an entire car with a roll of the stuff we have.
Don't use the ones that come in the box labeled: NAVS#$%PERS. Those are the ones you are supposed to scrub the heads with. Those Supply Corps Officers are probably pulling pranks on you like they did us. Just insist that they pass the Charmin or certain staterooms will suffer a loss of potable water accident.
Modified for language by moderator.
-
If someone put me in charge to fix the manning issue and I had cart blanche authority here's what I would do:
All aspects of Navy nuclear power fall under the ED community.
There is no separation between submarine and surface. Officers and enlisted can get detailed to either. Your primary job is as an engineer specializing in nuclear propulsion. If you want to go URL later in your career (O-4 and above) then you apply at that time. You can qualify as an OOD but your primary job on the ship is in the engine room.
Enlisted structure
Initial enlistment is only a 4-year term.
There is only one enlisted rate - nuclear propulsion technician
Initial training for an enlisted person consists of a one-year hybrid of machinist mate and electrician mate skills (valve operation/repair, into to air compressors, heat exchangers, breaker/motor/generator PMS, etc) plus basic steam plant systems/operation and danger tag procedures. Don’t go deep into nuclear theory. Just hit the big picture. Give them a one-week course on radcon that introduces them to the various contamination &/radiation postings/concepts.
After school they go to the fleet and fill propulsion plant watch stations that do not affect reactivity. At the ship they’ll do OJT training in radcon so they can address spills, stand control point, etc. They’ll so their DC quals and submarine/ESWS quals. At the end of 4 years the goal is to be a proficient watch stander with the senior watch station being electrical distribution panel operator. Reenlistment options are 4-years which consist of two years at a nuclear support shore duty job then back to sea for two years or; six-year reenlistments where you’ll get 18 months of training consisting of nuclear power school/prototype (after which you’ll be qualified to stand the watch stations that do affect reactivity such as reactor operator, feed station, throttleman, etc.). You’ll get preliminary leadership training to be an engineering watch supervisor and specialized training in either electronics (so you can do testing/maintenance on reactor instrumentation) or chemistry (ELTs). The Navy works with academic institutions (why not the Naval Academy?) so that sailors at this level receive an AS degree in nuclear engineering technology. After this training they return to the fleet for 2-3 years and the final two years of the six-year enlistment is at a shore nuclear support job or 18 months to finish a BS degree in Engineering. The degree option would mean signing on for more time in the Navy either as enlisted or go to OCS and stay in the nuclear ED community. Now at the very least you have a sailor at the 10 year point with an AS degree who either wants to make it a career or get out with marketable skills.
Officer structure
Nuclear officers consist of a mix of EDs and LDO/CWO. An LDO/CWO who completes a 4-year engineering or technical degree can do a direct transfer to ED (W-2 or O-2, W-3/4 to 0-3, W-5 to 0-4). These are the fleet’s nuclear division officers, engineering deptartment heads, submarine chief engineers, EOOWs and Reactor Officers on CVNs. LDOs and CWOs can request to test for the NR PNEO exam but it’s not a requirement (passing PNEO allows them to fill the senior supervisory watch function or department head billets). While the requirement should be to get their EDO dolphins and/or surface equivalent, they won’t be prohibited from getting the URL version. Post-grad school options are restricted to a Masters in Engineering or Engineering Management.
In both cases, officer and enlisted, shore duty is limited to positions that directly support nuclear power. Such as shipyards, NR, NAVSEA design groups, prototypes, etc.
-
Nucwarrant,
Great first post. Welcome to nukeworker.com.
Cheers,
GC
-
nucwarrant, awesome! +K to ya!
I'd only add the following: swing the NNPP spoolpiece back from "pump" to "filter". Change the logo at Power School to "Fleet Needs More A-Gang". When the sections see a few Warcraft warriors take that stroll down Washout Lane, it will get the attention warranted. Perma-nubs in the fleet...go play unrep/vertrep/painting detail.
-
OK Warrant. Who's going to tear down and fix the machinery when it breaks? While your proposal sounds nice, I'm not sure it keeps ships and submarines on station. Although its headed more towards a "plug and play" design, if the TG isn't generating, you need that EM who can troubleshoot down to the component level. My experience is that it is the 1st and 2nd class petty officers, led by a competent chief, that make the difference between continuing the mission or pulling in for repairs.
So, what percentage of folks on a submarine are in that first four year timespan? Alot of those 2nd classes who I'm counting on to fix what ever it is thats broken. I firmly believe we need that detailed in-rate training. Who else is going to figure out that the reason the hydrogen burner isn't burning is because the 25 cent thermocouple isn't putting out the right millivolt signal?
Oh, and welcome to the site.
-
Don't use the ones that come in the box labeled: NAVS#$%PERS.
Modified for language by moderator.
Mr./Mrs. Graphite, why didn't you at least leave the "t" at the end? I thought the whole Navyese spelling of toilet paper would fly, but you could have at least kept the "t"??!!
How about NAV$#!+PERS? Very obliquely similar--yet the 13-year olds that frequent the site should not be offended.
-
If someone put me in charge to fix the manning issue and I had cart blanche authority here's what I would do:
All aspects of Navy nuclear power fall under the ED community.
An LDO/CWO who completes a 4-year engineering or technical degree can do a direct transfer to ED (W-2 or O-2, W-3/4 to 0-3, W-5 to 0-4).
This is a very critical piece--very well thought out. Seems a lot like the theory of evolution, though. There is no link--no middle. How do we get the LDO/WO population? For the most part, (I think we all have met a CWO who made it so that he will get surfaced, thereby making the submariners sleep easier) LDOs and CWO are subject matter experts (SME). How will you breed these under your plan? I think that the Navy should offer to do what they did when they brought back the battleships--they reinstated those with 16" gun experience. I had a CMC with 42 fargin' years. Did 30==>retired; put 15 years in as a detective==> retired, Came back as a SME and was in his 13th year of trying for his second 30!
I realize those that come back may be rusty, but leadership and mentorship is priceless!
-
As an LDO, why would I want to convert to ED? ;D
.After school they go to the fleet and fill propulsion plant watch stations that do not affect reactivity. At the ship theyll do OJT training in radcon so they can address spills, stand control point, etc. Theyll so their DC quals and submarine/ESWS quals. At the end of 4 years the goal is to be a proficient watch stander with the senior watch station being electrical distribution panel operator. Reenlistment options are 4-years which consist of two years at a nuclear support shore duty job then back to sea for two years or; six-year reenlistments where youll get 18 months of training consisting of nuclear power school/prototype (after which youll be qualified to stand the watch stations that do affect reactivity such as reactor operator, feed station, throttleman, etc.).
And in a submarine, what watchstations don't affect reactivity? AEA and ?Everyone else, including Lower Level Louie, can screw you. And on VA class, there are even fewer watchstanders, all with the ability to muster the rods on the bottom.
-
Some people have commented on my post. I’d like to respond.
Question - Who's going to tear down and fix the machinery when it breaks?
Answer - The sailors who get the initial hybrid MM/EM training will be introduced to the engineering fundamentals, use of technical manuals and troubleshooting before they go to their ships much as they do now. The ones that decide to reenlist for nuke school will be trained to a deeper level. They’ll be the ones who’ll lead on major underway repairs and direct the junior people. The thing a lot of us overlook is that the engineers behind the scenes at NAVSEA really do a great job. First, they design a nuclear plant that 20 year old kids can operate and can take the routine transients we put on them. How many major underway engineering equipment failure that put you dead in the water does the fleet really experience? I experienced one, maybe two, in 20 years. Second, if you take the time to look at the NAVSEA equipment manuals you’ll find them for the most part to be very well written with just about all the technical information you need to troubleshoot/repair.
Question - what percentage of folks on a submarine are in that first four year timespan?
Answer - that depends on the number of watch station billets there are to fill at this level. I've been retired long enough that the submarine engineering watch station manning I knew has probably changed a little.
Question - How do we get the LDO/WO population?
Answer - That’s the easy part. The good people are out there. There’s a large number of qualified candidates that aren’t selected every year because the number of openings are limited. If the Navy adjusted the number so that you had 1-2 full time LDO/CWOs EOOWs on submarines and 75% of the Engineering/Reactor Division Officers on CVNs were LDO/CWOs (the rest coming from the ED community) it would take about 3 years to establish the manning levels. Once established, these people flow into the shore billets at shipyards, NAVSEA, prototypes, etc.
Question - For the most part, (I think we all have met a CWO who made it so that he will get surfaced, thereby making the submariners sleep easier) LDOs and CWO are subject matter experts (SME). How will you breed these under your plan?
Answer - First off, I have never met a CWO who “made it so that he will get surfaced”. The selection process is too tight. If you’re not technically competent and don't show the right leadership characteristics then you’re not going to get selected. There may have been people you didn’t like for personality reasons who got selected that you place in this category but that’s another issue. If a person who’s a real butt head makes CWO, trust me, we dealt with that when he/she tried to act that way in our community. You want to wear the “blue breaks” in your gold then you better have your shit together or we’ll cut you out of the heard. Same thing goes for LDOs. I’ve seen E-6/7s with a cocky attitude when they put on their bars get chewed up as an ensign and not survive.
How will we breed them? My whole approach to the change deals with the mental shift in the Navy organization that being a nuclear operator/engineer in the Navy is a profession. Go back 100 years and the Navy had a prominent, separate engineering branch. It may be time to reinstate that organization structure starting with nuclear. Remember “It’s not just a job”? Well it is just a job. But, it’s a very good, specialized job where you can learn a lot, have a good career and make a very good living for yourself and your family.
The junior enlisted nukes would be much like the new non-licensed equipment operators in the civilian plants. They get preliminary fundamental training, there’s a lot of on-the job-training, they start doing the job and continue to learn. After several years they may want to go for that next step as a reactor operator and can even see becoming an EOOW in their future. The whole time they’re learning more about their profession and progressing. For example, you’re an E-3 in initial training. you start by learning about different types of valves (check, globe, gate, etc.), their characteristics and applications. Then learning how to repair each type. Flash forward 8 years and your learning about obsolescence management and how to select the proper replacement for a certain valve that’s no longer available. Finally, our E-3 is an O-3 working at NAVSEA designing a fresh water system and figuring out what the combined head loss of the system will be based on the valves he’s selected.
This is the future we could map out and present to some kid coming out of high school. A lot of the pieces are already in place but there are too many barriers in the Navy right now to make it flow smoothly to where you could really sell it. Rice bowls and politics are tough things to overcome.
-
Question - For the most part, (I think we all have met a CWO who made it so that he will get surfaced, thereby making the submariners sleep easier) LDOs and CWO are subject matter experts (SME). How will you breed these under your plan?
Answer - First off, I have never met a CWO who made it so that he will get surfaced. The selection process is too tight. If youre not technically competent and don't show the right leadership characteristics then youre not going to get selected. There may have been people you didnt like for personality reasons who got selected that you place in this category but thats another issue. If a person whos a real butt head makes CWO, trust me, we dealt with that when he/she tried to act that way in our community. You want to wear the blue breaks in your gold then you better have your shit together or well cut you out of the heard. Same thing goes for LDOs. Ive seen E-6/7s with a cocky attitude when they put on their bars get chewed up as an ensign and not survive.
I hope that when you said that you never met a CWO who made it so that he will get surfaced, that you were not insinuating that this never once happened. You would be correct; I know that it happened twice. Truth travels from below just like it does when you get a new Electrical Officer that used to be the MPA on another ship. Time in grade, he should be up for Engineer, but instead is on a Get Well Tour--verifiable, whether you like him or not. Or how about the Ensign that gets transferred from coast to coast, way before his periodicity. I suppose we could never find out that he was targeting West Pac Widows (enlisted) and was transfered for his personal safety--verifiable, whether you like him or not.
As for the cocky LDOs and CWOs, they faced their doom while standing watch in the box. MMs are like sharks that smell blood...
I will point out that I attempted to preface my comment by saying "For the most part, LDOs and CWO are subject matter experts (SME).
That said, you have a plan to infuse the initial increased demand, but down the road, when the baby nukes are not getting the experience in the time frame they are now, who will be in line as the initial ones retire?
-
Well I must say that this thread has returned from the grave to be once again lively and kicking.
Didn't deal too much with CWOs, although we did have a MPTA that was a CWO. He used to be a Chief that taught at NFAS(he actually was the guy to show us how to operate a NASH Compressor). He was a Sub guy and really good at his job. We also had some LDOs that were sub guys, and they too were pretty decent PPWOs.
-
From Navy Nuke > Getting In:
I know ... I know. I stand guilty. Please don't use the wet noodle on me. I'll do anything to avoid the penalty that makes keel-hauling look like a game of patty-cake! :P
I am not accusing anyone specifically. They thought (the brainy ones ... to which I don't claim to be) that they could make the program more cost effective. Just like the rest of Corporate America at the time. Lean and Mean! You know? It didn't work. But, of course this policy will not get the required attention because it is the cost of doing business today.
But, no one is giving the policy a second look because they now accept it as standard operating practice.
So, many more manning/staffing issues will manifest along the way also. Retention is going to be an issue ... hold it it already is. Military bearing issues will continue to be a problem ... hold it they just got worse. The quality of life will remain at the bottom of the sea ... hold it this has happened before.
In total the decisions that were made to reduce the training cost are part of the acceptable parameters considered for its use. Unless someone causes an incident or accident this will not change. And, to top it off it will be to late to correct it even then.
Aviation has seen the same loss of competence due to the needs of the industry. It will always come down to the cost! No matter the cost in the end. Today it looks good. But if and when this blows up in some ones face it can be blamed on the somebody that instituted it years ago. Even though it was your command and you didn't complain you now get to right the ship you just run aground. And, that normally means more money but doesn't mean more responsibility. Does any of this sound familiar? It looks good on paper and the cost savings are wonderful. But, the side effects will cost you more money in hidden costs and over-runs. Sound familiar? No one will complain because we can just print more paper. Sound familiar? It should it is history repeating itself.
When you don't ex-communicate the drift-wood from the program early on things kind of happen. And, these problems never go away.
We had a 3.95 MM in my section at NNPS. On the day before comp he was removed for non-academic reasons. He violated a direct order from our SA. That sounds bad right? Not really. At least to him. He had good reasons. He had been living off base with a girl. He was late for the class day before comp by 3 minutes (approximately). He even confessed his sins to the SA in hopes of saving himself because he was a 3.95 student you know. He didn't even get to come back to class and say good-bye. Gone to the conventional surface with a used to be 3.95 avg at power school. We all tried to get him to not stay off base. But, would always tell us that we were suckers and losers (we didn't have a 3.95 avg you know) for following orders and what not.
Now you let a chump like this into the fleet as a Nuke and see what trouble you get as a result. He had good grades you know! He was a drift-wood that would sink a ship and kill his shipmates with his attitude. He got caught just like all the rest when we went through. Supply an under-age person with al'key and you were gone. As they also. Try to run from SP and you were gone inside of an hour. Etc.
Did we have problems? Yes. Did we have retention issues? Yes. Did we go to sea a lot? Yes.
So much for doing the right thing. The navy had better be looking at this in the regards as a big problem. With serious outcomes that could be manifested due to there own policies.
I hope and pray they do.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that if we're going to have retention problems anyway, why not cut our losses early and keep those who can make the grade and maintain an acceptable level of military bearing? I like it.
My guess is that your 3.95 student was late more than that one time. When I was a student at Orlando NNPS and later staff there, there was a sign that said words to the effect that the smartest students have to work as hard as the weaker students. I think one of the problems with keeping the academic or military problem children is the fact that the staff should be working to make our good Sailors great. Most of the people are good, but many students are not challenged because the staff spends so much time on the problem students.
DM
-
So to summarize in the form of a question:
Are we sacrificing competence for compliance?
-
So to summarize in the form of a question:
Are we sacrificing competence for compliance?
Considering the recent training compromises, radioed radiochemistry, sub collisions with slow moving fishing vessels and undersea mounts.... I'd say that BOTH were sacrificed , starting in the Ahab & Jezebel days (early 90s)....
-
Speaking of radiochemistry.....
One of my favorite stories, when I was a nub-spu was when my LELT told this from his LELT stint on the Alabama...
"My junior ELT was in his LOK interview with the ORSE board member when asked: explain to me radiochemistry"
The junior ELT when very quiet and nervous and responded to the interviewer,
"Sir, we don't do that here."
-
Fail them early and Fail them often. Only then will the strong survive.
Success begets Success.
FNMA
Fleet Needs More A-gang
-
Sounds like both if you are asking me.
1st, the training isn't as rigorous: Just look at the pass rate.
2nd, the compliance is to pass substandard sailors if I'm reading the posts correctly: And, the verification is the fleet's performance.
So, it seems ... at least to me ... that we have some work to do at a higher level than the chief/blue-shirt area ... that really means from the CNO down. Fail them early and Fail them often. Only then will the strong survive.
Success begets Success.
Seems to me that we'd have to downsize the nuclear fleet in order to achieve the attrition rate you're looking for. I'm all about scaling back U.S. military operations to the Western Hemisphere ( IMO our global military presence is financially unsustainable -- but that's a topic for another section), but that doesn't seem to be on anybody's agenda any time soon.
Our nuclear powered ships are the keystone of our maritime strategy, and we need people to fill the positions to keep the ships steaming. As it is now it feels like new nukes for the fleet are on back-order, and the curriculum in the pipeline consists of a lot of binge-and-purge systems and procedures. That leaves the boats to teach them from the ground up no matter what. As long as new guys show up to the boat with a good attitude and a decent grasp on fundamentals and theory, I couldn't care less about their GPA. We need people.
So to summarize in the form of a question:
Are we sacrificing competence for compliance?
Sir, that is one of the better questions a person can ask about the program. I can tell you that sometimes it feels like we blue shirts aren't allowed to think at work. We have procedures in place for everything we are allowed to do, and if we hit a point in corrective maintenance or equipment troubleshooting that isn't covered in a procedure we aren't allowed to proceed until we have a procedure written to address the matter.
Under most circumstances this doesn't cause too much trouble since we have trusty old plant designs that have pretty much experienced everything you can do to 'em (though I remember some times in EOH in which it felt like we were the first submarine ever to undergo an overhaul). The problems arise with the new gear we are getting. If we encounter a problem we aren't allowed to think through it, and we can't even directly contact the prime contractor for advice. We have to play through the middle man (nothing against the good folks at RPCO -- they are good people), which turns a two hour fix into a two week fix.
When we're locked into procedures without the option to provide feedback or consider methods to streamline our process it begins to discourage thought into the process. The terrible thing is that I consider myself to be a pretty good operator just because I can open the book to the correct procedure in less than a few seconds to do just about anything (and because I've been known to SMOKE an ORSE LOK interview or two). Now that you bring up your question it makes me wonder if I'm actually an incompetent, but compliant operator.
-
Buttery Johnson's cinnamon roll Karma to ya! :)
Seems to me that we'd have to downsize the nuclear fleet in order to achieve the attrition rate you're looking for.
A whole lot of nuke billets go away with the decommissioning of CVN-65 in 2013 (planned) , so running the timeline back a bit, NAVSEA08 should make some big decisions NOW on whether they want their nuclear propulsion program of the 21st century to look more like Rickover or more like JAG: The Next Generation. Once they cowboy up and decide to start adding more bleach to the gene pool, staffing should still meet needs.
-
There are procedures for providing feedback on procedures that don't work.
However, being able to perform a procedure as written does not imbue the operator with competence. Understanding why the procedure is executed in the specific manner it is sequenced and what to expect as a result of each action performed, and the overall affect on the rest of the plant is competence. It also helps the operator to diagnose problems.
The other side of this coin is that just because something is written down in a procedure doesn't necessarily mean it is right or will work. This is particularly true of some of this new gear you've seen your bretheren RC Divver's deal with. When I toured SEAWOLF during new construction, the RPM was full of yellow stickies! That's why the 6G RPM has over a thousand revs to it, and your beloved Water Chem manual is more yellow paper than white. A true operator recognizes the instruction doesn't make sense and raises the question until it is resolved to his satisfaction.
They used to issue wallet cards upon graduation from prototype. I don't think they do that any more, but here's what it said:
Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operator: Tough-minded, skeptical, sometimes even cantankerous. Always thinking WHAT IF? He makes the difference between safe and effective power plant operation and unacceptable risk.
-
... it makes me wonder if I'm actually an incompetent, but compliant operator.
The above statement puzzles me.
An individual who:
- Knows the procedure,
- Can/does USE the procedure,
- Knows what to do when the procedure doesn't work,
- Has the proper mindset to actually stop until the procedure gets fixed (instead of saying, "Yeah the procedure says such-and-such, but I know THIS will work"),
- Possesses sufficient understanding to formulate (if not individually authorize) a viable remedy for recovering from a mess,
is the closest thing to an IDEAL operator that I can come up with.
-
I think we need to stop telling these kids right from the get-go that they are the "cream of the cream of the crop", the "top 10% of the Navy's intelligence", etc. They get it in their heads at the recruiting station and from the MEPS classifiers. Heads become further inflated at NFAS, straight off the plane from RTC (they did it 9 years ago, I'm sure they still do). This feeling of invincibility and superb-ness is bred into our replacements by ourselves, and we sit here and wonder why we catch them blazing logs, being dink, blah blah.
NO doubt! Here is the speech they need to hear when they get to Power School:
-
2) You must be older than dirt .. (hehehehehehehe) .. NukeLDO because I didn't get one of those cards. And, I'm getting old. Or, so says my brothers little girls. I think the word they used was dinosaur ... :P
Not THAT old. P-type in '88.
But, back to what you were talking about. 33 nukes in my boot camp company. 6 made it through power school. 3 of us made it through p-type. 2 of us still on active duty today. It ain't like it used to be.
-
Now that I've given my .02 cents worth on the subject of ... let me summarize:
1) A higher failure rate is necessary and has been the norm before without harm to the program.
2) Costs will not go up.
3) The fleet (of non-nukes) benefits from the higher failure rate.
4) We eliminate the drift wood that contributes to the overall bad attitude and performance on the program in the fleet.
Thanks for reading.
Amen, HoneyComb! I couldn't agree more.
-
Standby...news slowly breaking now....submarine business.
Somebody mentioned something about a roost in one of these posts.
-
Seems to me that we'd have to downsize the nuclear fleet in order to achieve the attrition rate you're looking for. I'm all about scaling back U.S. military operations to the Western Hemisphere ( IMO our global military presence is financially unsustainable -- but that's a topic for another section), but that doesn't seem to be on anybody's agenda any time soon.
I agree with what Jason already stated well, that going back to the "old days" would not hurt the program as far as numbers go. As far as I can tell, there isn't a shortage of new nuke recruits. Just look around this board and I would submit that there are an equal number of recruits sitting in DEP for up to a year or more as there are active duty nukes. If we went back to the "old way," these people wouldn't be sitting around waiting to ship like that anymore. It would be more like when I joined. I went in and said "I want to be a nuke" and less than one month later, it was so.
Justin
-
Now on CNN.
-
Wow. I remember when the Hartford ran aground in LaMaddelana in 2003.
Justin
-
I was just a couple of years behind ya'. I'm glad you're still going strong. Keep up the good work. And, no it isn't like it used to be. Anywhere sadly.
We've mama proofed everything since we grew up! We put warning labels on everything now. We sue anyone that offends us or has nothing to do with our own faults. We don't weed out the weak anymore. They in turn think they are smart and deserve to be heard.
Example: When you and I were growing up we didn't wear helmets for bicycles. We fixed our own flat tires. If we screwed something up we didn't think about suing someone first. (Etc. I have an entire page of this stuff but I'll not add anymore.)
After taking a trip down memory lane I think you and I really are dinosaurs. Just like the other Navy Nukes that post here. And, that is a sad moment we are living right now.
Because we know what would solve this problem. And, we are forced to watch it destroyed from within. Like most good institutions.
Jason
HoneyComb,
When I get down about how the world is dumbing itself down and catering to the least common denominator, I just think to myself how much better I will look by comparison. While I fully agree that we have dumb down the program, the school, and society in general in some aspects, I also feel that it will lead to the truly intelligent ones being able to have more influence.
Of course it doesn't help that by coddling more people that we are in fact creating a bigger slice of the population that are unable to think for themselves and must rely on others, or worse the government, for their every need. Thus we will eventually breed out independence and become nothing more than sheep to be kept safe from everything, told what to do and when to do it, and have taken every cent from our pocketbooks in order to "spread the wealth around".
Just remember that there are those of us "new generation" that doesn't want everything handed to us, wants to earn the right to be called a nuclear operator, and feels a deep sadness to see the program that has lead so many of us to bright futures become tarnished in such a way that saying that you are an ex-navy nuke is no better than saying you got a degree from the University of Phoenix.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/20/navy.vessels.collide/index.html
The USS Hartford and the USS New Orleans collide.
Kudos to our ship designers and those who work on them. Not too many things this size that ply the oceans you can roll over to almost 90 degrees from vertical and still keep going. The ability to continue on her own power is a testament that all the bolts were where they were supposed to be, the welds are good, and the shock design criteria are sound. A shame to see another skipper's career ruined though.
-
Kudos to our ship designers and those who work on them. Not too many things this size that ply the oceans you can roll over to almost 90 degrees from vertical and still keep going. The ability to continue on her own power is a testament that all the bolts were where they were supposed to be, the welds are good, and the shock design criteria are sound. A shame to see another skipper's career ruined though.
Some good commentary here..
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2009/03/uss-hartford-collides-with-us-amphib.html#c1928420894467772635 (http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2009/03/uss-hartford-collides-with-us-amphib.html#c1928420894467772635)
-
Thanks Rocky. Had forgot about that site. Pics are pretty good. Without looking at it personally, I'd say there will be dry dock somewhere tied up for 9-10 months.
-
But its true!!! ;D
And for those who care:
Thanks Rocky. Had forgot about that site. Pics are pretty good. Without looking at it personally, I'd say there will be dry dock somewhere tied up for 9-10 months.
She'll be in dry-dock at EB in Groton. Estimates are about 13 months to repair. Complete removal and rebuild of the sail, and as you can imagine, a lot of NDT to determine if she will be a LID boat or free to conduct operations to test depth. So far, EB is doing the work, but I'm sure there will be some contract and borrowed labor from other places once she gets going on the repairs.
-
I don't know why, but that statement just made me chuckle for at least fifteen seconds,... ;)
It reminds me of the "Binder Tracking" Binder.
-
I should have added in my Aviation example that when the standards are lowered and then someone is in risk of failing (remember no one can fail) that the Instructor is in the hot seat and not the student.
It seems that this is the current problem in the navy nuke program. The instructors are forced to pass or get the student to a proficient state. So what happens when they get to the fleet and they don't have someone to hold their hand? Failure for the first time. The NUB then feels betrayed. They now realize they had been propped up and can't stand on their own.
When I was going through it was your fault you didn't pass or succeed. Not the instructors. Now it is the other way around. To the students detriment.
I thought this might interest some.
As an instructor at NFAS (NUCFLDASCHOL), I had a student beg me to put him on mandatory Saturday morning make up for physics (mind you, this is the old prephysics taught at a 4-week pace). I told him that if he knew that he needed to put the time in, then do so. I wasn't going to hold his hand. He later failed the first exam--the only one in the class to get less than an 83%==> which still reflected negatively on ME! So, not only did I put him on mandatory Saturday mornings for the next two Saturdays, but I gave him every extra packet (and made up a few of my own) that should have taken three years to finish. He scored a 94% on the final and passed overall.
I was a "hero." I couldn't help wonder who would do the hand holding out in the fleet.
-
The new number is 3. Two in Maneuvering, one roving the spaces. Significant remote operatioin, including throttle control from up forward.
-
Speaking of fixing the NNPP, does the NNPP still force people to pretend that the IDE isn't a simulator?
-The answer to that question will guide the rest of my response.
-
Speaking of fixing the NNPP, does the NNPP still force people to pretend that the IDE isn't a simulator?
-The answer to that question will guide the rest of my response.
No...with caveats.
-
Speaking of fixing the NNPP, does the NNPP still force people to pretend that the IDE isn't a simulator?
-The answer to that question will guide the rest of my response.
There's two flavors of simulators out there for the Navy now. The traditional IDE that everyone knows and loves, and now we have the Fleet IDE also. Biggest difference between them is the level of fidelity of the control room to the actual plant. The IDEs in the pipeline are going to have a higher level of fidelity because we are doing the initial training for the operators, and want it to be right on.
The Fleet IDEs don't have as high of a fidelity level... Makes them a little cheaper and esier to maintain. The thought is that since they're used to train operators that are already qualified they can make some compromises. It's not real evident from eye level though. If you're looking at the panels it's like being in the control room on the boat.
I beleive the IDEs in the pipeline are still controlled just like they are the plant and not a simulator. The Fleet IDEs are a little less restrictive, as it's expected that the operators are going to mess up sometimes. It gives us a little more flexibility in the training we can do with the waterfront, since we don't have to critique everything that goes wrong. We can run a scenario, have them mess it up, talk about what was good and bad, and then run it on them again and again until they get it right.
We still are never supposed to say "simulator" though...
-
Hmmm ok. Well, I was just comparing my experience in the simulator in license training to my time in the IDE as a staff instructor at prototype. I really think the IDE would be much more useful if during a casualty drill, you could freeze the IDE and discuss with the students what is going on, give advice and coaching, and then continue. Maybe even re-run the drill to make sure it sinks in (but the students weren't allowed to see the IDE in freeze). That has been extremely helpful to me in my quest to obtain an SRO license. I remember many drills we have run on students where at the end, they were no better off because they really didn't understand the dynamics of the situation and why a particular action was applicable at that time. Sure, that is what people will say the post watch discussion is for, but it just isn't the same as doing it "in the moment." It is just my opinion that if the IDE was used more like a simulator, the training might be more beneficial. Just a thought.
Justin
-
NO doubt! Here is the speech they need to hear when they get to Power School:
Hardest part of watching that is that I also know that the Drill Instructor in this video is also the same person that does the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob Squarepants(I have a 2 year old that is crazy over Spongebob, which means I have to watch repeatedly).
-
Hmmm ok. Well, I was just comparing my experience in the simulator in license training to my time in the IDE as a staff instructor at prototype. I really think the IDE would be much more useful if during a casualty drill, you could freeze the IDE and discuss with the students what is going on, give advice and coaching, and then continue. Maybe even re-run the drill to make sure it sinks in (but the students weren't allowed to see the IDE in freeze). That has been extremely helpful to me in my quest to obtain an SRO license. I remember many drills we have run on students where at the end, they were no better off because they really didn't understand the dynamics of the situation and why a particular action was applicable at that time. Sure, that is what people will say the post watch discussion is for, but it just isn't the same as doing it "in the moment." It is just my opinion that if the IDE was used more like a simulator, the training might be more beneficial. Just a thought.
Justin
Justin, I definitely agree with your assesment. I know during Staff Training in which we would see certain casualties in the IDE such as Leaks and Ruptures, we would freeze it in the middle, point out this and that, let it continue, freeze and point, then reset and do it all over again in real time, etc. It was a great tool for us.
Of course nothing beats a 4QT watchset in the IDE.....
-
Hmmm ok. Well, I was just comparing my experience in the simulator in license training to my time in the IDE as a staff instructor at prototype. I really think the IDE would be much more useful if during a casualty drill, you could freeze the IDE and discuss with the students what is going on, give advice and coaching, and then continue. Maybe even re-run the drill to make sure it sinks in (but the students weren't allowed to see the IDE in freeze). That has been extremely helpful to me in my quest to obtain an SRO license. I remember many drills we have run on students where at the end, they were no better off because they really didn't understand the dynamics of the situation and why a particular action was applicable at that time. Sure, that is what people will say the post watch discussion is for, but it just isn't the same as doing it "in the moment." It is just my opinion that if the IDE was used more like a simulator, the training might be more beneficial. Just a thought.
Justin
I completely agree! I think it would help the students a lot more to do that, but I don't think they trust them enough to still have the respect they need for the IDE if they get to see it in freeze.
At least the Fleet IDEs are going in the right direction. Lots of freezes with discussion, and even some off watch stuff so they can see what happens to the plant with no operator action for ruptures and such.
I don't think the IDEs in the pipeline will ever stop being the way they are, but at least we're able to train the fleet operators a little better. We actually are allowing these guys to mess up and have things happen. I think they learn a lot more by actually having the alarms go off instead of having a drill team member intervene to stop it.
-
It pleases me to hear that the fleet IDEs are being used that way. I just wish the NNPP could grant the students more credit when it comes to what is the IDE and what it is not. In other words, I don't think the students are stupid enough to; a) believe that they are in anything other than a simulator whether you call it a simulator or not and b) think that the plant can be placed in freeze when something goes wrong. :)
-
Tradition
Someday the submarine force will find a leader who will have the insight to recognize the wisdom of returning a lot of the lighthearted tradition and give back some of the little things that meant so much to the old tattered foul weather jacket and raggedy dungaree force.
A good beginning would be to return the tradition of never pinning Dolphins on a dry shirt. It was a good tradition. Oh yes, I know the arguments against the tradition: safety, unnecessary risk. In the world of grown men, adult, red-blooded bluejackets that rationale is pure bullshit. The foundation of all military service is risk—the acceptance of risk in selfless service to one’s nation. Tossing a lad into the ocean he lives in, involves minimal risk. Hell, strap a lifejacket on the lad. The honor of this baptismal ritual and the effect it had on a man’s personal pride and his entry to ship’s company and the fellowship of proven submariners far outweighs the risk.
If you want boatsailors to reenlist—to remain for career service—you must give them back the cocky pride that once was ingrained in the men who wore cloth Dolphins just above the cuff of their right sleeve.
That can be done. It would take one hell of a force commander but it could be done. First, deemphasize all the personal benefits of specialized training as enticements to retain boatsailors and instead emphasize the brotherhood of undersea service. Riding heavy steel under the sea is the common denominator. Being taken in to that brotherhood used to be all that mattered. Wearing “twin fish” over your pocket meant that you measured up. They marked you as a man apart—an accepted part of a very elite Naval Force. They made you special. In the old days before the wholesale proliferation of all the meaningless bullshit pocket hardware that the Department of Defense uses as bribes to make kids appear to be warriors—the golden calf icons of mediocrity that get handed out like Crackerjack prizes that mean nothing—the lads of today know in their hearts that they risked nothing, dared nothing, and sacrificed nothing for 90% of the meaningless chest jewelry they wear. Quit treating men like children and handing out toy horsecrap. All that the men of yesterday required was the privilege of serving in submarines.
There is something wrong with a military force where peacetime junior enlisted personnel wear more ribbons than a field grade officer who fought from North Africa to the Rhine. It is a silent insult devised and perpetuated by small-bore command leadership to diminish the deeds of the giants of what Tom Brokaw has termed “The Greatest Generation.” The desk bound public relation hacks have missed the mark. By inflating awards and turning American decorations to ticket-punch milestones, everyone got shortchanged and brave men whose valor was rewarded with the decorations that have become travel souvenirs, got their pockets picked by the feather-merchants who piss on the tradition of hard men who rode armed ships in defense of what they believed in.
Let sailors go back to crushing wings in their goddamn white hats. Who in God’s name came up with that toilet bowl roll white hat crap? They ought to find them and hang all of them up by their heels.
I see ships returning from overseas deployment and the bluejackets lining the rail looking like the navy has parked bidets on everyone’s head. Give the lads back that seagoing cocky crushed white hat; the one worn by men that threw heavy ordinance, went in harm’s way, and won wars.
The world once witnessed proud American sailors rolling down streets in foreign ports with white hats rakishly cocked over one eye with a set of characteristic port and starboard wings, his wallet clam-shelled in his waistband, and his pack of Luckies tucked in his sock. The brass will puff themselves up like a mating barn owl and say, “The United States Naval uniform is not meant to be a vehicle for personal expression and individual affectation.”
Horseshit.
It used to be. It set us apart from the chickenshit regulation of the other robot hand-puppet forces. Sailors never took a pee by the numbers or spent a whole helluva lot of time memorizing Rockettes routines. It was a force of extremely proud, highly competent individuals who took pride in buying tailor-mades and looking like a damn sailor was supposed to look.
You’ve gotta ease up on the lads today. Give them back that means of self identification. The poor bastards look like some toy manufacturer’s idea of what a sailor should look like or what some fashion designers imagined our navy should be wearing. Navy leadership should remove anyone from influencing naval uniforms who never woke up in a stretched canvas rack six hundred plus nautical miles from the nearest deep water port. Any idiot who never wore snug-nut skivvies and thirteen-button bell bottoms shouldn’t be allowed within ten miles of any decision on raghat uniforms.
Next, you must reconnect present-day submarine sailors with their heritage. I have talked with a number of lads riding today’s technological marvels. Most of them feel no connection with any non-uranium powered submersible.
We were fortunate. We shared mess tables with the boatsailors who rode boats under Lockwood, skippered by the meateaters that destroyed more enemy ships than any American sub sailors before—or since. They handed us our heritage: our birthright as submarine sailors. In those days heritage was passed from the barnacle encrusted bastards to the next generation in sea stories told over coffee.
That can’t be done today.
The old “dead air and seven knot submerged” bastards are gone. There are no more pre E-8 and E-9 red hashmark chiefs. No guys who listened to fifty pound TNT packages detonate and bust up crockery, gauge faces, and hull packing. They are history. Rickover relegated the sonuvabitches to the pier dumpster for obsolete gear. (Note: This dynamic was in full swing when it was time for me to choose my first boat—I chose a diesel that had done five WWII patrols specifically for the purpose of taking the combat baton from these men.) I know that the lads who make up the crews of those two-hundred yard, high-speed, automated undersea luxury liners look on smokeboat sailors as Neanderthal relics, but like it or not, they are downline links in the hundred year chain of submarine history. Some submarine force commander is going to wake up one day and have the spiritual revelation required to give our submarine history to our fine sailors of today. You say, “How in hell could that be accomplished?”
Simple really. The History of the force exists in books, film, logs, records, diaries, and in the graying heads of the men who lived it—the men whose deeds gave us our proud legacy. With minimal expenditure and use of limited manpower resources, the United States Submarine Force could prepare a series of underway lectures after chow, talks to be read by junior officers when the boat is underway. A gentleman by the name of Theodore Roscoe wrote a book about submarine operations of World War II. Simply reading from that book would connect today’s submariners to a very important part, the most important era in our history. The book should be a part of every boat’s library the day she’s launched. They spend zillions on subs, so a fifty to sixty dollar book that can be obtained from The U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis shouldn’t knock a helluva dent in the developmental piggy bank, the return on investment would be measured in improved pride, elevated morale, and warrior spirit.
We diesel boat sailors had little or nothing in comparison to today’s crew comforts taken for granted by today’s submariners. But we had deep pride in what we were a part of. We didn’t share our boats with follow-on crews. We were the boat. We owned our hull number: every bolt, rivet, and packing gland, and every rust stain that ran down our superstructure. Let us pray that some saltwater admiral turns up someday with a set of deep submergence cajones and sends the word to every boat in the force to the effect that all this Top Gun, Navy SEAL horseshit is about to take a backseat to the tough seagoing bastards that make up the community of undersea sharks. He is going to elevate the visibility of the U.S. Submariner to the point where eight-year-old boys want to grow up and get on a bus to New London. Hey, I’m just an old worn-out E-3. Nobody in possession of his right mind would listen to an After Battery Rat. But if I was SUBPAC or SUBLANT, I would (a) find out what Art Smith, Ron “Warshot” Smith, Roy Ator, and Capt. Slade Cutter eat for breakfast and serve it every morning and (b) I would buy Tommy Cox and Bobby Reeds’s “Brothers of The Dolphin” CD and play the damn thing every morning on every boat in the fleet until every lad knew the words by heart, and could sing it in any bar on the globe. And I would play that song at 0600 every morning at New London at a decibel level over outdoor speakers that would knock every sonuvabitch at the Coast Guard Academy out of his rack. Hell, I would have noise pollution guys from the EPA skydiving on the base with tiger nets.
We can change that. All we have to do is do what raghats do best. Look on each other as shipmates and take back our deeply meaningful history and tradition that link us in the tightest brotherhood ever created. If you wore Dolphins “once upon a time,” then join the United States Submarine Veterans, Inc. and show your support for the lads riding steel ships under the sea in selfless sacrifice in defense of this fine nation.
They are our legacy.
Anyone else a member of Sub Vets?
-
Anyone else a member of Sub Vets?
Yes, I am the Base Commander of Smoky Mountain Submarine Veterans, the chapter here in Knoxville.
-
Yes, I am the Base Commander of Smoky Mountain Submarine Veterans, the chapter here in Knoxville.
Your signature reminded me of what some guy on my boat would write on everyone's going away poster (picture of the boat): "Don't sweat the petty officers and don't pet the sweaty officers."
-
Interesting thing happened today. I attended a brief at NNPTC by the Nuclear Enlisted Career Manager, some O-5 who's in charge of virtually everything regarding a nuke's career. He had graphs galore throughout his presentation, one showing how everyone was short people (undermanned) except surface EMs. "Why is this?" he asked.
"Because they don't do anything," everyone responded. He agreed, emphasizing that despite their very low SRB multiples there's an excess of them..... so money obviously isn't the prime factor..... quality of life is. And that was the point he is attempting to get across to his superiors, like the Admiral.
-
He had graphs galore throughout his presentation, one showing how everyone was short people (undermanned) except surface EMs. "Why is this?" he asked. "Because they don't do anything," everyone responded. He agreed, emphasizing that despite their very low SRB multiples there's an excess of them..... so money obviously isn't the prime factor..... quality of life is. And that was the point he is attempting to get across to his superiors, like the Admiral.
How very true. We are in the final stages of our EDSRA on the Enterprise. The ET's are so undermanned that they can't afford to even one guy (me) until the very last minute. We are on the verge of going into port and starboard duty sections for the rest of the EDSRA, which will probably last until Christmas or later. We got told today not to make plans for Thanksgiving. The EM's, however, have enough people to lend us SRO's for the watchbill and still support a fat watch rotation. I love the fact that I'm transferring in a couple of weeks, I just hate that my friends are probably not going to see their families very much until after the next deployment.
-
You don't get manning changes for pregnant operators either...Do they still frown upon zoomies and unborn children cohabitating? ::)
-
"Because they don't do anything,"
Let them take ELT as a secondary NEC, and see how the numbers go after that ;)
-
...How would you fix the NNPP...
I submitted my point paper to the CMC today. If anyone is interested in reading it (30 pages), then PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you. I'm very anxious to see what comes of it.
-
this thread was too long to read everything so sorry if im repeating anyone, but i couldn't resist replying.
we recently had several small incidents (blazed logs, blazed maintenance, etc.) that all fell into the lack of integrity category. in order to nip this in the butt, our LCPO decided to have training on integrity. i normally would think this is a good idea. however, this particular chief is, in my opinion, where a lot of these integrity violations are coming from. in my 3 years of working for him i have seen him cover up spills, break equipment that he had no business working on in the first place, and in general run whatever division he was a part of solely based on how it will look to outside organizations. confirming my fears, our 1 hour integrity training focused on doing the right thing because were in port now and outside organizations can see us. his integrity training stressed that there is a way to do things out to sea and a way to do things in port. his final point was we need to change the perception that we have a lack of integrity.
this is why i have no interest in staying in the navy. we need to change the perception that we have a lack of integrity? NO! as a senior E-5 in my division, what i want is a workplace that allows us to change the CULTURE that expects us to "do the right thing because people are watching." i would like to work somewhere that expected people to do the right thing (with maintenance, plant operations, etc.) because they knew that those requirements and procedures are all written for a reason. proper maintenance practices and plant evolutions take more time to plan out. they are almost never accomplished on the fly. the problem is when the COC expects whatever they want done to happen instantly. what i have found is that my COC in general doesn't know the tech manuals and RPMs/SPMs as well as i do (sorry for tooting my own horn). i love nothing more than pointing out to the above LCPO that no, we cant use the GRPORS to repair AE-VXX because that manual doesnt cover non-nuke valves, etc.
a lot of these problems do go back to training. the training on my ship (although i think recently there has been an overall positive trend) still tends to be overly basic and for the most part useless. i know that the nubs showing up do need basic systems training and i could always use a refresher, but for the most part thats where it has stopped. our training deficiency log is full of for the most part, useless entries. LCPO then schedules another useless training session solely to get the training report and clear the entry on the TDL. fortunately i am now in a position that requires me to do surveillance's and i plan to do my best to get a few TDL entries on actual level of knowledge deficiencies (why is software selection important, how do we maintain cleanliness, etc.) i don't know if it will make a difference, but i'm gonna try.
i try to hold our new guys to a higher standard than i think i was held to when i got here. however, i try to do that by teaching them why the seemingly mundane details are important and how ignoring them can actually cause things to go wrong. i never kick someone out of a checkout or board because they don't know what i want them to know. instead, i explain why its important, point them in the right direction for the answer, and help them learn. this is how i would like to see the navy run, rather than a dog and pony show to outside organizations.
-
Why is it that you can push the "shift" key to capitalize LCPO, TDL, COC, etc, and not for the first letter of a sentence? Pet peeve of mine...
Blazed logs and maintenance are "small incidents"????
That's great that you know more than your LCPO and the rest of the COC. Instead of telling us about it, impart your vast knowledge upon the others in your division.
I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish by posting here other than to vent. All you can do is the best you can do. I'm sure you're not the only one who knows what they're doing in the division, even though you're implying that you are. I also doubt that your COC is as clueless as what you imply.
-
Sorry about the bad typing. Yeah, I guess that post was mostly a vent. I recently went to an FMSB school and learned a lot of things that would have been incredibly helpful when I was learning how to do this job the hard way (trying and failing, then trying again). And yeah, me and at least one other guy who went to that school are teaching everyone who cares enough to listen everything we can. However, the real point of my last comment is that this effort is contrary to what our chain of command is putting out. Since this post is in how would you fix the NNPP, my answer is I would like to see a culture change in the chain of command where there was an effort to actually fix problems rather than cover up problems from outside organizations.
Also, the incidents I mentioned were "small incidents" because we caught most of them in house. NRRO found the maintenance issue (it wasn't really blazed maintenance, but because of what ship I'm on and what the actual issue was I'd rather not go into details) and the person involved is currently one rank lower than he was and in the middle of his 60/60 half months pay for two months.
-
I think you made some very good points, especially when you spoke about the "training" your LCPO gave. You also weren't the first, nor will you be the last, person to vent in this thread. I think your anecdote was a perfect example of what is wrong in the nuke Navy today.
-
this thread was too long to read everything so sorry if im repeating anyone, but i couldn't resist replying.
....
When I was an E-4 and E-5 and was treated like s%^t and witnessed crappy leadership styles, I used them as things to remember if I ever was put in a position to do something about it. When I got my chance I did my best to remember those things.
Guess what, the civilian world has poor leaders and bad examples too. Stay in or get out, but don't think all the bad apples are in the NNPP.
-
When I was an E-4 and E-5 and was treated like s%^t and witnessed crappy leadership styles, I used them as things to remember if I ever was put in a position to do something about it. When I got my chance I did my best to remember those things.
Guess what, the civilian world has poor leaders and bad examples too. Stay in or get out, but don't think all the bad apples are in the NNPP.
Second that, I experienced some of the worst and the best examples of leadership in the Navy and hopefully I learned from both. The commercial world seems to have a better chance of being on the worst side but it is easier to handle because you can leave.
-
I've been out for almost 5 yrs now and looking back at all the integrity and training requirements, I honestly remember it being a dog and pony, smoke and mirrors art bazaar.
You want to know why Sailors get busted cheating on exams or falsifying exams? Because there are so goddamn many of them to take, that the test program itself becomes an exercise in paperwork, rather than a learning process. God forbid you study, take the test, and do your best, but poorly. Here comes the remediation, the re-test, the this, the that. God forbid everyone does well and you get slammed for it being too easy. Its just easier to make the results fit the expectations.
Its all well and good that the program managers at NAVSEA 08 can sit at their pretty desks and make up the rules, but in reality, when there is cleaning to do, quals, drills, training, oh yeah, and an actual vessle to operate, you create an environment where reasonable people make emotionally based decisions.
Let's see, do I risk failing this test and lose a 6 hr off to studying when I haven't slept in two days, or do I take a short cut?
Let's see, do I risk re-writing this test, or failing PO3 Nub, and losing a 6hr off to writing a remediation or re-writing a new exam, or administering a new exam, or do I take a short cut?
I remember in a given week taking and ELT test, an M-Div test, an ENG-Dep test, and in some weeks, throw in a PRE-ORSE exam, questions of the day, etc etc. It was nuts. Throw in some observed evolutions, some LOK interviews, and quals, too. Oh yeah, and standing watch, sometimes port and stbd. And sleep, maybe.
Let's also not forget the Audit and Surveillance Program, Check Chem, Observations, Seminars, bleee bleeeee blah blah blah....
Its pretty much a fantasy and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise, because if every word written in those Short Range, Long Range, Audit and Surveillance, Observations binders was 100% Integrity like the Navy sells to Congress and each other, then that Eng Dept never slept.
100% I say, because anything less than 100% true and accurate is not the Nuclear Navy that get's sold right? 100% means every PM gets done in full accordance with the MRC, nothing is ever blazed, or assumed, every single test is administered 4.0, there is no compromising when it comes to Navy Nuclear integrity right? No subjectivity, no grey areas? Or is it just what the Chief says? What the Goat Locker protects the blue's from, what the DIV-O signs off on, what "gets handled" at the deck plate, what the Eng keeps from the XO/CO...its all a game.
Oh yeah, I also forgot the nukes had to play in all the coner drills too, so in addition to all the ORSE preps, let us not forget all the time nukes spend with ship drills, security drills, battle stations this and that.....
But no, that schedule doesn't at all lead reasonable men to make bad decisions that land them on the cover of the Navy Times questioning the integrity of the program. Must be the Sailor's fault.
-
Its all well and good that the program managers at NAVSEA 08 can sit at their pretty desks and make up the rules
Most ridiculous training/CTE rules are not made up by the folks at 08. Most of the training decisions are made at the squadron or group level.
-
Very well, I accept that.....let me rephrase....all the ass jockeys who sit around and think up new and exciting ways to train.
-
Having been witness to some discussions (critiques) on how business was conducted recently, I have some comments.
First, I noticed that there is a dilution of opinion up the chain of command that, while inevitable, when punctured causes people up the chain to look down and wonder, and causes people down the chain to look up and wonder. In this case it revolved around a department generally looking at the whole training program as a waste of time. We were shocked the upper chain thought the program was effective, they were shocked we thought it was pointless. I know people never gripe to their boss the way they gripe to their coworkers, but I also know that the upper chain were once JOs and heard their panelstanders gripe. What I wonder is if maybe there isn't some very important feedback method not being employed that would allow criticism to go up the chain, instead of just down. I know the military arguments against it, but if anyone can successfully argue that the nuclear navy is conventional military, then they can feel free to apply conventional military rationale to the problem.
But, perhaps that is the very thing that is lacking. Is it possible that the reason these issues keep cropping up is precisely because of the lax military bearing of the nuclear navy? Maybe it is just some proper spit and polish discipline and some "shut up and do as you're told" attitude that we need. After all a properly disciplined operator would never BS on watch, he would study tech manuals all the time to improve himself as a watchstander. No one with a freshly creased uniform would ever not circle-x a maintenance procedure, and so on and so on. Maybe that's the solution. If the sailors were properly disciplined, there would not be a need for all the requirements that are in place, they would be automatic. Exams would not be necessary because people would consider it their duty to continuously improve their level of knowledge, monitor watches would be a thing of the past because every operator's performance would be above reproach, all those binders and duplicate and triplicate methods of tracking things would be obsolete because you would have disciplined sailors having disciplined thoughts taking disciplined actions...Okay, I can't keep that up any longer.
Anyway, feedback. No one ever grades a captain on how his sailors perceived him, just on how he and the ship performed on inspections and how many incident reports they had. Perhaps some feedback from the people at a command would be useful in determining if a command is actually doing right. I know that a lot of sailors would use that as a forum to whine and complain, but that can be filtered and a lot of people will write useful comments. The thing is, there has to be a way for it to actually be emphasized that it is taken seriously. That's where the hard part is. Still, I think a good judge of a successful captain is inspection performance and command opinion, both taken at their respective merits. I have seen people who had good departments under them be hated, but have "successful" tours and go on to posts where they will make whole crews miserable, and I know you guys have, too.
I believe there can be major differences between command structures.
Squadron One seemed to be a lot less ornery than Group Two was when I served.
Totally agree. And I will vouch for Group Two still being pretty ornery.
As far as integrity, which is the cornerstone of the nuclear navy, everyone has it in varying amounts. I know that some people will hem and haw that they would never violate theirs, but there is no way to prove that, and I can only speak from my experience. Culture is huge. Most people do not possess the Navy Nuclear Program standard integrity, even many nukes. Take that for what you will, but I believe it to be true. A few people who instill the right culture can maintain the integrity of a department. However, they can be undermined very easily by situations that push the department to its limits. I remember what the culture was when I arrived on my boat. There was a way things were done. Some things were done 4.0, others were a 2.8 dressed up as a 4.0. The problem with this is that inevitably someone turns in a 2.0 as a 2.8 and then questions start coming. Is it a matter of too many requirements and too much BS, sure. Is it also laziness and lack of integrity, to an extant. Is it poor command leadership, maybe. Is it a failure of communication up and down the chain, perhaps. We've got pots and kettles arguing their colors. Fortunately(?) it is much easier to win if you're in charge, much more difficult to see your own faults, but much simpler to judge others for theirs, even if they are partly your own fault. So, I know I'm looking for an ideal state, one that does not and will not exist, but is it too much to ask for people to recognize what it would be and to actually work for it, even though it flies against the instincts of power. I hope not, but I suspect it is.
Has anyone ever wondered if perhaps integrity is actually like a bank account. I know that this is said mostly in sarcasm during integrity training, but I suspect it is much more true than people suspect. Some people start off in the world rich and some poor. Some people get good jobs, some don't. You can assign factors to each stress and those are withdrawals and each reward those are deposits. I wonder if perhaps treating integrity (and morale) like a bank account might help. And I know, Broadzilla has an AMEX Black card paid for by the US Treasury, in case you were wondering why the nation is so in debt, look no further.
Last thought:However, EAOS fixes all evils, real and perceived with your Navy service
This is what I pray for every day, and the other part of that sentence what I fear every day as well, may they be the lesser of the two.
-
La-La-La, I can't hear you!
That was what first came to mind while reading the preceding post. I once had a welcome-aboard interview with the captain of a certain CGN a week after my arrival. He loved to hear himself pontificate about how successful he was as a captain, especially the quality control measures he took during his required interviews with perspective RO's and SRO's. Then he bragged how his ship had the highest reenlistment rate on the waterfront. That's when I snapped; I couldn't take it anymore.
I told him the only reason his reenlistment rate was so high was because morale was so low; everyone was reenlisting to get off the ship at their three-year point to go somewhere--anywhere--else. The veins in his neck began to bulge and his face turned crimson. I'm not sure what he said; it was unintelligible. I was kicked out of his stateroom.
Before qualifying EWS, I had to qualify as RO and SRO. He was due to transfer in eight months and so he wanted to ensure I would carry on his legacy of quality control with my ET's. I remember my SRO board alone took more than four hours. It lasted until I had a brain fart and he said, "Finally, a look up." He was in his own world....
-
Big promises,.....zero delivery,.....
It is my belief that the person who wrote those posts does not actually work at NR.
-
Was my random smiting today the prompt for this reply, by chance? :P I read this thread from the beginning today and hit a couple people on my way through. ;D
-
I like the new disclaimer. Can we expect that to be part of every post? 8)
-
okay, if HD 63 smites somebody that's not news,....
Hey now..... okay, i DO resemble that remark :P
-
I've been out for almost 5 yrs now and looking back at all the integrity and training requirements, I honestly remember it being a dog and pony, smoke and mirrors art bazaar.
You want to know why Sailors get busted cheating on exams or falsifying exams? Because there are so goddamn many of them to take, that the test program itself becomes an exercise in paperwork, rather than a learning process. God forbid you study, take the test, and do your best, but poorly. Here comes the remediation, the re-test, the this, the that. God forbid everyone does well and you get slammed for it being too easy. Its just easier to make the results fit the expectations.
Its all well and good that the program managers at NAVSEA 08 can sit at their pretty desks and make up the rules, but in reality, when there is cleaning to do, quals, drills, training, oh yeah, and an actual vessle to operate, you create an environment where reasonable people make emotionally based decisions.
Let's see, do I risk failing this test and lose a 6 hr off to studying when I haven't slept in two days, or do I take a short cut?
Let's see, do I risk re-writing this test, or failing PO3 Nub, and losing a 6hr off to writing a remediation or re-writing a new exam, or administering a new exam, or do I take a short cut?
I remember in a given week taking and ELT test, an M-Div test, an ENG-Dep test, and in some weeks, throw in a PRE-ORSE exam, questions of the day, etc etc. It was nuts. Throw in some observed evolutions, some LOK interviews, and quals, too. Oh yeah, and standing watch, sometimes port and stbd. And sleep, maybe.
Let's also not forget the Audit and Surveillance Program, Check Chem, Observations, Seminars, bleee bleeeee blah blah blah....
Its pretty much a fantasy and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise, because if every word written in those Short Range, Long Range, Audit and Surveillance, Observations binders was 100% Integrity like the Navy sells to Congress and each other, then that Eng Dept never slept.
100% I say, because anything less than 100% true and accurate is not the Nuclear Navy that get's sold right? 100% means every PM gets done in full accordance with the MRC, nothing is ever blazed, or assumed, every single test is administered 4.0, there is no compromising when it comes to Navy Nuclear integrity right? No subjectivity, no grey areas? Or is it just what the Chief says? What the Goat Locker protects the blue's from, what the DIV-O signs off on, what "gets handled" at the deck plate, what the Eng keeps from the XO/CO...its all a game.
Oh yeah, I also forgot the nukes had to play in all the coner drills too, so in addition to all the ORSE preps, let us not forget all the time nukes spend with ship drills, security drills, battle stations this and that.....
But no, that schedule doesn't at all lead reasonable men to make bad decisions that land them on the cover of the Navy Times questioning the integrity of the program. Must be the Sailor's fault.
Sounds like you're basically arguing for justified violation of one's integrity, a climate of cutting corners, or simply not doing what one is paid to do (and what constitutes what you're paid to do is not decided by you).
If the job is too hard for someone, then quit. Get sad, smoke a joint, do whatever...but don't continue to fill a billet under the pretense that all aspects of the job are getting done. "Toughing it out" for pride is not admirable.
This is what bothered about other ptype instructors complaining all of the time about how crappy of a "shore duty" it was. "Well, if this is really not what you bargained for, quit. Route a 701 form to be removed from instructor duties. Or stop complaining," is what I wanted to say to these whiners.
The conflicts in interest that you describe above are either impossible situations or possible situations (possible to complete all tasks). If they're impossible, then that should be addressed. If they're possible, then they're simply difficult...but not impossible.
No one, of the almost dozen people, I emailed my paper to have replied to me. So I guess my paper was off the mark or just a long, pointless rant?
-
No one, of the almost dozen people, I emailed my paper to have replied to me. So I guess my paper was off the mark or just a long, pointless rant?
Clarity and brevity are two of the trademarks of NNPP correspondence (and I would assume in civilian industry as well). It is a difficult undertaking to accomplish both at the same time, particularly on a subject as emotional as this one, but it can be done. First step, remove the emotion. Your 30 page missive could easily be condensed into a coherent, cohesive, 5 pages using the Problem--Cause--Corrective Action format.
-
So, dudes... and dudettes...
If you like it - stay in. I appreciate your service.
If you don't like it - do your time and get out. And I'll enjoy working with you.
Notice the positive energy? We make energy.
You can't fix the Navy, it's not broke.
You can enjoy the ride.
That's just like, your opinion man.
I'm gonna pull a Gandhi on you dude.
1)Business without Ethics
The ship has it's mission but everyone working on the ship to make it run on the nuclear side of things has their own agenda. This is true from Joe Nub E-4 to the CO. Take a shipyard example. Say Mr. O-6 has been tasked with getting a ship out of the shipyard in record time and he can become Mr. O-7. He passes it down through the nuclear chain of command that this is the law, we will do this! Dept. heads and higher up enlisted personell are really the middle men in this.
There might be a few that have the will to fight with this directive and point out that it's a monumental undertaking either doomed for failure or just destined to be a pain in the ass based on the sheer logistics of the situation and dealing with working with several outside organizations to accomplish this, but these brave men and women who have somewhat of a clue and have attempted to align their agendas with what they view the ships mission to be are probably getting out or retiring. Most of us have heard the stories, or been lucky enough to have that one Dept. Head, CO, or Chief who was on his last tour looking at retirement who was the most kick-ass person to work for in someone's entire Navy career. Why? Because they no longer had a personal agenda, or because they never had enough of one in the first place to propel their Navy career farther.
Now, most of the higher ups who value their promotions will buy off on what the CO says and push for a quick time in the shipyards. This will, in turn greatly incense a good many on the bottom because the work conditions are crap, the hours are long, and at times they will have absolutely nothing to show for it. So the lower ranking will take it upon themselves to fulfill their own agendas and begin to take any and all shortcuts to maximize liberty. This actually feeds the already poor work conditions even more because others will attempt to pick up the slack, or the situation will be discovered and then the ensuing corrections and rationalizations begin.
Ah the rationalizations. These are what truly indicate that the system is broken down.
"Why did you blaze off that maintenance?" "I thought that . . ."
When really why did the person at the top rationalize setting record setting times in the shipyard as being anything more than something he was doing for himself? Yes the mission is to safely and efficiently provide electricity and propulsion to the ship and to properly maintain the equipment necessary to do so. The problem was that the people at the top went above and beyond, rationalized it, and in the end it does become a simple matter of the O-6 saying look what a great service I provided to the country so make me an O-7 all the while driving his lower enlisted personell into the ground.
2) Worship without sacrifice.
What place does religion have in any of this? Well if you read into this one it is more about humility. Past JO's and a few fresh E-7's, how many higher ups can be named who could actually be classified as a humble servant type of leader in any branch of the military? The number should probably be low just by the nature of the beast. But there are those types of people out there. There are leaders who can be friendly but not your friend, and who can sacrifice a measure of their own pride to put the crew first in order to develop a trust that they know will enable them to get the most out of them when they need it. In order to be able to communicate and relate with a crew with a level of empathy necessary to foster a good working environment would require a great personal sacrifice.
I know that in my post-navy experience I have been able to understand the pitfalls and hurdles that not only my boss faces, but also my employees. If you can set yourself aside and show that you truly do understand the situation from the viewpoints of both those you work for and those who work for you, you can begin to develop a good work environment that fosters open flow of ideas and makes employees feel valued, all the while meeting with the demand of those above you. For my own part, I never saw this even attempted in the nuclear navy, but I first read about it in the book "It's our Ship." Slightly ironic.
I did catch the meaning behind the Navy not being broke.
It should have read more like: Not only is the Navy not broke but it can never be broke.
Maybe that is the best way to sum up how broke it truly is.
-
The ship has it's mission but everyone working on the ship to make it run on the nuclear side of things has their own agenda. This is true from Joe Nub E-4 to the CO. Take a shipyard example. Say Mr. O-6 has been tasked with getting a ship out of the shipyard in record time and he can become Mr. O-7. He passes it down through the nuclear chain of command that this is the law, we will do this! Dept. heads and higher up enlisted personell are really the middle men in this.
There might be a few that have the will to fight with this directive and point out that it's a monumental undertaking either doomed for failure or just destined to be a pain in the ass based on the sheer logistics of the situation and dealing with working with several outside organizations to accomplish this, but these brave men and women who have somewhat of a clue and have attempted to align their agendas with what they view the ships mission to be are probably getting out or retiring. Most of us have heard the stories, or been lucky enough to have that one Dept. Head, CO, or Chief who was on his last tour looking at retirement who was the most kick-ass person to work for in someone's entire Navy career. Why? Because they no longer had a personal agenda, or because they never had enough of one in the first place to propel their Navy career farther.
Now, most of the higher ups who value their promotions will buy off on what the CO says and push for a quick time in the shipyards. This will, in turn greatly incense a good many on the bottom because the work conditions are crap, the hours are long, and at times they will have absolutely nothing to show for it. So the loer ranking will take it upon themselves to fulfill their own agendas and begin to take any and all shortcuts to maximize liberty. This actually leeds the already poor work conditions even more because others will attempt to pick up the slack, or the situation will be discovered and then the ensuing corrections and rationalizations begin.
Ah the rationalizations. These are what truly indicate that the system is broken down.
"Why did you blaze off that maintenance?" "I thought that . . ."
When really why did the person at the top rationalize setting record setting times in the shipyard as being anything more than something he was doing for himself? Yes the mission is to safely and efficiently provide electricity and propulsion to the ship and to properly maintain the equipment necessary to do so. The problem was that the people at the top went above and beyond, rationalized it, and in the end it does become a simple matter of the O-6 saying look what a great service I provided to the country so make me an O-7 all the while driving his lower enlisted personell into the ground.
2) Worship without sacrifice.
What place does religion have in any of this? Well if you read into this one it is more about humility. Past JO's and a few fresh E-7's, how many higher ups can be named who could actually be classified as a humble servant type of leader in any branch of the military? The number should probably be low just by the nature of the beast. But there are those types of people out there. There are leaders who can be friendly but not your friend, and who can sacrifice a measure of their own pride to put the crew first in order to develop a trust that they know will enable them to get the most out of them when they need it. In order to be able to communicate and relate with a crew with a level of empathy necessary to foster a good working environment would require a great personal sacrifice.
I know that in my post-navy experience I have been able to understand the pitfalls and hurdles that not only my boss faces, but also my employees. If you can set yourself aside and show that you truly do understand the situation from the viewpoints of both those you work for and those who work for you, you can begin to develop a good work environment that fosters open flow of ideas and makes employees feel valued, all the while meeting with the demand of those above you. For my own part, I never saw this even attempted in the nuclear navy, but I first read about it in the book "It's our Ship." Slightly ironic.
I did catch the meaning behind the Navy not being broke.
It should have read more like: Not only is the Navy not broke but it can never be broke.
Maybe that is the best way to sum up how broke it truly is.
[/quote]I would love to see some of these careerists do the same asinine things they did in the Navy while on the outside with a labor budget...I dare you to make me work all that time and pay 1.5x or 2.0x. Of course they could only handle leading people that are all on salary so that they could still abuse them without regards to what it will cost the company monetarily.
-
I would love to see some of these careerists do the same asinine things they did in the Navy while on the outside with a labor budget...I dare you to make me work all that time and pay 1.5x or 2.0x. Of course they could only handle leading people that are all on salary so that they could still abuse them without regards to what it will cost the company monetarily.
Essentially, the inflated Proto bonuses, gigantic SRB's (compared to us high EFPH sailors of yesteryear), and high lifetime SRB cap reflects that the "cost" to the Nav is comparable to paying 1.5x or 2.0x as input, but pushed into fewer billets. Rickover must be at synchronous speed by now... >:(
-
@cruzcampo
You haven't been around long, so allow me to help you. Once you get to know rlbinc's posting style, you come to recognize that the sentence you "went Gandhi" on was dripping with sarcasm. 8)
Justin
-
@cruzcampo
You haven't been around long, so allow me to help you. Once you get to know rlbinc's posting style, you come to recognize that the sentence you "went Ghandi" on was dripping with sarcasm. 8)
Justin
And here I thought "going Gandhi" had something to do with marching 1000 miles in a diaper looking for a good curry stand :P
-
@cruzcampo
You haven't been around long, so allow me to help you. Once you get to know rlbinc's posting style, you come to recognize that the sentence you "went Gandhi" on was dripping with sarcasm. 8)
Justin
Was going for more of a Lebowski type thing.
Edit: Yeah I did catch the sarcasm, pointed it out at the end there. The statement about the Navy "not being broke" was just. . . too much awesome.
-
If the job is too hard for someone, then quit.
Now "that" is hilarious my friend!!
-
So how many WOULD quit given the chance, since that poster made it sound ever so easy.....
Jason
-
Depending on the day of the week and where you are in the cycle, 10-90% :P
Seriously, Starting at the E-4 level, about six to eight months on the boat, 70%
E-5 over 5, 30-80%
E-6 LPO, 30%
E-7, about 50%
E-8 20%
these are just my guesses, but I think there about right, based on conversations I've had and what I've seen for Re-enlistments and self inflicted attrition.
But, when your drinking 50 cent beers in a bar in Thailand with girls throwing themselves at you 10%
When you are 14 months into a 9 month DMP 90%.
Just my Opinion
-
It is my belief that the person who wrote those posts does not actually work at NR.
Funny...sounds like she didn't make it to NR and dropped out of the Forum here. Lots of gossip, rumors, etc in the aftermath...perhaps her integrity and moral fiber weren't quite up to the standards she portrayed. Maybe she still wanders the hallowed hallways here and can give us an update.
Otherwise, a shame actually. I would have SO liked to hear how her tirades in here worked out upon reporting to DC. My bet is that it would have been entertaining.
-
Funny...sounds like she didn't make it to NR and dropped out of the Forum here. Lots of gossip, rumors, etc in the aftermath...perhaps her integrity and moral fiber weren't quite up to the standards she portrayed. Maybe she still wanders the hallowed hallways here and can give us an update.
Otherwise, a shame actually. I would have SO liked to hear how her tirades in here worked out upon reporting to DC. My bet is that it would have been entertaining.
We all know how the LDO smoke signal system works....so lets just say someone followed up on the original post....and if this person was hired, it was totally unknown to the folks on the Washington Navy Yard. Hard to imagine with such an impressive resume and sense of self-importance. But yeah, I certainly would have paid the price of admission to the "fishbowl" office to see that conversation!
-
We all know how the LDO smoke signal system works....so lets just say someone followed up on the original post....and if this person was hired, it was totally unknown to the folks on the Washington Navy Yard. Hard to imagine with such an impressive resume and sense of self-importance. But yeah, it I certainly would have paid the price of admission to the "fishbowl" office to see that conversation!
Well, if a Nuke is hired and getting ready to report to his/her new command...and then suddenly disappears without a (public) clue, then my guess is...Security Check: Fail.
Just goes to prove...even someone with a PhD isn't smart enough to game the system. Darwin always wins...eventually. If she was a real nuclear professional, she'd log on at least one more time and share her lessons learned with these new college/HS grads posting their security questions in other threads.
-
Well, if a Nuke is hired and getting ready to report to his/her new command...and then suddenly disappears without a (public) clue, then my guess is...Security Check: Fail.
Just goes to prove...even someone with a PhD isn't smart enough to game the system. Darwin always wins...eventually. If she was a real nuclear professional, she'd log on at least one more time and share her lessons learned with these new college/HS grads posting their security questions in other threads.
Just read the whole thread - seems eerily similar to an incident that came up in NUPOC recruiting.
Tip of the Day for obtaining a security clearance: Don't claim to have two PhDs unless you actually have at least one.
Eventually someone will verify every claim you make. Oh...and don't embellish your resume. People check up on that too.
BTW: Since this is my first post - I'd like to thank everyone on this board for all of the great information. I'd probably post more often but I don't know enough to have an informed opinion (about the commercial nuke industry, anyway) and any questions I have are usually answered by the search function.
I'm a submariner getting out this year and the information on this site has been a good tool for transitioning. Thanks for the assist.
-
Just read the whole thread - seems eerily similar to an incident that came up in NUPOC recruiting.
This ex-blueshirt is pleased and proud that we could provide a two-fer for the Homeland ;)
-
Who was the casper everyone is talking about???
-
See the 6 Sept 2008 post in this thread by cyclicrings.
-
Jeeze and I thought things started going bad in the late 80's for the Navy Nuclear program after DeMars departed as DNNP.
Here's my take, let's get to the root of the problem, all members of Congress should be on E-7 pay until the get re-elected. Set budgets for personnel aides and expenses for them as well.
All the extra money is to be used to pay back our debt...... and build a Nuke Battleshiop
-
All the extra money is to be used to pay back our debt...... and build a Nuke Battleshiop
Hey, I'm with ya, but only as long as it shoots nuclear bullets.
-
75 days since the last two posts and the one before it,.......
seems like the spot on reality of the above quote is sinking in on folks,.... ;)
You're right {i.e. rlbinc is right, sic}, BUT this is how I see the old school navy nukes versus the new:
Our form of therapy doesn't seem to work on the new navy nukes. Though, I have to admit I feel better after the session. :P :o ;)
-
The people who are "fixing" the NNPP are too busy to be on Nukeworker.
-
The people who are "fixing" the NNPP are too busy to be on Nukeworker.
I still peruse these parts from time to time ;)
-
I still peruse these parts from time to time ;)
Tie the annual nuclear bonus (and/or Pro Pay?) into ORSE grades and Fitreps. If the command gets a MUC, Battle E, Eng E, etc...give everyone 125% of their "payout". Sailor of the Year? Bonus X 2.
BA on ORSE? Eng Dept gets 50% of their forecasted amount.
EP on Fitrep = 110% payout, MP = 100% payout, P = 90% payout.
Use money to change behavior, vice making the bonus automatic. If nothing else, it'll better prepare Navy Nukes for the commercial nuclear world when they separate. ;)
-
I firmly believe that another thing that could help the Navy in general is to get inputs from subordinates about their supervisors. LCPOs and O-gangers get evaluated based on the results they get, but with little to no consideration for how they got them. In the eyes of the command, there is no difference between good leaders who inspire their guys to work hard and tyrants that get results through intimidation. I not saying that their entire eval should be based on the inputs of subordinates because there is always going to be those guys that would bad mouth a their boss for actually making them work. I have had both ends of the spectrums in my career, some even to the point of causing detriment to the division(I did everything in my power to avoid talking to him, even when duty demanded it). It was a nightmare working for him, but because we got things done, he was rewarded and given promotion. Also, knew of a MMCM that was completely incompetent as a nuke(one of those that was a better "Chief" than a nuke. Reactor could be melting down but as long as everyone had creases in their uniform and a SAT haircut, life was peachy) but because he had been in for umpteen million years he was put in charge of the whole Department.
-
Tie the annual nuclear bonus (and/or Pro Pay?) into ORSE grades and Fitreps. If the command gets a MUC, Battle E, Eng E, etc...give everyone 125% of their "payout". Sailor of the Year? Bonus X 2.
BA on ORSE? Eng Dept gets 50% of their forecasted amount.
EP on Fitrep = 110% payout, MP = 100% payout, P = 90% payout.
Use money to change behavior, vice making the bonus automatic. If nothing else, it'll better prepare Navy Nukes for the commercial nuclear world when they separate. ;)
Inherently bad idea to tie financial incentive to inspections, and ranking boards IMHO.
-
Now, imagine the notion of a bunch of surly second classes being told that if they mess up the next ORSE not only will they get no bonus, but they may very well get fired right out of the Navy and not be able to deploy on that next run to the Arabian Sea,.....
I bet the MSC would be tickled pink! in your scenario, he wouldn't ever run out of peanut butter; there's always that silver nitrate lining.
-
What drives people out? It sucks a lot of the time. So to fix the NNPP we need to take the "suck" out of it. So what sucks? and what, if anything, can be done about the things that suck? A little blamestorming:
Manning - get more people on the boats (SSNs especially). Make it so that as part of the regular rotation is that you get left behind from time to time.
Advancement/Fitreps - Get rid of zero defects. Nobody should be EP unless they are SIR qualified. NO PO1 should be EP unless he is qualified EWS.
- Let the CO decide if someone's physical condition affects their job. If a CO can look at you and say, "Sorry for this adverse fitrep, I would have never guessed you were out of standards, and I wish I had 10 more like you." Then that system is broken.
- Any CO/CMC that says everyone here is the best so we assume everybody is an expert at their primary duty so we must rank you based on collateral duties doesn't deserve to hold their position. Get your senior leaders off the a$$es and into the classrooms/on the deckplates/in the ERs and actually observe the people whose careers you are holding in the palm of your hand. Make the fitrep forms reflect this - 90% primary duty, 10% collateral duty.
Instead of fixing the NNPP - let's take "the suck" out of it.
-
Just a little perspective from an "Old Goat". On the Getting in threads I hear about the long waits to get in and on this one I hear about about NNPP being a pump not a filter. Maybe staffing needs to be more of a pump to allow NNPP to be more of a filter. I know that Navy is much leaner than it was back when we made the reactor vessels out of oak and teak, but a little deliberate over staffing on the front end did seem to work.
-
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.
-
PB- over two years since your initial post. Thanks for hanging in there.
Your workload observation is spot on. I saw the results of a study that basically said our junior Sailors on an SSN in upkeep spend greater than 50% of their time waiting. I believe there are many factors that influence this, but discounting the survey will not fix anything. When I was a squadron EDMC, you could easily tell an above average boat from the rest by walking through about 8:15 a.m. On the good boats, the boys were working on their work lists. On the rest there was a line waiting for the EDO/SDO to finish with a meeting and/or relief report so that then they could start getting permission to commence work. When conditions throw a wrench in their plans the stronger Chief has fall-back work to keep his guys busy.
Disagree with you on procedural compliance. If you think it's bad in the Navy, it's worse in civilian nuclear power. During my time in the Navy, my biggest blunders were caused by complacency because I was performing a routine task for the upteenth time so I didn't verify the initial conditions correctly. There are many procedures that lend themselves to performing more than one step at a time or tweaking valves to maintain parameters without a specific step to do so. We can go far too. I remember an outside organization (not NRRO) hitting one of our boats for not using Point-Read-Operate on an R-134 keypad. When I question the auditor, he stuck to his guns. He's now an LDO.
-
PB- over two years since your initial post. Thanks for hanging in there.
Your workload observation is spot on. I saw the results of a study that basically said our junior Sailors on an SSN in upkeep spend greater than 50% of their time waiting. I believe there are many factors that influence this, but discounting the survey will not fix anything. When I was a squadron EDMC, you could easily tell an above average boat from the rest by walking through about 8:15 a.m. On the good boats, the boys were working on their work lists. On the rest there was a line waiting for the EDO/SDO to finish with a meeting and/or relief report so that then they could start getting permission to commence work. When conditions throw a wrench in their plans the stronger Chief has fall-back work to keep his guys busy.
Disagree with you on procedural compliance. If you think it's bad in the Navy, it's worse in civilian nuclear power. During my time in the Navy, my biggest blunders were caused by complacency because I was performing a routine task for the upteenth time so I didn't verify the initial conditions correctly. There are many procedures that lend themselves to performing more than one step at a time or tweaking valves to maintain parameters without a specific step to do so. We can go far too. I remember an outside organization (not NRRO) hitting one of our boats for not using Point-Read-Operate on an R-134 keypad. When I question the auditor, he stuck to his guns. He's now an LDO.
Now that I think about it, I think my position stems from the way the procedures where witten at my last duty station. It took 4 different books to cover everything that was required for an engineroom startup, the procedure jumped back and forth like a choose-your-own-adventure novel, and they were poorly written to top it all off. On my first ship, the procedures were all contained in one section for a given piece of equipment. When you stated up the Main Engines, you only had to go to the Main Engine section vice hunting down the MLO system, then the seawater system, then condensate, etc. I too have had some hiccups do to complacency. I just think that some people go overboard with it. Circle X was a big thing at my last command, they expected you to do circle x procedures that only had 4 steps and involved two valves. Of course my last command was NPTU so it was a unique beast in and of itself.
-
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.
A-gang blows sans inboard. Upon being asked by the CO what procedure they were following to blow sans, the two operators looked at each other and said "sir, we do this all the time...we don't use a procedure."
Now picture that with a nuclear incident.
-
A-gang blows sans inboard. Upon being asked by the CO what procedure they were following to blow sans, the two operators looked at each other and said "sir, we do this all the time...we don't use a procedure."
Now picture that with a nuclear incident.
Ok, I agree that I may have gone a little too far with that one, thus the modified post later on. There has to be some common sense associated with nuclear power at some point and a bit of trust that operators have a certain degree of understanding about how things work otherwise just put a bunch of trained monkeys on watch. There is just as much [BH] over rediculous requirements as there is about people failing to follow procedures. Just trying to bring some common sense into the NNPP but we all know that is akin to [DH]
-
I agree, somewhat. But I also almost had to write an incident report the other day on why an operator didn't accurately follow the precautions of a procedure after it was briefed and specifically covered NOT to do it. This is after he assured me that he has performed the evolution many times and knew what he was doing.
So yea...
As for all the salty guys saying that prototype needs to be harder, I wholeheartedly disagree. Prototype shouldn't even exist, but the bottom line is that the Navy nuclear training program has produced operators with a flawless track record as far as reactor accidents go, and it continues to do so. No Admiral is going to mess with that formula. From that perspective, NNPTC isn't broken, so you can't fix it.
The filter is when personnel are screened for Navy nuclear power prior to Naval service. People with high technical GPA's or high ASVAB scores have proven that they have the intelligence required to excel in the program, so now it's just a matter of properly motivating them.
-
I agree, somewhat. But I also almost had to write an incident report the other day on why an operator didn't accurately follow the precautions of a procedure after it was briefed and specifically covered NOT to do it. This is after he assured me that he has performed the evolution many times and knew what he was doing.
I've seen this type of thing happen too many times. In my not so humble opinion, the pre-evolution brief was the root cause of the failure. It was also a failure of leadership.
Training should be about what to do, reinforcing positive behaviors--not the opposite. The ol' "perfect practice makes perfect" concept. We see that this principle is true and able to be used effectively in two-year-olds!
If you want to keep your toddler from walking through a puddle, you don't say, "Don't walk through the puddle." You will undoubtedly be putting those shoes off to the side to dry for a few days because there is no other option in his or her mind but to walk through the puddle. To ensure success, you say, "Let's walk around the puddle." The toddler will comply because there are no other options floating around in that noggin.
When you practice an instrument, you don't play the wrong notes in hopes that it will cause you to play the correct ones during the concert.
I wasn't there, but I dare say more emphasis was placed on what not to do than on what to do. There is a place for discussing (a) lessons learned, (b) past incidents, and (c) current anomalies or limitations, for example; however, always end on the positive message. Also, I realize that this individual said he had conducted the evolution many times, which is a recipe for complacency, and for the prideful person it sets up an environment that will not allow him to reach out for help.
So, at the critical--was it cut the blue wire or don't cut the blue wire?--moment, what do you think stuck out in his mind the most, the positive message or the negative message? Moreover, the climate set up probably sent a message conveying that asking for help would be highly frowned upon, putting his value as an operator in question.
Just my opinion from the outside looking in...
-
I've stayed away from this topic so far, but it's time.
This is a recently retired surface guy's opinion, and I know that the Submariners have a different kind of life due to manning. That being said, here we go...
1) I'm a big fan of technology, but having the Power School notes printed out on slides where you fill in the blank for the definition or whatever is a bunch of crap. If you hear the information said aloud, see it on the board, and then most importantly write it down yourself it's going to "stick" better. Don't get me wrong, I still have my A school notes and there are times when the writing becomes nothing more than a scribbly line as I fell asleep, but the stuff I was awake for I remembered!
2) Slow down the rate of promotion a little... Case in point: When I was on the Washington in 1994 we had 73 people in RC Div... Of those 73 people 54 were qualified RO, and for the most part (there's always exceptions) were able to do everything required of them. Just a few years later (1997?) I was on the CVN 75 and we had 17 E-6's in RC Div out of a total of about 55 people. All of them were clamoring for a job in order to get promoted. Out of those 55 people we were scrambling to be able to cover the minimum watch rotation required to maintain Reactor Department's duty rotation. (5 section, so 20 ROs). Which leads me to my third point...
3) Nukes are different... deal with it! Our job is to keep the reactor safe while being able to meet the operational goals set forth by our chain of command. Our job is NOT to be the president, secretary, or treasurer of the CPO Mess (or the First or Second class association, for that matter). Nor is it for us to be the command DAPA, CFS, Physical Fitness Coordinator, etc... Bottom line: If you have time to go do that stuff, then you're not doing a good enough job as a Nuke!
Collateral duties for Nukes have gone overboard. You now have people making Chief and their only concern is what collateral duties they need to pick up to make SCPO. They're missing (or blatantly ignoring) the basic tenet of being a Nuke... Keep the plant safe!
Maybe my opinion's a little too biased towards the Nukes and not towards "Big Navy", but oh well. I'm sure I've missed all sorts of "what if" kind of scenarios too... Honestly I don't care. If the Navy Nuclear Power Program is to be successful they need to look back on what made them so successful in the first place and endeavor to return to it.
Sorry for the longish post, I actually held back... but I made my (probably contested) point!!
Jay
-
You make many good points that I agree with. However,
I wasn't there...
Which is why you didn't hear the part where we covered that "we will avoid violating this precaution by doing ...."
It's one of those cases where the operator had a brainfart by not acknowledging the nuance between throttle open and fully open, and the on-scene supervisor was too trusting or complacent if you will. But had the on-scene supervisor not been there and the Navy gave the level of 'trust' that preciousblue advocates, things would have been a lot worse.
-
I've stayed away from this topic so far, but it's time.
This is a recently retired surface guy's opinion, and I know that the Submariners have a different kind of life due to manning. That being said, here we go...
1) I'm a big fan of technology, but having the Power School notes printed out on slides where you fill in the blank for the definition or whatever is a bunch of crap. If you hear the information said aloud, see it on the board, and then most importantly write it down yourself it's going to "stick" better. Don't get me wrong, I still have my A school notes and there are times when the writing becomes nothing more than a scribbly line as I fell asleep, but the stuff I was awake for I remembered!
2) Slow down the rate of promotion a little... Case in point: When I was on the Washington in 1994 we had 73 people in RC Div... Of those 73 people 54 were qualified RO, and for the most part (there's always exceptions) were able to do everything required of them. Just a few years later (1997?) I was on the CVN 75 and we had 17 E-6's in RC Div out of a total of about 55 people. All of them were clamoring for a job in order to get promoted. Out of those 55 people we were scrambling to be able to cover the minimum watch rotation required to maintain Reactor Department's duty rotation. (5 section, so 20 ROs). Which leads me to my third point...
3) Nukes are different... deal with it! Our job is to keep the reactor safe while being able to meet the operational goals set forth by our chain of command. Our job is NOT to be the president, secretary, or treasurer of the CPO Mess (or the First or Second class association, for that matter). Nor is it for us to be the command DAPA, CFS, Physical Fitness Coordinator, etc... Bottom line: If you have time to go do that stuff, then you're not doing a good enough job as a Nuke!
Collateral duties for Nukes have gone overboard. You now have people making Chief and their only concern is what collateral duties they need to pick up to make SCPO. They're missing (or blatantly ignoring) the basic tenet of being a Nuke... Keep the plant safe!
Maybe my opinion's a little too biased towards the Nukes and not towards "Big Navy", but oh well. I'm sure I've missed all sorts of "what if" kind of scenarios too... Honestly I don't care. If the Navy Nuclear Power Program is to be successful they need to look back on what made them so successful in the first place and endeavor to return to it.
Sorry for the longish post, I actually held back... but I made my (probably contested) point!!
Jay
I concur.....very good post.
-
(5 section, so 20 ROs).
What kind of watch rotation is that (A damned good one IMHO)?? As an ELT on the Chucky V we were on 6 and 6's with 5 section duty. It would be a better deal for all nukes if all we were expected to do was our one primary duty (be nukes). The problem is the higher ups in the CoC who have no tolerance for people that dont take on collateral duties.
-
I think the comments on collateral duties require a deeper discussion. I think this goes back to the evaluation system and over-inflated marks, which goes back to a command culture where we rank guys who look good on paper vice actually observing their performance. The selection boards are tasked with picking the most-qualified candidates. With everyone "the best" at their primary duty, they are left with splitting hairs over who had the most influential collateral duty.
Look at NNPTC. I was once counseled that everyone there was screened and cream of the crop so ranking boards basically said that everyone was "the best" at their primary duty. So in order to rank sailors, we had to look at what they did outside their primary duty. So as an instructor teaching two sections of students I had at least six hours of my time devoted to teaching and covering study halls. In my other two hours I graded homework and prepared for teaching. In general my day was full most of the time. Then there was the internal monitoring guy. He administered the RPS subject once every six weeks and scheduled monitoring throughout his day such that he had plenty of free time. This guy had all kinds of collateral duties and was frequently one of the top-ranked Chiefs/PO1s. I know this duty is now one of the collateral duties; but it always chapped my a$$ that somebody who had minimal impact on student success (our primary duty) could be considered more valuable than the guys who interacted with students on a daily basis.
-
The evaluation system was one of the reasons I decided to not stick around anymore. I was told the same thing that you were about rankings. Every person of the same rank at the command was assumed to have the same level of knowledge, so we were all ranked the same. The numbers within the FITREP didn't even mater... They ranked the candidates first, and then fill in the numbers so that the averages line up with your numerical ranking within the department, command, etc.
I really don't know when all of this started to come about, I truthfully never really paid attention to any of the "Big Navy" stuff. I know the push right now is for nukes to become an "active" part of the command, but that really doesn't work too well when the rest of the command can't do anything to help you.
Unfortunately it's too late for the FITREP system. The Navy has managed to turn this system into the same kind of inflated worthlessness that existed with the old eval system. Guess they'll have a new one coming out soon with a "6.0" scale!
No matter what they do, someone is always going to find a way to inflate the numbers. Sad, but true.
-
What kind of watch rotation is that (A damned good one IMHO)?? As an ELT on the Chucky V we were on 6 and 6's with 5 section duty. It would be a better deal for all nukes if all we were expected to do was our one primary duty (be nukes). The problem is the higher ups in the CoC who have no tolerance for people that dont take on collateral duties.
That is 6 and 6 on 5 section duty.
Two plants with 2 SROs in each plant...
-
The evaluation system was one of the reasons I decided to not stick around anymore. I was told the same thing that you were about rankings. Every person of the same rank at the command was assumed to have the same level of knowledge, so we were all ranked the same. The numbers within the FITREP didn't even mater... They ranked the candidates first, and then fill in the numbers so that the averages line up with your numerical ranking within the department, command, etc.
I really don't know when all of this started to come about, I truthfully never really paid attention to any of the "Big Navy" stuff. I know the push right now is for nukes to become an "active" part of the command, but that really doesn't work too well when the rest of the command can't do anything to help you.
Unfortunately it's too late for the FITREP system. The Navy has managed to turn this system into the same kind of inflated worthlessness that existed with the old eval system. Guess they'll have a new one coming out soon with a "6.0" scale!
No matter what they do, someone is always going to find a way to inflate the numbers. Sad, but true.
Don't know how long ago you're description of the EVAL system is, but I've heard what you're saying a few times before. Agree, it was a bogus method. Here's the current instruction:
http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/A1FA25A4-D292-4F83-9490-0010944D5565/0/161010.pdf (http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/A1FA25A4-D292-4F83-9490-0010944D5565/0/161010.pdf)
I think it's more sophisticated and does the guys better justice. Only been involved in writing my guys' EVALs for about 2 years, but I've always worked with a Chief who made them meaningful.
Agree with the thoughts on too rapid of advancement. I'm at 10 years and expect to make Chief next year (passed my EWS/EDPO board today, the only thing I think that's holding me back), and I feel like only now am I really capable of doing the job well. There is a problem now in the fleet with sub ETs being so undermanned that the brand new RC Div Chiefs are making big mistakes due to inexperience. (I know this a 3-day conversation on why there aren't enough nukes in the first place.)
I've seen a lot of guys get promoted at their 6 or 7 year mark thinking that they're not all hosed up but not really ready, that their next division (and the fleet) would be better served with them doing some more time as an LPO. That's what LPOs are now a lot of the time: guys who reported onboard as an E4 and made their way up to E6, now the LPO.
I'm a "sea-returnee first class" coming from instructor duty, I make my job on the boat look easy. Done it all before. Imagine if there was 40% of the department with my experience vice there only being one other ELT, one other electrician, and one other mechanic who has done a previous sea tour.
-
I've stayed away from this topic so far, but it's time.
This is a recently retired surface guy's opinion, and I know that the Submariners have a different kind of life due to manning. That being said, here we go...
1) I'm a big fan of technology, but having the Power School notes printed out on slides where you fill in the blank for the definition or whatever is a bunch of crap. If you hear the information said aloud, see it on the board, and then most importantly write it down yourself it's going to "stick" better. Don't get me wrong, I still have my A school notes and there are times when the writing becomes nothing more than a scribbly line as I fell asleep, but the stuff I was awake for I remembered!
I strongly disagree. The test I performed the worst on in power school was the one where I spent my time re-writing notes. The point is, everyone is different. If you're the type of guy who needs to re-write something 10x for it to stick, then go ahead and do that during your study time. Don't waste class time forcing everyone to do it when it doesn't work for everyone.
2) Slow down the rate of promotion a little... Case in point: When I was on the Washington in 1994 we had 73 people in RC Div... Of those 73 people 54 were qualified RO, and for the most part (there's always exceptions) were able to do everything required of them. Just a few years later (1997?) I was on the CVN 75 and we had 17 E-6's in RC Div out of a total of about 55 people. All of them were clamoring for a job in order to get promoted. Out of those 55 people we were scrambling to be able to cover the minimum watch rotation required to maintain Reactor Department's duty rotation. (5 section, so 20 ROs). Which leads me to my third point...
I'm sure that the nuclear Navy would like to slow down promotion, but manning issues at the mid-upper enlisted ranks don't allow for that.
Perhaps hitting the fleet as an E-5 or being promoted to E-5 very shortly after needs to be looked at, but that is one of the selling points for people to join the nuclear pipeline in the first place.
-
The first hot runner coming to these forums and describing how he's stuck at E-6 until his twelve year mark is going to get one big message (ad nauseum);
"Dude, we have such a better deal for you."
(sic)
So then raise the pro-pay and/or bonuses instead of making everyone instant E-5's/E-6's and 8 year chiefs. A guy who hits the fleet as an E-3 and gets promoted to E-6 through 12 years will not perceive the situation as 'stuck' the same way a guy who gets to the fleet as an E-5 and gets promoted to E-6 in only 3 years.
Rank kind of loses its purpose when you can't tell a person's experience or ability level by looking at it, and when you have people junior in rank but senior in experience/quals giving orders to people senior in rank but junior in experience.
-
Put me in charge.
-
Put me in charge.
Now that would help staffing.... :o
-
Put me in charge.
I like it. Think Joe Torre or Tony LaRussa managing my nephew's T-Ball team. :)
-
Put me in charge.
I like it. Think Joe Torre or Tony LaRussa managing my nephew's T-Ball team. :)
More like R. Lee Ermey ;)
Admiral Broadzilla interviewing a candidate with low self-esteem and needing a waiver:
[/youtube]
-
Put me in charge.
Give us your best script for a "BZ style NR Interview"! :P
Besides, you never know who might be lurking...especially on THIS subject thread! The current Director is due to roll out soon....the incumbants' names are certainly "in the hat". Better throw yours in quick...
You sure you want the pay cut though? ;)
(Oops...forgot an icon: [stir])
-
Besides, you never know who might be lurking...especially on THIS subject thread! The current Director is due to roll out soon....the incumbants' names are certainly "in the hat". Better throw yours in quick...
So, who do you think it will be?
Nobody I know saw the current director coming....I for one would have bet the house on Grossenbacher.
2012....I know who I think it will be.
-
As for Braodzilla NNPTC for blueshirts...
[/youtube]
-
LOL I expected to see the Red Forman video posted again!
BTW No I wouldn't want the paycut, maybe I'd do it as a labor of love.
-
So, who do you think it will be?
Nobody I know saw the current director coming....I for one would have bet the house on Grossenbacher.
2012....I know who I think it will be.
It's an 8 year tour, so while the list starts out long (sub officers), the incumbants probably decline to throw their hat into the "ring of fire" in light of pending retirements.
I've heard current SUBLANT; however, what do I know...I'm well into retirement now. :-) I have to get the majority of my gossip these days from "The Stupid Shall Be Punished". ;-)
-
NNPP Director as an 8 year tour??
-
NNPP Director as an 8 year tour??
Section 3, Executive Order 12344:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12344.html
Note that in Section 4, a Civilian appointed as the Director (e.g., Broadzilla) would have to negotiate his Salary with the DOE/DOE. (Perhaps I spoke to soon on the earlier "pay cut" joke).
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
Is there a difference? :o
Salary Negotiation Hint: Don't call the CNO or DOE Secretary a "T-Baller". [stir]
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
Do you believe in an objective, absolute moral law or a relative, subjective moral law? Carefully answer the question Grasshopper...
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
Perhaps we should take a poll of your peers here on Nubworker? ;)
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
If you go with the latter, the good news is that there is still a few BILLION dollars left in the Stimulus Fund, that ought to cover the first year or two, right? [stir] [devious] [whistle]
-
Is there a difference? :o
Salary Negotiation Hint: Don't call the CNO or DOE Secretary a "T-Baller". [stir]
Wouldn't we just love to be a fly on the wall at his initial NR interview, perhaps off to a rocky start? ;)
-
Wouldn't we just love to be a fly on the wall at his initial NR interview, perhaps off to a rocky start? ;)
Pun intended???
-
Indeed :)
-
Do you believe in an objective, absolute moral law or a relative, subjective moral law? Carefully answer the question Grasshopper...
I'm an Ex ELT so what do you want the law to be?
-
I'm an Ex ELT so what do you want the law to be?
That explains it! :stupidme: :stupidme: :stupidme: :stupidme:
-
Do I negotiate on my true worth or what I believe to be my worth? :)
Oh, you want a little something for the effort?
There'll be no money.
-
LOL!
Dude we need to get together for some beer and burgers!
-
I'm an Ex ELT so what do you want the law to be?
No matter how often or hard I try, I cannot get the dichotomous label to stick to an ELT...must be the residual coconut oil from all the slumber parties. ~(;{))
-
I strongly disagree. The test I performed the worst on in power school was the one where I spent my time re-writing notes. The point is, everyone is different. If you're the type of guy who needs to re-write something 10x for it to stick, then go ahead and do that during your study time. Don't waste class time forcing everyone to do it when it doesn't work for everyone.
I'm sure that the nuclear Navy would like to slow down promotion, but manning issues at the mid-upper enlisted ranks don't allow for that.
Perhaps hitting the fleet as an E-5 or being promoted to E-5 very shortly after needs to be looked at, but that is one of the selling points for people to join the nuclear pipeline in the first place.
Imdoing pretty well at Pschool and the only time I look back to study my notes are for specific values like amu's and KE values for crap in the core. Other than that I Use quiz's, applying the knowledge needed to know for the exam and beyond is much more efficient then writing it down a bunch of times. Tried it in A school and I went from getting 3.75's to 3.4's
-
i know that this topic is old but I just wanted to put my two cents in...
Im a NPTU student who has been in training for coming close to two years and most of it has been in a hold status.
1) my Prototype class is about 200 or so right now. the class behind me is even bigger and there is talk of increasing the size even more. What i find interesting is that even with an increased student population they haven't really increased the staff which makes it even more difficult to get qualled on a platform that is outdated to that in the fleet. Now, I know that it's our job to get check outs and not go DINQ however even spending more then the required 12 hours it's sometimes impossible to get them.
2) the hours program at NNPTC. I was on 35-5 hours program for most of powerschool. granted i know long hours are part of the package with this pipeline however is forcing a bunch of kids (yes i say kids cause that's effectively what we are, kids right out of high school for the most part... but i digress) to sit in a room for hours just because their test scores show that their ability to memorize and regurgitate 4.0 to a key is lacking? this rolls over to
3) physical fitness. Long hours in the Rickover is hardly conducive to a adequate fitness. maybe it was just me but all i wanted to do after frying my brain trying to memorize that the photon calculations are measured in unicorns and leprechauns. (not really but you get my point) was to go to bed and get ready to go to school the next day and not be tired.
im afraid that if i continue with this it's going to turn more into a rant and not anything positive.
edited by GC
-
i know that this topic is old but I just wanted to put my two cents in...
Im a NPTU student who has been in training for coming close to two years and most of it has been in a hold status.
1) my Prototype class is about 200 or so right now. the class behind me is even bigger and there is talk of increasing the size even more. What i find interesting is that even with an increased student population they haven't really increased the staff which makes it even more difficult to get qualled on a platform that is outdated to that in the fleet. Now, I know that it's our job to get check outs and not go DINQ however even spending more then the required 12 hours it's sometimes impossible to get them.
2) the hours program at NNPTC. I was on 35-5 hours program for most of powerschool. granted i know long hours are part of the package with this pipeline however is forcing a bunch of kids (yes i say kids cause that's effectively what we are, kids right out of high school for the most part... but i digress) to sit in a room for hours just because their test scores show that their ability to memorize and regurgitate 4.0 to a key is lacking? this rolls over to
3) physical fitness. Long hours in the Rickover is hardly conducive to a adequate fitness. maybe it was just me but all i wanted to do after frying my brain trying to memorize that the photon calculations are measured in unicorns and leprechauns. (not really but you get my point) was to go to bed and get ready to go to school the next day and not be tired.
im afraid that if i continue with this it's going to turn more into a rant and not anything positive.
edited by GC
The title of the thread is How would you fix the NNPP, not let me whine about my experiences in the training pipeline.
The fact that you were on 35-5 for the duration of Nuke School tells me a lot about you and your work ethic. 35-5, after the first few weeks, is reserved for people with poor GPA who put forth the minimum effort. I had a friend who graduated with a 2.63 GPA, and he was on voluntary hours from the third week on. He didn't have to be told that if he wanted to succeed that he needed to work harder then the minimum. Sitting in a room for hours is probably a direct result of you wasting your time and not being efficient at studying. Again, your issue. You don't live at home any more and things aren't going to be handed to you. Grow up, and man up.
As far as PT goes, that is part of being in the military. If you aren't meeting the standards by working out on your own, then you get remedial to "help" you. The standards are published for all to see, so you should know whether you need to focus attention on meeting them on your own.
-
The title of the thread is How would you fix the NNPP, not let me whine about my experiences in the training pipeline.
The fact that you were on 35-5 for the duration of Nuke School tells me a lot about you and your work ethic. 35-5, after the first few weeks, is reserved for people with poor GPA who put forth the minimum effort. I had a friend who graduated with a 2.63 GPA, and he was on voluntary hours from the third week on. He didn't have to be told that if he wanted to succeed that he needed to work harder then the minimum. Sitting in a room for hours is probably a direct result of you wasting your time and not being efficient at studying. Again, your issue. You don't live at home any more and things aren't going to be handed to you. Grow up, and man up.
As far as PT goes, that is part of being in the military. If you aren't meeting the standards by working out on your own, then you get remedial to "help" you. The standards are published for all to see, so you should know whether you need to focus attention on meeting them on your own.
You're lucky my smite button has been depleted for the day. I can think of many examples of people being on high hours programs that were honestly putting in due effort. You dont know this guy, much less, you dont know his work ethic. Im not going to vouch this guy, but at the same time, for you to wantonly bash him for being on hours is ridiculous man.
Prime example -> friend STRUGGLED in A school and power school. He was on 35-5's because of his GPA. You want to know what he did? He spent at least 50 extra hours in that building every single week. He never took a day off, and he squeaked by, barely passing. Where is he now? He's up for chief this year after being a SPU, making first class first time up, and since he's now an LPO at sea, he's a good candidate for chief.
-
You're lucky my smite button has been depleted for the day. I can think of many examples of people being on high hours programs that were honestly putting in due effort. You dont know this guy, much less, you dont know his work ethic. Im not going to vouch this guy, but at the same time, for you to wantonly bash him for being on hours is ridiculous man.
Prime example -> friend STRUGGLED in A school and power school. He was on 35-5's because of his GPA. You want to know what he did? He spent at least 50 extra hours in that building every single week. He never took a day off, and he squeaked by, barely passing. Where is he now? He's up for chief this year after being a SPU, making first class first time up, and since he's now an LPO at sea, he's a good candidate for chief.
I gotta agree with Lt Dan in one aspect. This isn't the "let me complain about my experience with no input for how to correct the situation" part of the forum.
I have gone on rants myself, but at least try to offer up a solution to the problem I was ranting about. This particular individual only layed out his gripes about the program, with no contructive input on how to make it better. It is true that there are all kinds in the Navy with regards to performance and work ethic in NPS and Proto. I personally was one who put in very little hours, had a pretty decent GPA, and made First Class first time up just after my 4 year point. I have also seen several who struggled all the way through the program and made it o the fleet to be steller operators. However, that is less common than seeing those that struggle continue to struggle throughout their career, whereas those who excel in NPS and Proto tend to be the better operators.
I don't agree that we should automatically bash the kid for his perceived work ethic and performance, but just complaining and not adding solutions is not why I started this thread.
-
You're lucky my smite button has been depleted for the day.
I'm lucky....really??? The fact that you exhausted all your Karma powers for the day (giving ten -K's to one person) tells me alot about you also. Feel free to smite me tomorrow though.
I can think of many examples of people being on high hours programs that were honestly putting in due effort. You dont know this guy, much less, you dont know his work ethic. Im not going to vouch this guy, but at the same time, for you to wantonly bash him for being on hours is ridiculous man.
Prime example -> friend STRUGGLED in A school and power school. He was on 35-5's because of his GPA. You want to know what he did? He spent at least 50 extra hours in that building every single week. He never took a day off, and he squeaked by, barely passing. Where is he now? He's up for chief this year after being a SPU, making first class first time up, and since he's now an LPO at sea, he's a good candidate for chief.
I stand by my original assessment of the OP.
BTW...I think you are full of it in regards to your friend also. I'll double check with my friend who works at NR, but I'm fairly certain that someone who barely scraped by NNPTC would not become a SPU regardless of performance at NPTU .
-
It's a close one,....
IIRC, back when he was known as CycoticPenguin, Charlie spent about 5 months on medical hold in the pipeline before NPTU, that's gonna make his NPS friend about a six, maybe seven year Chief candidate at best.
Now this friend could have been prior service, or originated somewhere other than the typical nuke pipeline pathway. But, barring something dam special it seems a bit of a stretch. We might need more details to nod in common agreement.
Or not,.... [coffee]
nope, 6 years, up for chief. whether he gets it or not, thats another story, but he's lined up well.
I'm lucky....really??? The fact that you exhausted all your Karma powers for the day (giving ten -K's to one person) tells me alot about you also. Feel free to smite me tomorrow though.
I stand by my original assessment of the OP.
BTW...I think you are full of it in regards to your friend also. I'll double check with my friend who works at NR, but I'm fairly certain that someone who barely scraped by NNPTC would not become a SPU regardless of performance at NPTU .
go for it dude. I can give you his contact information if you want to check for yourself.
edit: I will have forgotten about this by tomorrow. I have a cheating wife I have to deal with now, so pardon my rudeness for the next day or so.
-
Prime example -> friend STRUGGLED in A school and power school. He was on 35-5's because of his GPA. You want to know what he did? He spent at least 50 extra hours in that building every single week. He never took a day off, and he squeaked by, barely passing. Where is he now? He's up for chief this year after being a SPU, making first class first time up, and since he's now an LPO at sea, he's a good candidate for chief.
Actually, your friend is a good positive example of why the "old school" approach works. He was behind the curve, he worked damn hard, increased his skills, enhanced his reputation and as a result is likely to get promoted well ahead of his peers. I'm not seeing the problem here.
-
I'm lucky....really??? The fact that you exhausted all your Karma powers for the day (giving ten -K's to one person) tells me alot about you also. Feel free to smite me tomorrow though.
I stand by my original assessment of the OP.
BTW...I think you are full of it in regards to your friend also. I'll double check with my friend who works at NR, but I'm fairly certain that someone who barely scraped by NNPTC would not become a SPU regardless of performance at NPTU .
Incorrect. In my class we had a guy who was on maximum mando which was really beside the point as he was putting in nearly 60-70 hours a week on his own. He ended up being the Anchorman in or class with almost exactly a 2.5 average. Everyone in the entire class admired the heck out of Robbie and I know after our comp exams he might have been the drunkest sailor in Florida for all the beers we bought him. Anyhow Robbie was a classic example of a guy who knew what it would take for him to make it through the program and he went out and did it. He literally tore Prototype to Shreds and ended up being a SPU. I know because I proudly served with him at Nuke School and NPTU.
Again my solution, put me in charge.
-
Chief eligible in 6 years?!?!?,...wow!! I did not think that was possible. I always thought you could test at seven and get paid at eight earliest.
Then again,....
I have not been in for over twenty years and am not really sure why,......I,.......care,........ :P
My A-School instructor (MMC Reneau) made chief in 5 years 8 months. One of our electrician masterchiefs was pinned master chief some time during his 11 year point. My old chief made it around 7 years. Its not common, no, but its definitely possible.
Incorrect. In my class we had a guy who was on maximum mando which was really beside the point as he was putting in nearly 60-70 hours a week on his own. He ended up being the Anchorman in or class with almost exactly a 2.5 average. Everyone in the entire class admired the heck out of Robbie and I know after our comp exams he might have been the drunkest sailor in Florida for all the beers we bought him. Anyhow Robbie was a classic example of a guy who knew what it would take for him to make it through the program and he went out and did it. He literally tore Prototype to Shreds and ended up being a SPU. I know because I proudly served with him at Nuke School and NPTU.
Again my solution, put me in charge.
Yeah my buddy was doing 50-60 hours a week before he even got put on hours. Him and this other dude that just couldnt hack it were basically competing for the "I am trying the hardest" competition, and everyone actually pulled together to get them through. The other guy just couldnt hang with it after a while, and ended up getting converted to ET or something like that.
-
My A-School instructor (MMC Reneau) made chief in 5 years 8 months. One of our electrician masterchiefs was pinned master chief some time during his 11 year point. My old chief made it around 7 years. Its not common, no, but its definitely possible.
Yeah my buddy was doing 50-60 hours a week before he even got put on hours. Him and this other dude that just couldnt hack it were basically competing for the "I am trying the hardest" competition, and everyone actually pulled together to get them through. The other guy just couldnt hang with it after a while, and ended up getting converted to ET or something like that.
I served on the same ship as you A school Instructor. In fact we were both on Drill team together. Good guy, good operator. Of course I also got to hear about his stories from shore leave.
-
'How would you fix the NNPP'
as for NNPTC:
Being here long enough I have seen that everyone's personal experience here is a bit different.
Examples: Different SLPO's, CD's, being on FEP, hours program, prior mastings, divorces, marriages, babies, debt, etc.
If everyone's personal experience is different here at NNPTC, has anyone here have the right to say "what would 'fix' the NNPP"?
I am still at NNPTC so I shouldn't bother to post but in my ignorant opinion,
NNPP cannot be 'fixed', it fixes you.
Am I being hypocritical, or should I just wait to post my opinion after I do my time?
-
and just when I was beginning to think this thread was dead.... :o
-
Not really "dead"... just pining for the fjords!! ;)
-
I'm a little too new in to pass judgement or make inflamatory posts... But I can't help but wonder if the environment in Great Lakes towards studying for tests and passing quals (battlestations) doesn't teach an attitude that promotes cheating and poor test making...
-
I'm a little too new in to pass judgement or make inflamatory posts... But I can't help but wonder if the environment in Great Lakes towards studying for tests and passing quals (battlestations) doesn't teach an attitude that promotes cheating and poor test making...
I would find that extremely hard to believe.
-
I'm a little too new in to pass judgement or make inflamatory posts... But I can't help but wonder if the environment in Great Lakes towards studying for tests and passing quals (battlestations) doesn't teach an attitude that promotes cheating and poor test making...
Ask the people that were denuked on the Truman...
http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=22286.0 (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=22286.0)
-
My son graduates NNPTC February 25th. He will be on hold for prototype for 6 months , or so he has been told. He will be living in his BEQ taking college classes during this time. All paid for by the Navy. He's lovin it. Thank you very much taxpayers!
The 12 Dec 2010 CREO list says all nuke fields are undermanned.
He gradumucates with me ;) I wonder what section he is in =O
Also I was informed military pay is from taxes paid by big corporate companies.
-
He gradumucates with me ;) I wonder what section he is in =O
Also I was informed military pay is from taxes paid by big corporate companies.
Corporations supposedly paying a significant amount of taxes is laughable. Especially the vast amounts of funds the military industrial complex uses, thank the Federal Reserve for those funds.
-
Corporations supposedly paying a significant amount of taxes is laughable. Especially the vast amounts of funds the military industrial complex uses, thank the Federal Reserve for those funds.
Thanks for the reply, now I know ;)
-
The fact that some in this thread not only think it's okay, but a good thing that some people go on 35-5's to pass the program speaks volumes about the issues in NNPP and how it will never be fixed. Most people don't like it when their entire lives are consumed by work, even when they like their jobs. It's no wonder that the nuke field is continuously hurting for people, and is constantly lowering standards and raising bonuses to meet goals.
I have friends who went through flight school -- the only school in the Navy that still boots people for poor performance routinely aside from BUD/S -- and they STILL had time to enjoy the beach and drink tons of bear. The nuclear pipeline makes life miserable for people for no reason other than because Rickover made it that way over 40 years ago.
Is it better to lengthen power school so Sailors can learn and retain more knowledge without spending every waking hour at work, or keep it short so we can keep the big-dick bragging rights for the guys who get 2.8's?
Prototype is worthless. This is routinely proven every time a new Sailor reports aboard and still doesn't know his ass from his elbow. It's time to decommission those wastes of money...Sailors can have an "off-crew" period at their squadrons and then report aboard and start the qual process there. At least the boats won't have to undo the loads of negative training they get at prototype.
Being in shape is a Navy requirement; ergo, the Navy should be giving you time to work out during the work day without extending your time at work. Expecting people to stay in shape during their free time for a work requirement is asinine, but it's standard nuke mentality.
At the end of the day, though, there's no 'fixing' NNPP. It produces Sailors that have not caused a reactor accident in the history of Navy nuclear power, and verbatim procedural compliance has only cost the Navy 1 submarine (the Thresher). That fact alone is going to prevent any significant change to the program from occurring.
-
Being in shape is a Navy requirement; ergo, the Navy should be giving you time to work out during the work day without extending your time at work. Expecting people to stay in shape during their free time for a work requirement is asinine, but it's standard nuke mentality.
"Beinig in shape" is a life requirement; ergo, YOU, must make time for it. It is NOT a standard nuke mentality, it is a standard for having a life and seeing your grandchildren grow up.
-
Being in shape is a Navy requirement; ergo, the Navy should be giving you time to work out during the work day without extending your time at work. Expecting people to stay in shape during their free time for a work requirement is asinine, but it's standard nuke mentality.
I don't know if they're changing anything in South Carolina, but as far as the NY Prototypes they're making it so students can work out during their manditory plus time. The on-shift section is going to be providing someone to supervise to make sure people aren't just hanging out in the gym to get away from work. Wish it would've been this way a few months ago when I went to section. Plus time usually is a waste of time anyway. They tell you that you should get checkouts on your plus time, but most sections' staff won't go very much out of their way to help a student from a different section.
-imthehoopa
-
Yeah but you can still study and walk stuff down during plus time?
Right?
Call me crazy, but I rather just get qualified and get on staff hours....but having the gym available is a nice touch!
-
The fact that some in this thread not only think it's okay, but a good thing that some people go on 35-5's to pass the program speaks volumes about the issues in NNPP and how it will never be fixed. Most people don't like it when their entire lives are consumed by work, even when they like their jobs. It's no wonder that the nuke field is continuously hurting for people, and is constantly lowering standards and raising bonuses to meet goals.
I was on 35-5's for almost my entire time at NNPS. The nice thing about being young and stupid (some might call it naive) is that I didn't really have a life in the first place. They told me to work that many hours so I did. I like to think it was more about learning time management and priorities than just straight schoolwork...
I have friends who went through flight school -- the only school in the Navy that still boots people for poor performance routinely aside from BUD/S -- and they STILL had time to enjoy the beach and drink tons of bear. The nuclear pipeline makes life miserable for people for no reason other than because Rickover made it that way over 40 years ago.
From the enlisted side of the house I think was also done purposely. What's the average age of the enlisted person going through school? 18 or 19? The hours keep them out of trouble. This isn't college where they can go running off to do whatever they want once they get done. Plus, please don't compare Nukes to aviators... it turns my stomach. Do a tour on an aircraft carrier and you'll know why.
Is it better to lengthen power school so Sailors can learn and retain more knowledge without spending every waking hour at work, or keep it short so we can keep the big-dick bragging rights for the guys who get 2.8's?
No, it's not better to lengthen it. Put the standards back where they should be, and deal with the attrition that comes along with it. The world needs paint chippers too.
Prototype is worthless. This is routinely proven every time a new Sailor reports aboard and still doesn't know his ass from his elbow. It's time to decommission those wastes of money...Sailors can have an "off-crew" period at their squadrons and then report aboard and start the qual process there. At least the boats won't have to undo the loads of negative training they get at prototype.
I completely agree on this point. Prototype is pretty much useless. I think it should go away. My opinion is that there should be a three or four month systems class specifically targeted at the platform the Sailor is going to. Then MMs go the ship. EMs, ETs, and officers should then go to the respective FIDE and spend a month or two getting familiar with their respective panels... then they go off to the boat.
They really aren't "prototypes" anymore, their "used-to-types". It's more of a history lesson than it is a real learning experience.
At the end of the day, though, there's no 'fixing' NNPP. It produces Sailors that have not caused a reactor accident in the history of Navy nuclear power, and verbatim procedural compliance has only cost the Navy 1 submarine (the Thresher). That fact alone is going to prevent any significant change to the program from occurring.
I know for fact that NR is really looking into how to "fix" things. It takes time and money, neither one of which they have much of.
Verbatim procedural compliance is there because even back in the "old" days Sailors weren't taught a lot of the "whys" behind procedures until a lot further on into their careers. With the way procedures have been dumbed down, the reasons behind actions are being taken away. The end result is that a lot of the operators out there today wouldn't be able to find out why they're taking an action even if they wanted to... they just have to know that it has to be done. It's all good as long as the procedures cover the situation they're in, but God help 'em if they end up in a place the procedure didn't think about.
-
Verbatim procedural compliance is there because even back in the "old" days Sailors weren't taught a lot of the "whys" behind procedures until a lot further on into their careers. With the way procedures have been dumbed down, the reasons behind actions are being taken away. The end result is that a lot of the operators out there today wouldn't be able to find out why they're taking an action even if they wanted to... they just have to know that it has to be done. It's all good as long as the procedures cover the situation they're in, but God help 'em if they end up in a place the procedure didn't think about.
Totally agree! Even in the commercial world, now, the "Human Factored" procedures spell every thing out; however, one little glitch and the user is left "holding the bag"!
-
Totally agree! Even in the commercial world, now, the "Human Factored" procedures spell every thing out; however, one little glitch and the user is left "holding the bag"!
Difference is, at a commercial plant, the operator can handle it.
-
Difference is, at a commercial plant, the operator can handle it.
Only if they were cool, in-shape handsome aviators in Ray-BansTM
Otherwise they'd just be bragging about their torque wrench ;)
-
I served on the same ship as you A school Instructor. In fact we were both on Drill team together. Good guy, good operator. Of course I also got to hear about his stories from shore leave.
cool :) I've always wondered if he ended up picking up officer or getting out (I used to pick his brain for hours. He stated very plainly he was bored being enlisted lol).
He's the only chief I've ever met that really seemed to embody being a chief 100% of the time. to this day, when I think of a chief, he comes to mind lol
I agree with the getting rid of prototype... sorta. We "filtered" out a lot of crazy people while I was there. (im talkin legit crazy, one guy put a knife to a sr cheif and told him he was gonna kill him, I actually found a kid in his cubicle just slashing away at his wrists with a knife. It was atrocious to see. Other things were going on as well).
I think maintenance schools would be better really. We DO do more then just stand watch on the boat!! during a shut down period, we had to do valve cuts. No one on board had performed on before(literally! not even our chiefs lol, and the crusty old masterchiefs werent about to show us... ) , so they had to send a few of us to some special valve cutting school (waste of time and money if you ask me). instead of prototype, go to steam plant maintenance school for mechanics, some I&C school for ET's, and whatever equivalent electrical school for EM's.
Not sure about officers though. FIDE school?
-
At the end of the day, though, there's no 'fixing' NNPP. It produces Sailors that have not caused a reactor accident in the history of Navy nuclear power, and verbatim procedural compliance has only cost the Navy 1 submarine (the Thresher). That fact alone is going to prevent any significant change to the program from occurring.
How did verbatim compliance cause the Thresher disaster? That was the incident that led to "SubSafe" not a nuclear issue and not a procedural issue.
-
At the end of the day, though, there's no 'fixing' NNPP. It produces Sailors that have not caused a reactor accident in the history of Navy nuclear power, and verbatim procedural compliance has only cost the Navy 1 submarine (the Thresher). That fact alone is going to prevent any significant change to the program from occurring.
16 actually. Thresher had nothing to do with operators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBSAFE
good reading here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
-
"Beinig in shape" is a life requirement; ergo, YOU, must make time for it. It is NOT a standard nuke mentality, it is a standard for having a life and seeing your grandchildren grow up.
No, it's not a life requirement. If I decided to get fat and out of shape, most private companies outside the athletic world won't fire me over it.
Yes, being in shape is required for police and fire fighters, but both of these professions have time for people to actually work out. And cops who work more than 40 hours a week get paid overtime.
I would gladly trade you five hours a week out of forty for you to keep in shape. Just give me back all my tax dollars spent on free of charge fitness gyms, swimming pools, golf courses, indoor basketball courts, baseball fields, and all those other taxpayer subsidised physical fitness amenities.
Again, in case you haven't noticed, being in shape is a job requirement for people in the military. It would be asinine for the Navy to mandate that Sailors, many of whom make less than minimum wage even if they worked a 'normal' work week, to pay for their own workout facilities. Even the aforementioned police and fire fighting agencies provide their members with fitness facilities...do you want your tax money back from them, too?
If Sailors don't stay in shape, they get fired. It doesn't matter how much nuke oolies they know or how good they are at doing maintenance. Fail 3 PFA's and you're out. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, fitness is a part of the job. And while you might consider those 5 hours an enjoyable activity and thus undeserving of salary, there are many who would disagree with you.
I tell you what...you can have your 5 hours of tax money back if you'll give nuke Sailors some more tax dollars for all the times they had to work past standard working hours in port, on weekends, and then went out to sea to essentially be at work 24/7. You're getting more than your money's worth out of that E-5/E-6 salary you're supporting.
Another good one, why in the hell are my tax dollars paying for some non-qual nub student to get a minimum of six months of easy training with three and five day mini-vacations every month when their dink non-qual ass could be field daying a boat for six days out of seven when tied up to a pier or underway?!?!!?
Why are my tax dollars paying these goobers to go to college for six months while they are on prototype hold lounging around in a BEQ? They could be in the fleet field daying and giving the qualified and hard to retain sea going nukes a break?!?!?!?!
This proves my point. Perhaps you define 'working hard' as putting in over 80 hours a week; I don't. Your tax dollars are well spent if they spent a normal full-time work week at training, considering what an E-3 and E-4 makes as a salary.
As for the prototype hold, chalk it up to another reason they need to get rid of prototypes.
Bravo, if you're too stupid to pass nuke school in six months studying as much as you think you can handle you don't belong anywhere near a nuclear reactor, the fleet always needs more paint chippers, mess cranks and stores handlers.
I'm not talking about people failing -- not that many people fail with the standard being at 2.5/4.0. I'm saying that the guy who gets a 2.6 to pass really only knows 65% of the required knowledge. What is wrong with lengthening the program to raise the average score higher and thus produce, on average, more knowledgeable operators and doing it with a less miserable process?
From the enlisted side of the house I think was also done purposely. What's the average age of the enlisted person going through school? 18 or 19? The hours keep them out of trouble. This isn't college where they can go running off to do whatever they want once they get done. Plus, please don't compare Nukes to aviators... it turns my stomach. Do a tour on an aircraft carrier and you'll know why.
You can easily give structure without mandating every hour be spent at work. Many other communities in the Navy do it -- that's why junior enlisted students live in the barracks, have curfews, inspections, etc.
Some of my best friends are aviators. They're generally a lot less uptight about things and don't like making their own lives miserable for no reason.
No, it's not better to lengthen it. Put the standards back where they should be, and deal with the attrition that comes along with it. The world needs paint chippers too.
Yea, this is a real easy stance for people on the outside to take. Right now there are boats on the waterfront who have nukes working well over 100 hours a week to accomplish maintenance because we're in the 80% range for manning. So when you raise the standards and cause attrition to raise, where are you going to get people to stand watch and keep the plant together?
16 actually. Thresher had nothing to do with operators.
The casualty on the Thresher was caused by a material deficiency; however, the operators secured steam to the main engines because the procedure told them to do it, despite the fact that doing so disabled the ability for the boat to remain afloat. Whether or not the moisturized air froze pipes, that action in that situation put the ship at risk.
Following the Thresher incident, NR actually revised quite a few procedures in the RPM.
-
I've been overweight a bunch of times through out my life.
I find life easier when I was not fat.
SO, I workout to stay in shape for me not the Navy.
Stop placing PFA standards above your standards.
Live a healthier, happier life for yourself, not your job.
-
No, it's not a life requirement. If I decided to get fat and out of shape, most private companies outside the athletic world won't fire me over it.
Perhaps I should have stated it as a "LIFE" requirement, notice the reference to seeing your grandchildren (or in my case new ggchild - I was trying to be nice) grow up.
And wrong, in todays world most companies would give you about the same time as 3 PFAs to get back in shape because of insurance company requirements.
Oh, ABTW, where were you when we lost Thresher or Scorpion?
-
(http://renaissanceronin.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/zebra-lion-love.jpg)
-
I think that it is becoming clear that the program keeps getting softer and softer and apparently so are the baby nukes. If someone can't survive power school from being on 35-5's saying they need more free time there is no way they would survive on a submarine. I studied for 40 hours a week and had more than enough time to PT at least 4 times a week and get kind of crazy on the weekends. Being a nuke on a submarine takes mental toughness. In my opinion is prototype absoltely necessary, probably not. However it puts young sailors in stressful situations to weed out more people that can't handle the fleet. It also provides shore billets for guys that want to stay in the Navy. I'm positive not many people could survive 20 years straight out at sea though I have seen it before. The CMC in NY when I was there was on his first shore tour and he had been in for like 25 years. If you are at sea on a sub you can expecto to be on the boat (including duty) for at least 80 hours a week. Enough to make you wish you were actually at sea because it is just easier to know that you arent going home. Enjoy the pipline folks, it just gets harder after that.
-
Bravo, if you're too stupid to pass nuke school in six months studying as much as you think you can handle you don't belong anywhere near a nuclear reactor, the fleet always needs more paint chippers, mess cranks and stores handlers.
Another good one, why in the hell are my tax dollars paying for some non-qual nub student to get a minimum of six months of easy training with three and five day mini-vacations every month when their dink non-qual ass could be field daying a boat for six days out of seven when tied up to a pier or underway?!?!!?
Why are my tax dollars paying these goobers to go to college for six months while they are on prototype hold lounging around in a BEQ? They could be in the fleet field daying and giving the qualified and hard to retain sea going nukes a break?!?!?!?!
Now that's a complicated one, cops and firefighters are expected to be in shape too,...
I would gladly trade you five hours a week out of forty for you to keep in shape. Just give me back all my tax dollars spent on free of charge fitness gyms, swimming pools, golf courses, indoor basketball courts, baseball fields, and all those other taxpayer subsidised physical fitness amenities.
At the end of the day be careful what you ask for, you might just get it,...
I agree My sailor son has a sweet deal Marssim.
He is paid about the same as a woman with 3 kids on welfare. Less though if you include the cost of the maturity hospital. Then there's the food stamps.
-
The casualty on the Thresher was caused by a material deficiency; however, the operators secured steam to the main engines because the procedure told them to do it, despite the fact that doing so disabled the ability for the boat to remain afloat. Whether or not the moisturized air froze pipes, that action in that situation put the ship at risk.
Following the Thresher incident, NR actually revised quite a few procedures in the RPM.
The boat was driven to the surface (just below) by the power plant but because the response (emergency blow) to the flooding was too slow the boat was unable to keep that depth no matter what happened in the engineering spaces. Too imply that blind obedience to emergency procedures was part of it and the revisions to the Reactor Plant Manuals were an indictment of them is just plain wrong. These were men who served on the boats in the 60's, many of them were still around in the seventies when I qualified in fact I served with men who were transfered off of the Thresher just prior to it's sea trails.
They did not send us through all of that schooling to shut down our thinking processes. If fact complying with a procedure you knew was wrong was considered "malicious compliance" and in normal operation you would simply stop and revise or operate under the "Engineers Night Orders". In one instance during an incident in the power plant I received a verbal accommodation for not following a procedure. I will admit I was very nervous about it even though I knew I did the right thing at the time until the reviews of the incident were over.
I guess I should apologize for being overly sensitive to this but we are discussing actions of people who stood by their posts as the boat sank to test depth and was crushed all the while calmly calling out their depth to the support ships above. We were not brain dead automatons and hope that is not true of the Nuke Submariners of today.
-
Yea, this is a real easy stance for people on the outside to take. Right now there are boats on the waterfront who have nukes working well over 100 hours a week to accomplish maintenance because we're in the 80% range for manning. So when you raise the standards and cause attrition to raise, where are you going to get people to stand watch and keep the plant together?
Are insufficient billing numbers the fault of NAVSEA08 having too high of standards (gee, how did they keep all the 594/637/688/CGN/CVN world going in the 80s and 90s with a much larger number of reactors at sea??), or really is it the fault of Big Navy that has 'torque wrench envy' over the nuke signup bonuses, higher SRB multiples, nukes don't volunteer for PC diggit events like the topsiders/coners, etc. and sets an inadequate number of nuke billets?
-
In my opinion, the reason the navy cannot fill these billets is due to them not being able to keep people in. I myself am one of three out of a 14 man division that reenlisted to go to a shore duty. The rest got out. The only reason I stayed was to finish college which I did. I wouldn't even dream of going back out to the boat. The work itself is not bad but the way they run things in a lot of cases is unwarranted. The big navy thinks just by offering ridiculous bonuses and fast promotion that people will stay. In a generation that will take their 401k and walk, I think these people are dreaming. I for one am proud to be a active submariner for a couple of more months and I think the navy is losing a valuable resource. Very few people are fulfilled enough with the idea that they are serving their country to stay and do it for 20 years. Also, when your best recruiting tools (ex-sailors) cannot give a really good recommendation for their job to people thinking about it, it will only hurt the navy's manning.
Saying all of that, I think that I and the navy have extracted our pound of flesh from each other but I still know a large majority of people who do not see it this way. I guess we might see a change in how things are run when the government can no longer afford to pay high enlistment/retention bonuses. In this case they will have to find a new cheaper way to retain their talent.
To spekkio: If you are on a boat, you should suck it up and go to work. You get paid plenty to go to sea and when you get to shore duty (depending on the orders you take) you will get paid way more than the services you are providing. For prospective, I did 1 yr in the ship yard, 2 deployments, and was three section in port for 4.5 years. Take what you can from them and then separate.
andrewnavy
-
I agree My sailor son has a sweet deal Marssim.
He is paid about the same as a woman with 3 kids on welfare. Less though if you include the cost of the maturity hospital. Then there's the food stamps.
It's almost like your son had to volunteer or something... hmmm
-
I agree My sailor son has a sweet deal Marssim.
He is paid about the same as a woman with 3 kids on welfare. Less though if you include the cost of the maturity hospital. Then there's the food stamps.
My son is joining Feb 23. I couldn't be prouder. I don't know what a woman with 3 kids gets paid on welfare, but I'm pretty sure my son will have an acceptable standard of living. The neat thing is if he works hard and applies himself, he can advance and make more money. Even if he hates it and does six and out, he will be better for it. Not sure what you mean about food stamps or maturity hospital. Is that a place where adults who have a callow disposition go to grow up?
-
Not sure what you mean about food stamps or maturity hospital. Is that a place where adults who have a callow disposition go to grow up?
Good one DD. [dowave]
Actually I thought it was where the (presumed single) mother with three kids on welfare went to grow up so she didn't end up back in the maternity ward! 8)
-
Good one DD. [dowave]
Actually I thought it was where the (presumed single) mother with three kids on welfare went to grow up so she didn't end up back in the maternity ward! 8)
haha Im really glad someone else said it :D
I really dont understand that dudes point lol
-
What I really wanted with this post was to claim post #637. 637 was the class of boat I earned my dolphins on: short hulled, deep diving, 5 watertight compartments and if you knew one S5W cold well, you knew one S5W cold. The oddest thing about the Navy's version of commonality is how it isn't,.... :P :P :P :P :P
The Sturgeon was a great boat - my first as SS Engr - and the 637 Class a great bunch of boats. The work-horses of their time.
And very true each S5W, "Boomer and Fast Attack" was very different!
-
Marssim,
I agree with most of your assessment, but this kind of statement just shows how inexperienced and immature contestant #1 is.
To spekkio: If you are on a boat, you should suck it up and go to work. You get paid plenty to go to sea and when you get to shore duty (depending on the orders you take) you will get paid way more than the services you are providing. For prospective, I did 1 yr in the ship yard, 2 deployments, and was three section in port for 4.5 years. Take what you can from them and then separate.
I for one, do not think that Navy nuclear personnel (officer nor enlisted) get paid plenty to go to sea, or do any of their job for that matter. Compared to what we make when we get out, you see that what we were working for while in the Navy was chump change. Even when you factor in what you get out of the Navy and compare it to a 4 year degree (which usually works for meeting requirements if you do not have experience like the Navy), the time you put in is longer and the cost is higher.
For my second point, telling someone to "suck it up" when they have somewhat legitimate gripes about the Navy and are posting it on a "How you would fix the NNPP" thread is wrong. It is shortsided and shows that the poster doesn't really know much (aka. lack of experience in other viewpoints).
I do agree however, with taking what you can and getting out, but since this is a thread about how you can fix things, it is not really a constructive statement other than conceding that no one person would be able to fix it.
Jason
-
I said suck it up because after trying to fix it a thousand times, it just does not seem worth it.
-
spouses and parents are off-limits as they are not nukes,.... 8)
(perhaps not in extreme cases,....this one ain't it,... ;P)
At what point in my son's time in the navy do I get to become a parent?
Reminds me of Jack Nicholson's line in "As Good as it Gets", except substitute nuke for man and parent/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/coner(Forward Area Guy) for woman.
-
I understand that you now get paid the big bucks working in the commercial nuclear power industry. My question is how did you get there? Did you apply with them the day after you got your new shiny highschool diploma? As a person with zero technical training, no experience, and no college, how is it that we are paid poorly? The navy pays for your room, board, healthcare, training, legal services, gives you your paycheck, tuition assistance ($4500/yr), 9/11 GI bill, fitness centers etc... I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. I do not think that many people set out to become rich by operating navy nuclear reactors. The money to me all equals out. I would agree if with you if you actually spent 5 years at sea the whole time (only port calls). There are times like the ship yard or shore duty where you do make more money than you worth. For instance, being let off for 3 months of a deployment to essentially be on a unchargable vacation. I usually think of myself as well rounded but maybe I am being biased which is funny because I cannot wait to be done with my contract. I guess in general if you get out after a shore duty (not prototype) and only do one sea duty that you get paid fine. After that, your resume dictates that you should probably get paid more than what you do if you were to go back out to sea.
andrewnavy
Marssim,
I agree with most of your assessment, but this kind of statement just shows how inexperienced and immature contestant #1 is.
I for one, do not think that Navy nuclear personnel (officer nor enlisted) get paid plenty to go to sea, or do any of their job for that matter. Compared to what we make when we get out, you see that what we were working for while in the Navy was chump change. Even when you factor in what you get out of the Navy and compare it to a 4 year degree (which usually works for meeting requirements if you do not have experience like the Navy), the time you put in is longer and the cost is higher.
For my second point, telling someone to "suck it up" when they have somewhat legitimate gripes about the Navy and are posting it on a "How you would fix the NNPP" thread is wrong. It is shortsided and shows that the poster doesn't really know much (aka. lack of experience in other viewpoints).
I do agree however, with taking what you can and getting out, but since this is a thread about how you can fix things, it is not really a constructive statement other than conceding that no one person would be able to fix it.
Jason
-
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-nuke-recruiting-gets-tougher-013011w/
The Navy has one idea to try to fix it... After reading this I got a somewhat controversial idea. Require applicants to be over 21 years old to enlist as a NUCLEAR MM/EM/ET. Allow applicants 18-21 to apply as an MM/EM/ET with a nuclear option in the future, but do not allow them to begin nuclear training until 21.
I know of far more people who do not make it through the program due to underage drinking than who failed math...
-
Perhaps instead of trying to "fix" NNPP on the whole, maybe we (I should say you since I'm no longer active) should focus on a specific area. If I look at my career, there are portions of it that sucked. But why did it suck? The situations that almost drove me out were generally due to individuals, not necessarily the NNPP itself. Most of the gripes I hear here are based on situations that were not necessarily due to the NNPP, but due to a culture at a given command. I'd say serving at NPTU draws the most ire from the masses. Since I never did a tour at NPTU, I'm not qualified to fix NPTU, but I can tell you what some senior nukes have told me who served at NPTU is a big problem: NR/civilians do not let the navy people do their job in a manner that provides job satisfaction. I saw this to a lesser extent at NNPTC my second tour there.
Some have suggested getting rid of prototype. I'm not sure how we could do that and still meet NRC/DOE agreements that allow the NNPP to operate nuclear reactors in port without meeting all the "regular" reactor licensing requirements. Just some random thoughts.
-
If I look at my career, there are portions of it that sucked. But why did it suck? The situations that almost drove me out were generally due to individuals, not necessarily the NNPP itself. Most of the gripes I hear here are based on situations that were not not necessarily due to the NNPP, but due to a culture at a given command.
JMO! Is the program broke - I don't think so! Does the Navy have problems at various locations due to individuals and command culture (DD's words) - probably yes - the same situation exists in the Army, Air Force, Marines, & Coast Guard (and probably in the SS, FBI, and all the other letter organizations.
The NNPP came into being with the authorization of the SSN-571 and came to the forefront with her first trip in '55 - (way before most of the complainers were even a glimmer). Those folks went through prototype at S2W and they were very proud. Maybe the problem with the NNPP is the attitude of the folks getting in today not with the training and the program.
As I started with - JMO! ;D ;D :P 8) :notrolls:
-
JMO! Is the program broke - I don't think so! Does the Navy have problems at various locations due to individuals and command culture (DD's words) - probably yes - the same situation exists in the Army, Air Force, Marines, & Coast Guard (and probably in the SS, FBI, and all the other letter organizations.
The NNPP came into being with the authorization of the SSN-571 and came to the forefront with her first trip in '55 - (way before most of the complainers were even a glimmer). Those folks went through prototype at S2W and they were very proud. Maybe the problem with the NNPP is the attitude of the folks getting in today not with the training and the program.
As I started with - JMO! ;D ;D :P 8) :notrolls:
That is possible but I think it has kind of gone the way of the US Constitution. There have been to many people with their interpretations (& motives) muddying the original framework of the program. If there was more common sense being utilized in the everyday operations of the fleet, it would not so bad. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case from my perspective. What do I know, I am just a first class :P :'(
-
Many of the responses to my post lead me back to my original statement...we'll never "fix" the NNPP because the prevailing attitude is "I did it, so it must not be screwed up."
Let's back up a bit: I passed power school without having to be put on extra hours at all. I have qualified everything early. I am not fledgling along, nor am I going to "tap" because I think the program is too hard. So some of you can stop responding to my posts as if I'm someone whining about struggling in a program that I think is too hard and I need to just "suck it up" -- that's not the case. This is a thread about how you would fix the NNPP, and I am posting about things I think are silly in the community -- things that, ultimately, drive people away.
I make reference to private companies because I have worked for 3 major companies prior to coming into the Navy. None of them had a physical fitness standard -- in fact, I can assure you I was in the top 10% of height/weight at all of them. Despite this fact, all of them either had a gym on the premises for employees to use free of charge or provided a membership to a nearby gym. Amazing.
I'm glad that you think being fit is a LIFE standard. Great. Some people don't agree with you. But the fact is, Navy says that fitness is a NAVY standard, so the NAVY should be providing time to work out. And it does in other communities outside the nuke world.
You say that you can't compare life in the Navy to a career in the private sector. That has some merit, but the fact of the matter is that the Navy is in competition with these organizations for workers. Companies have realized some time ago that high turnover costs a lot of money, so they took measures to make sure people felt taken care of at their jobs. Where the Navy is different is that the entire system relies on turnover and promotion, but the Navy still needs to retain enough experienced Sailors to man the experienced billets. That is where the Navy is failing.
I have friends in multiple different Naval communities. Some of them (ie, Aviation), actually still drop people for poor performance because they have enough people to fill billets. When I say poor performance, I mean getting below 90% on exams, not below 62% where the nuke community sets the bar. Yet they manage to keep high standards without making people's lives consumed with work. Amazingly, they have a lot higher retention than the nuke community, too. Imagine that. Other communities, even on submarines, manage to keep the boat going to sea in-port without working inordinate amount of hours. There are times where long hours and hard work is called for, and the Sailors rise to the occasion...for nukes, there is nothing but long hours and hard work. Does it really have to be like that? Probably not, but apparently there's no reason to think about how to make it better because you did it back in the day, so everyone else should just suck it up. Everything is relative, and if you factor in the amount a nuke works compared to other rates, they are one of the lowest paid communities in the Navy.
Ah, so we should just raise the standard, eh? Well, right now you'd need to decommission 3 boats in order to make the rest of the fleet at manning. Now you want to raise the standard when people aren't attracted to the community in the first place. A $2 billion asset that can't go to sea and the salary for all those Sailors is a lot bigger drain on your tax dollars than a baby nuke who doesn't work 120 hours a week to get a 65% on an exam because that's the way you did it. That method is resulting in a steady supply of Sailors who don't know enough about their rate in order to qualify in a timely fashion, and there really isn't time in the fleet between maintenance, mandatory training, and other random crap for them to play catch-up, so they end up qualifying with a very minimal amount of knowledge and the answer is just make the Chief be on station to watch him do everything on watch for the first couple of months. Apparently, though, that's a lot less wasteful than slowing down the program and making sure they actually know something.
But the training pipeline isn't the only problem. Once Sailors get to the fleet and get qualified, they will be introduced to one of many nuclear monitoring programs. At first, it doesn't seem so bad. Then one day some LCDR or CDR from off-hull will tell someone they did something wrong. Roger. They change the process and move on. Then another LCDR or CDR from off-hull comes down and says the way the other guy said to do it is wrong, and they should go back to what they were doing before. This process repeats itself ad-nauseum until everyone involved becomes frustrated and bitter. This is because a monitor is only perceived as effective if he finds deficiencies, and there's only so much you can find without making stuff up when Sailors are inserting a voltmeter into a panel and taking readings. It also doesn't help that most monitors have never done the maintenance themselves to begin with. The fact that many Sailors don't feel trusted to do their jobs without someone directly watching, and then that person makes comments that result in extra work to change a process they've been doing for years without incident or problems, turns a lot of people off to reenlisting. I would never, ever recommend ELT to anyone based on this fact alone. Everything you do will always be wrong when someone is watching, someone will watch you more frequently than anyone else, and what was wrong yesterday is right today and wrong tomorrow. Despite the fact that these monitoring programs have questionable usefulness, they keep expanding.
There is also the fact that Sailors spend an inordinate amount of time waiting to get stuff done. Since all work has to go through a watch officer, and there is only 1 watch officer to handle every job that has to get started, it creates a backlog. A job that takes 10 minutes to do easily turns into an hour and a half when you factor in writing a WAF, writing a tagout, getting the tagout approved, hanging the tagout, opening the WAF, setting up an electrical safety area to do dead checks, doing the dead checks, then you get to do the work. All of those stages require permission from the watch officer, and you're not the only person trying to get work done. This leads to a lot of frustration for someone who just wants to do his job so that he can go home to see his wife and kids in port or move onto the next thing to work on underway so they can hit the rack. How do you fix this part? I don't really know... if you got rid of it entirely, you run into the chance that people will do conflicting maintenance that damages equipment.
So we are where we are, and it'll pretty much stay this way until we have a reactor accident or another major Naval war.
I know of far more people who do not make it through the program due to underage drinking than who failed math...
So clearly the problem is the age of the applicant, not the Navy, and to a greater extent, America's ridiculous policy toward alcohol.
You would also be circumventing one of the main reason people join the Navy -- to pay for college. Now you're cutting the nuke community out from all those people.
-
I agree. The only thing that will cut down the nuclear frustration would be to have a naval war. Nothing cuts through the crap like trying to stay alive. During peace times the only way people can leave their mark is by instituting their policy. After awhile you know how cumbersome it gets.
Spekkio: I only said "suck it up" because there is no fixing it. The best you can do is try to take the best care of the guys who work for you that you can. After that, utilize every opportunity the navy gives you (IE college) while you are still in. I thought it was funny when my last captain asked what I had learned after my 4.5 years on the boat, I told him there were two things. First, I told him that I learned how to keep my mouth shut and most importantly I learned that perception is reality.
Good luck to those that have and who currently serve.
-
I agree. The only thing that will cut down the nuclear frustration would be to have a naval war. Nothing cuts through the crap like trying to stay alive. During peace times the only way people can leave their mark is by instituting their policy. After awhile you know how cumbersome it gets.
The Brits lost a good chunk of their surface combatants in the Falklands War in 1982. It didn't help them get their crap in one sock then or today. If anything, taking those losses made it easier for careerists and budget cutters to start PowerPoint-ing how they don't need as much Navy or funding. One need only look to the recent UK debates on "sharing" carriers with France, whether or not to scrap or replace UK Tridents, at-sea collision of a UK SSBN with a French SSBN while on patrol etc. to see the overall effect of a major sea war vs. fleet readiness two decades later.
Right now we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was a nuclear department head on a CVN in a previous life. If positive suggestions for positive change are going to happen, this would be the time to do it IMHO. Get writing!!
-
It didn't help them get their crap in one sock then or today. If anything, taking those losses made it easier for careerists and budget cutters to start PowerPoint-ing how they don't need as much Navy or funding.
A West Point grad I worked with referred to them as "Power Point Rangers", it fits in almost any military or corporate environ for those who work out of the Pentagon/Corporate office without any real field experience.
Guess who makes decisions for the school? ;)
-
How to fix the NNPP? Lower requirements to become a nuke, enlist a bunch, and fill every billet.
If we had fully manned divisions, holy cow deployment would be sweet. 5 and 25 rotation, MORE then enough people to get to do maintenance without getting racked out on your 6 hours off, enough people to man 8 section duty like the rest of the boat instead of 3 section.... more hands for orse preps.... Everything would be 1000% better.
But thats when the problems of relaxed standards come in... "We didnt lower the bar, we made it easier to obtain".
I've met my fair share of mechanics that had no business being there, yet some how got in... Where do we draw the line?
Its a vicious cycle, being a nuke. Our jobs sucked because we didnt have enough people. Since the job sucked, few stayed in. Since few stayed in the job sucked and we didnt maintain enough people... RAWR!
Just ranting.... Andrewnavy is accurate in my opinion.
Also, everyone experiences a different navy. We are all trying to compare everyones experience as our own. Very few of you guys had to deal with the amount of bull-@#$% I had to, but then again, Im 100% positive I never saw some your crap either. Its all relative and ultimately subjective. (im out and mostly over it, so im not going for a "oh poor me" routine, so keep that -k at bay please ;) )
-
Also, everyone experiences a different navy. We are all trying to compare everyones experience as our own. Very few of you guys had to deal with the amount of bull-@#$% I had to, but then again, Im 100% positive I never saw some your crap either. Its all relative and ultimately subjective. (im out and mostly over it, so im not going for a "oh poor me" routine, so keep that -k at bay please ;) )
[salute] [salute] [salute]
Well said CM.
-
If we had fully manned divisions, holy cow deployment would be sweet. 5 and 25 rotation, MORE then enough people to get to do maintenance without getting racked out on your 6 hours off, enough people to man 8 section duty like the rest of the boat instead of 3 section.... more hands for orse preps.... Everything would be 1000% better.
The current 10+ month wait between depping in and shipping to bootcamp for the Nuke program makes it hard to get more bodies to the fleet - regardless of pass rates through the pipeline. As far as getting more bodies to the fleet is concerned the current bottle neck lies with spaces at NNPTC and Prototype, not with number of applicants. Filtering the applicants more rigorously BEFORE wasting a seat in A-school could be done right now without an impact to new nukes to the fleet. Graduating classes of 18 instead of 25-30 imply more people do not make it through the program in a timely manner than what the standards desire.
-
Bravo, if you're too stupid to pass nuke school in six months studying as much as you think you can handle you don't belong anywhere near a nuclear reactor, the fleet always needs more paint chippers, mess cranks and stores handlers.
Another good one, why in the hell are my tax dollars paying for some non-qual nub student to get a minimum of six months of easy training with three and five day mini-vacations every month when their dink non-qual ass could be field daying a boat for six days out of seven when tied up to a pier or underway?!?!!?
Why are my tax dollars paying these goobers to go to college for six months while they are on prototype hold lounging around in a BEQ? They could be in the fleet field daying and giving the qualified and hard to retain sea going nukes a break?!?!?!?!
Now that's a complicated one, cops and firefighters are expected to be in shape too,...
I would gladly trade you five hours a week out of forty for you to keep in shape. Just give me back all my tax dollars spent on free of charge fitness gyms, swimming pools, golf courses, indoor basketball courts, baseball fields, and all those other taxpayer subsidised physical fitness amenities.
At the end of the day be careful what you ask for, you might just get it,...
Sorry for the late response but I've been out of town and away from a computer for a while. Marssim, you sure SunDog didn't take over your soul when you wrote this? Gotta tell you I loved it as I do with most of Dog's cynical remarks! [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]
-
The current 10+ month wait between depping in and shipping to bootcamp for the Nuke program makes it hard to get more bodies to the fleet - regardless of pass rates through the pipeline. As far as getting more bodies to the fleet is concerned the current bottle neck lies with spaces at NNPTC and Prototype, not with number of applicants. Filtering the applicants more rigorously BEFORE wasting a seat in A-school could be done right now without an impact to new nukes to the fleet. Graduating classes of 18 instead of 25-30 imply more people do not make it through the program in a timely manner than what the standards desire.
I know this is the problem :) Perhaps getting rid of prototype and expanding power school.... Allow ALL instructors to get the "sweet powerschool" shore duty thing would ALSO improve retention... but then again i did see a few clowns that had no business being in powerschool goto prototype...
This would allow a higher influx of students, while enticing people to reenlist... But I know we're never gonna get over the Jesus. H. Rickover mentality that his 60 year old ideals are still perfect today.
-
I know how to fix it. Rip out the core and in its place put a big diesel engine. Then convert all nukes to conventional rates and run the engine room old school. As my first ENG said "that was when men were men." He was also an idiot though so I could be wrong. I will say, you know what happens if diesel leaks out? You just fix the leak, clean it up, and move on. [stir]
-
I personally think we should just moth ball the entire nuclear fleet. Honestly, in today's world, do we really need all these nucular ships anyway?
:P
-
I know how to fix it. Rip out the core and in its place put a big diesel engine. Then convert all nukes to conventional rates and run the engine room old school. As my first ENG said "that was when men were men." He was also an idiot though so I could be wrong. I will say, you know what happens if diesel leaks out? You just fix the leak, clean it up, and move on. [stir]
Tell that to Tony Hayward haha
-
But I know we're never gonna get over the Jesus. H. Rickover mentality that his 60 year old ideals are still perfect today.
Watch the use of that 60+ CM, (or I may take it personal [dowave]) the ideals are probably still good today; however, the implementation is not the same.
:->
I personally think we should just moth ball the entire nuclear fleet. Honestly, in today's world, do we really need all these nucular ships anyway? :P
Why do we even have a military at all, we are a peaceful nation!
-
Watch the use of that 60+ CM, (or I may take it personal [dowave]) the ideals are probably still good today; however, the implementation is not the same.
:->
Why do we even have a military at all, we are a peaceful nation!
I take it the "Old" In "oldHp" is literal? :p
I agree that his ideals are poignant and pertinent today, but we just dropped 4 billion dollars to refurbish a carrier just to say it would last 50 years.... I dont understand why we have to take everything he said and wanted to heart without thinking about it... Im sure there's a "big picture" my narrow mind cant see, but it seems like everything should be re-evaluated personally.
-
but it seems like everything should be re-evaluated personally.
The "Oprah force" is strong in this one!
If I "feel" the program is a success, then it must be, right? Fewer chiefs, more Zen MastersTM !!
-
The "Oprah force" is strong in this one!
Never under estimate the force of a $4B net worth Orca! She landed a coup getting a presidential favorite and convicted felon animal abuser to open his heart.
"Oprah has won her bet with Piers Morgan about who would book Michael Vick on their show first."
-
Never under estimate the force of a $4B net worth Orca! She landed a coup getting a presidential favorite and convicted felon animal abuser to open his heart.
"Oprah has won her bet with Piers Morgan about who would book Michael Vick on their show first."
Mike Vick cancelled on her today
-
I take it the "Old" In "oldHp" is literal? :p
I agree that his ideals are poignant and pertinent today, but we just dropped 4 billion dollars to refurbish a carrier just to say it would last 50 years.... I dont understand why we have to take everything he said and wanted to heart without thinking about it... Im sure there's a "big picture" my narrow mind cant see, but it seems like everything should be re-evaluated personally.
I agree, we could probably build at least two new ones for 4 billion. If we were talking 4 million, I'd say why not, She's a beautiful baby!
And 'old' is just a number - I don't feel that way, I've just been around the industry for a long time and a lot of different views. Just a pointer on capitalization: Me - "OldHP" and 'old Hp' - are two different folks, although I haven't seen anything from the other person in a while.
-
I agree, we could probably build at least two new ones for 4 billion. If we were talking 4 million, I'd say why not, She's a beautiful baby!
And 'old' is just a number - I don't feel that way, I've just been around the industry for a long time and a lot of different views. Just a pointer on capitalization: Me - "OldHP" and 'old Hp' - are two different folks, although I haven't seen anything from the other person in a while.
True, but we have a lot of 20 year old carriers that could really use type two instrumentation!!!
:D Just my thoughts anyway ;)
and LOL! I love how oprah got dragged into this haha
-
Nope, you will never convince anyone you had a reactor accident because of too many procedures, tag outs or officers,....
No, that just prevents boats from getting to sea on time and millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, but Big Navy either doesn't care or figures out a way to make it look better than it is. The reactor accident will be from a broken qualification process that we cling to when there's a better way.
+1 to CM and AndrewNavy. Let me ask you this...when you were in, did Sailors only have 2/5 full working days to do maintenance during maintenance availabilities because the rest of the time was taken up with mandatory training, meetings, and other superfluous stuff?
-
No, that just prevents boats from getting to sea on time and millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, but Big Navy either doesn't care or figures out a way to make it look better than it is. The reactor accident will be from a broken qualification process that we cling to when there's a better way.
+1 to CM and AndrewNavy. Let me ask you this...when you were in, did Sailors only have 2/5 full working days to do maintenance during maintenance availabilities because the rest of the time was taken up with mandatory training, meetings, and other superfluous stuff?
Ooh bitter already :D I can did. We had "work hours" on deployment, but that lasted like... a week. I was "in charge" for the last year or so in the navy, got permission from my chief to cut people when work was done. I cracked the whip when it needed to be, but the end goal was to get everyone out of that god awful place as much as possible. Occasionally "work hours" were implemented when the RO would walk around and find a huge ton of discrepencies, but we honestly truly respected him, and we worked hard FOR HIM because he took such great care of us. His successor has ENORMOUS shoes to fill.
Now, I was in port for ... maybe 6 months my entire tenure on my boat (not kidding or exaggerating, and shipyards DONT count as "in port", at least not to me) so I cant speak very well for that.
-
That sounds about right. The way we battled back was by being proactive. I always made my SEO's get all the tools and materials staged for the next days work while we were on the mid watch. When the EDO got in for his 0600 tour, we hung tags and got permission to work. The SEO on my shift usually had a turnover at the drain/PLO pump, precipitator, epm, or motor generator. They will not give you more time to do maintenance unless it will keep the ship from going to sea. In my experience they never cared how late you stayed as long as they did not have to call the CO to get permission for you to work past 6pm in port. At the end of the day, you are the master of your destiny. If you want to get work done and go home, you must find little ways that will cut down the amount work in the work day. I won't say I did it (yes I did), but midnight maintenance really knocked a dent in our workload. I would say the thing that best impacted our work was teaching the nubs this mentality and always be the last to leave. Work you a** off and they will want to work for you. Just don't do anything that will get you into trouble (or your guys).
Good luck and that time on whatever ship you are on will go by faster than you think.
-
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-nuke-recruiting-gets-tougher-013011w/
The Navy has one idea to try to fix it... After reading this I got a somewhat controversial idea. Require applicants to be over 21 years old to enlist as a NUCLEAR MM/EM/ET. Allow applicants 18-21 to apply as an MM/EM/ET with a nuclear option in the future, but do not allow them to begin nuclear training until 21.
I know of far more people who do not make it through the program due to underage drinking than who failed math...
WOW when I was at Nuke School the drinking age was actually 18.... I guess they would have had to take on board some kids younger than that for the underage drinking to take effect.
We managed to help each other out (I was in section 14) by studying together... of course when ever I could you would see me out on the town Loved OBT....especially SPIT on Wednesday night...
-
True, but we have a lot of 20 year old carriers that could really use type two instrumentation!!!
:D Just my thoughts anyway ;)
and LOL! I love how oprah got dragged into this haha
Wait are you guys still using MAGAMPS ????
-
The Sturgeon was a great boat - my first as SS Engr - and the 637 Class a great bunch of boats. The work-horses of their time.
And very true each S5W, "Boomer and Fast Attack" was very different!
Sturgeons were neat, but not the BEST..... here comes a Narwhal aint that right Terry
-
Sturgeons were neat, but not the BEST..... here comes a Narwhal aint that right Terry
Narwhal got me 5 weeks in ID (in the summer) figuring out how to set up for the Shield Survey the S5W's were easy we had a template.
8102 Section 7 had at least 1 in Orlando, he turned 18 before he shipped off to B-Spa, alas the minimum age in NY was 21, I think he was an E-6, ERS and SS before he could legally drink,... :o :P :o :P :o :P
Until the Fed forced the voting age to 18 ("you can drink in most states at 18 so you should be able to vote") and the drinking age to 21 ("people are more responsible at 21") [same folks voting on it ], NY was 18. Drove several nights from CT to NY for a beer or two.
The more things change, the more things stay the same,....
Good commands and bad commands,....
Some sailors get lucky, some don't,....
[dowave] Son of a gun - that is right back on the subject how do you fix it - "eliminate the bad commands"! Simple, except you have to identify them first! ;D ;D
-
8102 Section 7 had at least 1 in Orlando, he turned 18 before he shipped off to B-Spa, alas the minimum age in NY was 21, I think he was an E-6, ERS and SS before he could legally drink,... :o :P :o :P :o :P
wait Marssim you were in 8102???? So was I....hmmmmmmmmmm do you recall a guy rollerskating on base a lot???
-
A while back when this thread started I had some strong opinions on the topic. I had a lot more time remaining on my contract and envisioned a program that could be molded to become my dream job. I've come to the realization that the organization doesn't need to improve to satisfy my little needs because it already is exactly what it needs to be.
It's all summed up in the quote below.
No debate anywhere, anytime is ever going to fix or change that, it's just part of the deal, if you do not like it, do not join or do not re-enlist, it's the military, the entire paradigm of military life is different than being a civilian.
The military exists to kill people and break things,.....period.
The rules are different,......period.
When you're new in the game it's you against "the Man." If you bust your ass (or just stick around long enough) you'll be in charge, and it's time to put your money where your mouth is. It's not hard to do, but one thing becomes apparent: The program really does work (objective: continued safe operation of naval nuclear propulsion plants).
Leadership below about O-5 can pretty much only make temporary, local contributions to the work environment; but leadership isn't necessarily dependent on your rank or appointed position. You can issue guidance, write instructions, set policies, but they just cover your small piece of the delicious nuclear pie and they only last until your relief has a different idea. If you fight for your people they'll work for you. If they produce good results (not an ELT joke) you don't necessarily have to fight for them anymore because your bosses will notice that your methods work and let you run the show. If you're an ineffective leader you won't find out until it's too late.
If you can't embrace the vision it's time to finish your contract and move on. If the organization can't satisfy your professional goals, finish your contract and move on.
-
I think I would go back if I could stand watch in minimal clothing, have a cigar on watch, grow facial hair underway, and make it understood that I am to be called Derek. I also would want access to the galley so I could cook my own food (think homie hook up type food).... An no limitations on cowboy boots.... That would be enough and ohh yeah, I agree with the guy below. You can try and try to change things, but they always end up the same. There is no Obama in the nuke world....
-
After all of this, I recommend teaching some fundamentals, more.
An ex-Navy nuke friend of mine, who has zero commercial experienced, decided to educate me by saying if the Japanese plants were PWRs, they would be better off because of the boron.
I said, "Oh yeah? Do you realize they are shut down? How would their borated coolant have been better off?"
He replies with;
"Yeah, I know they are shut down, but if they are still generating nuetrons, then the boron would have helped to minimize heat generation, right?"
::) >:(
-
The more things change, the more things stay the same,....
Good commands and bad commands,....
Some sailors get lucky, some don't,....
Sounds simple, but the tough question starts with how do you define a "bad command?" How does this definition change between being an E-5/E-6 to being the Squadron Commodore?
-
Sounds simple, but the tough question starts with how do you define a "bad command?" How does this definition change between being an E-5/E-6 to being the Squadron Commodore?
I need to stop you right here. this will merely spin off a crazy debate and this thread will ultimately get locked ;)
Its been discussed before! :D haha
-
the knowing is innate,...
[coffee]
Just like leadership...
-
Just like leadership...
I always suspected that Sun Dog was actually BZ with a flea collar :P
-
Just like leadership...
You just had to go there didn't you?!
-
Just like leadership...
I KNEW IT!!!!
-
I'm not dead yet.
BTW...when I was a young nub MM3 back in 1990 I occasionally heard the "old timers" complaining about the level of knowledge of the nubs. I'll bet if you if you went into the way back machine and emerged in the 1970's you probably would have heard some crusty MM1 complaining about the level of knowledge of his nubs. Same thing over and over.
Confirmed :old:
-
I have not been a member of this site for very long and this is my first time posting. First off, this site is great and I have learned a lot. I have also shared some of that info with my coworkers and have directed them to this site. Currently, I am an instructor at prototype in Charleston, SC and wanted to share this article I found online at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-nuke-recruiting-gets-tougher-013011w/ . I dont know where those people got there information from but wow! I specifically like the part where they are "expected to decrease dropouts by 20 percent". 20% of what is the question to be asking, geez.
-
I have not been a member of this site for very long and this is my first time posting. First off, this site is great and I have learned a lot. I have also shared some of that info with my coworkers and have directed them to this site. Currently, I am an instructor at prototype in Charleston, SC and wanted to share this article I found online at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-nuke-recruiting-gets-tougher-013011w/ .
Minimum of C average?! Maybe they should add a pulse as a prerequisite! Maybe they should drop the NAPT bypass all together. This sounded like an excuse to send more YN's to shore duty to process waivers.
-
My thoughts exactly, I also like the part where the source for the article declined to give the actual dropout numbers. About 2 years ago, when I first started at prototype a friend of mine who had just started at A-school told me a numbers cruncher from Tennessee paid a visit to NNPTC. The guy apparently threw out a figure of attrition in the neighborhood of 15%. That included problems such as medical, mental, legal, hardships, discipline, and last, academic problems.
-
Sounds like they need to change the grooming standards to include the "Mullet" hairdo.. >:(
-
They say Jeffrey Nichols like he's a household name, who in the world is that?
-
They say Jeffrey Nichols like he's a household name, who in the world is that?
"recruiting command spokesman Jeffrey Nichols wrote in an e-mail."
Reading Comprehension waiver much?
-
"recruiting command spokesman Jeffrey Nichols wrote in an e-mail."
Reading Comprehension waiver much?
No idea how I missed that O.o
-
I do (re: know how you missed it). And so do
you ... Errr ... we. You must be studying too much! ;)
-
I do (re: know how you missed it). And so do you ... Errr ... we. You must be studying too much! ;)
Since Im failing tests constantly, and dont understand my subjects, I really should be studying 24/7 shouldnt I??? :p
Oh wait.... :stupidme:
edit: I'll be sure to get a peer check next time I read an article. :)
-
"recruiting command spokesman Jeffrey Nichols wrote in an e-mail."
Reading Comprehension waiver much?
I don't trust anyone or any data from any person with his objectives in mind. I really am interested in getting those sad-preggo-failout stats somewhere.
..... someday
-
I don't trust anyone or any data from any person with his objectives in mind. I really am interested in getting those sad-preggo-failout stats somewhere.
..... someday
Perhaps, after you are appointed SECNAV (after having been a rising star at Berkshire-Hathaway's Omaha Investor Nebraska Capital division) in 2028, during the first Chelsea Clinton administration, you will get to see those stats. Let's just hope NAVSEA08 doesn't outsource the writing of the next version of the NAPT to the California Teachers Association before then! ;)
-
So vice asking about post Navy jobs for my first post and getting bashed, I figured I would start here and give some insight. I am at 18 years and currently an Chief MM. I would say I was more popular with my guys then I was with my supervisors, because of my unwaivering sense of fairness, meaning I didn't make the hard workers do everything, and the slackers get off free. That being said, I was the Outhull LPO at NPTU Chas and processed in all the new students each class. This required me to read all the training records to identify potential problems. I can't tell you how many time I read "student does not exhibit the aptitude to become a Naval Nuclear Operator" quickly followed by "should do well at prototype". I had the first 100% graduating powerschool class come through, which got the command down the road a MUC. When they arrived I had a girl who was 8 months 2 weeks pregnant in it. It boggles my mind the thought process they exhibited there. The idea had always been the pipeline was a filter or a pump, depending on who you ask. The fact of the matter manning has driven this more then anything. PFA waivers, huge bonuses are all a by product of manning. And to be perfectly honest those "dumb" kids who showed up despite the glowing recommendation of power school, generally did better in actual operations. Why? Because they had put in the hours that Man 40's required. They knew what effort was necessary to make it it the program, while the smart kids always suffered a culture shock. I don't think the standards are the issue as much as the sense of entitlement alot of the new personnel have. When it takes effort to qualify, and you aren't just relying on book knowledge, quite a few stumbled. Hell my last boat I had a division of these "dumb" guys. We got hammered on LOK because excluding myself, my most senior guys averaged around 7-8 years. But when it came to evolutions and drills, we rocked. An Average on our first inspection out of the yards and Excellent on the next one, showed that with the right motivation even the "dumb" guys can do well. I guess my point is it's not the standards that lack, but the ability to instill the pride and work ethic that has lapsed. We no long put emphasis on honor and duty, but on the big paycheck. Maybe it's time to get back to basics.
-
I don't think the standards are the issue as much as the sense of entitlement alot of the new personnel have.
Imagine being told:
I have six college degrees and NOTHING is as hard as Nuc School. I do Hope your husband made it through Nuc School, and to all those in Nuc School, DO IT! You are the top 10% of the top 10%
I probably heard that we were cream of the crop 3 times per week by two different instructors all the way through the pipeline, NNPTC especially!
Pump a little air in that head...
I am going to track down my old SLPO and find out where those 6 figure "to sweep the floor" jobs are.....
I'm also curious if flail management is a desired skill on the outside.....
"You guys will have people lined up to give you a 6 figure, sweep the floor job when you get out" "My buddies that I served with are out making a ton of cash, but I just love this s--t so much , I said no" "get through this pipeline and you'll be set for life" They just keep pumping that air in and probably because it's the only way they can think to promote the Navy and keep people from running away....
And then you walk onboard that mighty warship XXXXX and expect to grow into an even bigger special snowflake when you hear:
Which means y'all, by default, are a bunch of goofing off non-quals. So....GET BACK IN THAT BILGE AND PAINT !! >:(
Wait? I'm not special? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
It makes sense to me, because our pipeline is an air pump.
-
One day while walking downtown, a Human Resources woman was hit by a bus and was tragically killed. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates St. Peter himself.
"Welcome to Heaven," said St.Peter. "Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we've never once had an HR manager make it this far and we're not really sure what to with you."
"No problem, just let me in" said the woman.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have higher orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in" the Saint replied.
"Actually, I think I've made up my mind.....I prefer to stay in Heaven".
"Sorry, we have rules....." And with that St. Peter put the HR Manager in an elevator and it went down-down-down to Hell. The doors opened and the HR manager found herself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a country club and standing in front of her were all her friends - fellow HR professionals that she had worked with. They were all dressed in evening gowns and cheering for her. They ran up and kissed her on both cheeks and they talked about old times. They played an excellent round of golf and at night went to the country club where she enjoyed an excellent steak and lobster dinner. She met the Devil who was actually a really nice guy (kinda cute), and she had a great time telling jokes and dancing.
The HR manager was having such a good time that before she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved good-bye as she got on the elevator. The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates where St.Peter was waiting for her.
"Now it's time to spend a day in Heaven" he said. So the HR manager spent the next 24 hours lounging around on the clouds and playing the harp and singing. She had a great time and before she knew it, her 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her. "So, you've spent a day in Hell and you've spent a day in Heaven. Now you must choose your eternity" he said.
The HR manager paused for a second and then replied, "well, I never thought I'd say this. I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell."
So St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again the consultant went down-down-down back to Hell. When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw her friends were dressed in rags and were picking up garbage and putting it in sacks for the evening meal. The Devil came up to her and put his arm around her and laughed at her.
"I don't understand," stammered the HR manager. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and we danced and had a great time. Now all there is is a wasteland of garbage and all my friends look miserable."
The Devil looked at her and grinned, "that's because yesterday we were recruiting you, but today you're staff."
-
The Devil looked at her and grinned, "that's because yesterday we were recruiting you, but today you're staff."
Man, I love that joke.
-
Had a visit from an admiral a couple weeks ago to talk about the Design for Undersea Warfare. He spoke to the wardroom while the Master Chief spoke to the Goat Locker (now that I've made Chief this is what I got to hear). He said there's a real push to get away from the circle-x mentality for everything and focus on training sailors to actually know what they're doing. A certain percentage of ORSEs a year will be by surprise with ERRs and other obligatory preparatory reviews banned for the non-surprise ones.
I guess this year or last they sent a boat underway with no GPS or electronic navigation, forcing the crew to navigate "the old fashioned way." They did just fine but with some room for improvement. So they want forward-to-aft to be able to operate "like they used." That is, when something breaks you don't ask NRMD or some IMA to fix your equipment; rather, you do it. The point being that boats need to be able to operate without assistance from the shore, which would be the case if a serious war broke.
There's also a new requirement for RC Division to have qual cards to be a maintenance person and to be a supervisor of maintenance due to the quantity of mistakes. I get to go to my first tour on a SSBN as a boot Chief with these shifts in paradigms going on. Oh, after getting 34 months of yard time under my belt (between my first boat and this one) I'll be tacking on another 19 months on my SSBN to complete its refueling. Urgh.
-
......So they want forward-to-aft to be able to operate "like they used." That is, when something breaks you don't ask NRMD or some IMA to fix your equipment; rather, you do it. The point being that boats need to be able to operate without assistance from the shore, which would be the case if a serious war broke......
Time for MM's to get reacquainted with DEVCON Plastic Steel,..... 8)
-
A certain percentage of ORSEs a year will be by surprise
This is not new
ERRs and other obligatory preparatory reviews banned for the non-surprise ones.
The ISIC is responsible to make sure the units under him are ready for inspections. As such, squadron assists will not be banned.
-
Can we expect the return of the AS tenders?
-
There's also a new requirement for RC Division to have qual cards to be a maintenance person and to be a supervisor of maintenance due to the quantity of mistakes.
-That supervisor you speak of has existed for years on carriers: RT. They watched every RC PM. Unless of course there was a 12-man Halo tournament in the Rim Room.
-QA and 3M are underutilized in RC fleet wide.
-Qual cards to perform maintenance should have been integrated into the RO/SRO progression years ago.
-Every PM gets done with a nub watching/performing. By the time they're qualified, they've seen nearly every PM below an annual and have the RT to fall back on.
-
My oh my how the program has fallen since I retired....... I recall the circle X beginning, but we still had to actually know how the circuitry worked. And yeah, we still had magamp controls when I started.
Good luck all-
-
-That supervisor you speak of has existed for years on carriers: RT. They watched every RC PM. Unless of course there was a 12-man Halo tournament in the Rim Room.
-QA and 3M are underutilized in RC fleet wide.
-Qual cards to perform maintenance should have been integrated into the RO/SRO progression years ago.
-Every PM gets done with a nub watching/performing. By the time they're qualified, they've seen nearly every PM below an annual and have the RT to fall back on.
On the carrier I was on, the RT was usually "too senior" to do work (i.e. they were only there if the WS was there, or something specifically demanded their presence), and they ended up relying on a select group of "All stars". Most of which should be leaving around nowish. Theyre gonna be hurting after some time.
-
On the carrier I was on, the RT was usually "too senior" to do work (i.e. they were only there if the WS was there, or something specifically demanded their presence), and they ended up relying on a select group of "All stars". Most of which should be leaving around nowish. Theyre gonna be hurting after some time.
From the day I arrived until the day I left, I always heard that "they would be hurting after X and Y left".
It never happens. People always find a way. No ship in the Navy needs any 1 person or any small group to survive. That's why this program works and overall... doesn't need too much fixing.
-
From the day I arrived until the day I left, I always heard that "they would be hurting after X and Y left".
It never happens. People always find a way. No ship in the Navy needs any 1 person or any small group to survive. That's why this program works and overall... doesn't need too much fixing.
true enough I guess. RM still went on without me ;)
-
This is not new
The ISIC is responsible to make sure the units under him are ready for inspections. As such, squadron assists will not be banned.
You're wrong on every count, as usual.
-
-That supervisor you speak of has existed for years on carriers: RT. They watched every RC PM. Unless of course there was a 12-man Halo tournament in the Rim Room.
-QA and 3M are underutilized in RC fleet wide.
-Qual cards to perform maintenance should have been integrated into the RO/SRO progression years ago.
-Every PM gets done with a nub watching/performing. By the time they're qualified, they've seen nearly every PM below an annual and have the RT to fall back on.
1. Subs just don't have the manning for an RT-like position. It would be nice to have.
2. Agree. On my first boat it was literally non-existent to do anything QA/3M. Now I'm finding great ways to incorporate FWPs into our work.
3. I think the maintenance qual should be separate from the watchstanding quals. They're two different paths with different skill sets.
4. I concur.
-
You're wrong on every count, as usual.
PapaBear by any other name is still the same....
-K
-
You're wrong on every count, as usual.
How exactly can an active Naval Officer, one who seems to really have his S++t together, be wrong on any of these counts let alone on every one.
-
How exactly can an active Naval Officer, one who seems to really have his S++t together, be wrong on any of these counts let alone on every one.
How can a guy who's been out for so long think he can comment on it?
When an active admiral says ORSEs are going to start being surprise, it means they haven't been. What part is confusing?
When an active admiral says ERRs will be banned, they will be. What part is confusing?
I've never had a surprise ORSE, and have never heard anyone talk about one done on them. And I've been at prototype where the opportunity to shoot the poo with people from all sub and surface happens every day. So despite there not being a prohibition against a surprise ORSE historically, they just don't happen at an appreciable frequency.
Silly me. I forgot why it's been so long since the last time I used this site regularly. The grudges are palpable, and the loser personalities are putrid. Complete opposite to what it's like in person with other nukes. Why does this site exist if some of the participants' only aim is to stir the pot (not in the lighthearted way).
-
WRT surprise ORSEs they are not new. Just before I retired in 2008, one of our boats had a surprise ORSE. I was on plenty of boats that prepared for surprise ORSEs ;). Before I retired there was some talk about how ORSEs had become a test to see if the ISIC had boats ready for ORSE. Getting rid of work-ups for inspections is a good idea in my opinion. We ought to be preparing for missions. It always struck me as funny how we'd spend the last two weeks of a six month (or longer) deployment preparing for an inspection to see if we had operated the reactor plant safely.
-
When an active admiral says ORSEs are going to start being surprise, it means they haven't been. What part is confusing?
When an active admiral says ERRs will be banned, they will be. What part is confusing?
I've never had a surprise ORSE, and have never heard anyone talk about one done on them.
I have known many people who have had the "pleasure" of a surprise ORSE....
Even wikipedia mentions surprise ORSEs....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Reactor_Safeguard_Examination
BTW....There is only one Admiral whose opinion matters IRT to NNPP....and he wasn't the one who came to your boat.
You're wrong on every count, as usual.
What do I know....
If only there was someone here who actually worked for NR...
-
I was the
victim recipient of a surprise orse, so there's another. :)
-
Not me, but the Gold Crew got one,....we got to go to Edinburgh,....
-
Even wikipedia mentions surprise ORSEs....
Any rambling bitter ex squid can be an expert there without providing references.
If only there was someone here who actually worked for NR...
Starkist, our SME... remember?! :P
I was the victim recipient of a surprise orse, so there's another. :)
I would of loved surprise ORSE. We used to get emails with countdowns to ORSE and daily ORSE preps and everything different for ORSE for at least a month or so in advance. We even had one RO who had weapons and deck trying to find Iphone reception in the plant and detecting suspicious smells scrubbing our bilges while we "studied" all day. The whole dog and pony show is just a bit of a joke. We couldn't even take leave without raising a fuss in the month or so before ORSE. It would be a good move in the surface fleet.
-
Any rambling bitter ex squid can be an expert there without providing references. Starkist, our SME... remember?! :P
I would of loved surprise ORSE. We used to get emails with countdowns to ORSE and daily ORSE preps and everything different for ORSE for at least a month or so in advance. We even had one RO who had weapons and deck trying to find Iphone reception in the plant and detecting suspicious smells scrubbing our bilges while we "studied" all day. The whole dog and pony show is just a bit of a joke. We couldn't even take leave without raising a fuss in the month or so before ORSE. It would be a good move in the surface fleet.
Yeah I tend to agree, as an overall package, the surprise orse was much less stressful than the one we knew was coming. The only thing I hated about the surprise ORSE was that they found the illegal (on a submarine) dive watches hidden under the secret panel of my general RAM storage locker (this is where my victimization occurred when the CDR goes "Hmm, what are these and why are they down here? LOL) The divers didn't know any better when they ordered them..., but I would have been better off letting them keep them LOL. These things were so bad a$$, they had a tri-foil and NRC registry number on the back! :)
-
Any rambling bitter ex squid can be an expert there without providing references. Starkist, our SME... remember?! :P
I would of loved surprise ORSE. We used to get emails with countdowns to ORSE and daily ORSE preps and everything different for ORSE for at least a month or so in advance. We even had one RO who had weapons and deck trying to find Iphone reception in the plant and detecting suspicious smells scrubbing our bilges while we "studied" all day. The whole dog and pony show is just a bit of a joke. We couldn't even take leave without raising a fuss in the month or so before ORSE. It would be a good move in the surface fleet.
At least the drills were a surprise.... oh wait..... Um, at least our khaki lead a good example for the tests... oh wait.... At least drill team never screwed up drills on accident... oh wait....
Surprise orse would ruin that ship.
-
I have been surprised by ORSE teams on more than one occasion. Each sea going command save one had surprise ORSEs, usually coming right after an Excellent score, just to see if we let our guard down.
We need more boat time on deployment and not just exercise/testing runs. Get the guys out there and let them get it done so theyy can spend more time in port!
All in all, thank you for your service and good luck.
-
My student NMM son is stationed at Ballston Spa. His section is scheduled to have their oral boards around December 23rd. He and one other student are scheduled to have their oral boards on November 23rd. Is there some significance to this? I tried to get some information out of him but he is too busy to talk to dear ole dad.
-
My student NMM son is stationed at Ballston Spa. His section is scheduled to have their oral boards around December 23rd. He and one other student are scheduled to have their oral boards on November 23rd. Is there some significance to this? I tried to get some information out of him but he is too busy to talk to dear ole dad.
He is busy, but not that busy. No significance.. They will go to board when they have finished all of their requirements and deemed ready by their staff section. Sometimes people get backed up due to plant shutdowns and board backups.
Good luck to your son. He will leave shortly thereafter and have the chance to come home and make up some of that missed time talking to ole dad.
-
My student NMM son is stationed at Ballston Spa. His section is scheduled to have their oral boards around December 23rd. He and one other student are scheduled to have their oral boards on November 23rd. Is there some significance to this? I tried to get some information out of him but he is too busy to talk to dear ole dad.
Drayer's got it backwards, but correct... He is taking his oral board early because he finished his quals early. thats a GOOD thing. Sooner he gets qualified, the sooner he goes on staff hours, which is also a good thing :p.
-
Drayer's got it backwards, but correct... He is taking his oral board early because he finished his quals early. thats a GOOD thing. Sooner he gets qualified, the sooner he goes on staff hours, which is also a good thing :p.
I got a week of coming in for 4 hrs :) then they smacked us with a surprise... ELT class up. Our class hasn't even graduated yet.... :P
-
I wish that there were more quality operators coming to the boat. It amazes me how some people manage to slip through the cracks their entire naval career. EDMC's, division chiefs, officers, new enlisted guys showing up to the boat, doesn't really make a difference. That whole pushing people through the pipeline to get them to the fleet thing needs to go away.
During out last ORSE, we managed to squeeze out an average, but our ENG ended up looking like a complete idiot in most situations, in front of people ranked higher than him almost always. Once it was over with and we pulled back into port, I found myself in a pretty awkward situation where I was sitting there talking to the other SRO and the EDO on duty that day. Out of nowhere, the ENG walks in a so does the AENG. They mumbled something in the background, and then I heard I relieve you come out of the AENG's mouth. I couldn't believe it actually happened. My E-div chief said he's never seen that in the last 18 years he's been in. I guess not everyone's cut out to do it, and someone realized it. I don't know why they even kept him through ORSE, but they did, and it was miserable for us because he was a complete idiot that knew nothing about nuclear power.
-
Even an incompetent department head has to know something about nuclear power in order to be selected as an Engineer. I can recall grading engineering exams for prospective Eng's and grilling them on their selective stupidity. But in the end, most that made it though our (SubScol Engineering Department Instructors) grilling managed to make it pass the process in DC.
There must be other reasons that he was relieved - not that we need to know.
BTW - thank you for your service- Lafeet
-
This topic is near and dear to my heart.
If you aren't actually going to post on the actual topic.....
How would you Fix the NNPP.....
then find some other place to post.
Cheers,
GC
-
This has probably been said in the past 23 pages but I'll say it anyway...
I think it's an easy question to answer that is impossible to fix. The reason nukes (especially junior ones) get disgruntled and get out is because they work longer hours, do more training, spend more time cleaning, and are held to a higher standard than the rest of the Navy at nearly the same pay (supervisor nuke pay isn't a ton extra, and junior nuke pay isn't even a happy meal a day extra). Their friends who have already gotten out tell them about doing the same thing in civilian land for a lot more money and no sea time. It's amazing how you can deal with more when you get paid more. I honestly think this is the biggest problem with the program though. Too much watching Sonar Techs leave at 10am and wondering why they get paid the same as you. How else can you explain that people are happier doing the same job outside the Navy than they were in the Navy (And for those who will disagree with that statement, too many people get out after 6 to prove to me that it's not at least true for the majority)?
Now figuring out a way to pay nukes more than the rest of the Navy, especially when there are jobs like A-Gang mechanics where all the above is true would be very tricky if not impossible. Throw in Seals and special warfare who risk their lives more than the rest of us and the other couple programs I'm not thinking of....
-
This has probably been said in the past 23 pages but I'll say it anyway...
It was actually answered on Page 1;
The dial has been turned back on The Wayback Machine.
It is now 1980. Hope you enjoy punk rock.
The Navy is considering raising Nuclear Reenlistment Bonus cap from $15,000 to $20,000.
The Bureau of Personnel believes their desired retention rates of 40% first term, 50% second term, and 60% third term will be achieved - which will man all nuclear billets, by rate, in the proper proportion.
The Wayback Machine is now set to 2008.
The Navy does not now, and never has wanted everyone to re-enlist.
They want the truly disgruntled to leave. They want the truly motivated to stay. Plain and simple. Money won't do it. A new poster slogan won't do it. The Navy knows that.
So, dudes... and dudettes...
If you like it - stay in. I appreciate your service.
If you don't like it - do your time and get out. And I'll enjoy working with you.
Notice the positive energy? We make energy.
You can't fix the Navy, it's not broke.
You can enjoy the ride.
8)
-
It was actually answered on Page 1;
8)
Fair enough.. I guess that's not entirely what I meant. The nuclear program has higher bonuses than any other program in the Navy and it hasn't made much of a difference. I meant that maybe they should think about increasing regular pay for nukes. And while they are at it, would it really be so bad to have a pay scale that differed a little bit depending on the job? Thats how the real world works.
And as far as his statement "The Navy does not now, and never has wanted everyone to re-enlist", thats true. But they want more to re-enlist than currently do, otherwise the bonus wouldn't be so high.
-
This has probably been said in the past 23 pages but I'll say it anyway...
I think it's an easy question to answer that is impossible to fix. The reason nukes (especially junior ones) get disgruntled and get out is because they work longer hours, do more training, spend more time cleaning, and are held to a higher standard than the rest of the Navy at nearly the same pay
I don't think this is a problem. If the Navy is retaining ENOUGH people with varying SRB's to fill the E7-E9 and O4 billets... then I don't think you can make this argument. They don't need to pay the first termers more because they already have them locked in to a contract and filled the junior billets (except for the sadpandas, pregos, deserters, etc..). The trick is keeping the RIGHT people to stay in for the senior billets. That's the responsibility of the senior nukes in the department to get them promoted see the light. A navy nuke will make E6 at the end of their first enlistment (plus or minus some, not an invite for folks to brag) and be able to fill the LPO slots. I don't see the problem that requires more pay.
Would a higher SDAP lead to a higher retention rate with lower SRB's? That makes me want to get a textbook out, PM the right people, grab the calculator, and draw a curve, but I think that we would disagree on the right spot.
I would argue that sea-shore rotations, ship rotations, and promotions would be far better carrots on the stick than pay. I don't recall too many nukes being broke. I also don't believe the NNPP is broke.....
DDD
-
....And while they are at it, would it really be so bad to have a pay scale that differed a little bit depending on the job?....
I thought that was called pro-pay, unless pro-pay no longer exists you're discussion seems to revolve around the compensation provided by pro-pay versus the effort required to receive it,...
......Thats how the real world works......
Not as much as you might think,....
....But they want more to re-enlist than currently do, otherwise the bonus wouldn't be so high...
Until the day a Navy ship or boat cannot meet it's mission commitment because of NNPP manpower shortages or competent operation of the engineering spaces whatever the NNPP does or has done is working.
How well it works will vary depending on your perspective,... 8)
-
GLW and Drayer, I agree with both of you guys. I guess I wanted to float out the idea that I hear complained about the most that is actually fixable. Some of the other ideas you guys gave are definitely things I hear people gripe about. Sea / shore rotations and the like aren't really easy to fix because of the downsizing of the Navy and how many people get out of the program already.
And pro pay is still being given to nukes. But it's one thing you still constantly hear people complaining about.
And while it's true that the NNPP will go on with shortages, bad attitudes, etc, this post must exist for a reason. The Navy has definitely shown that it is set in it's ways as far as how the program is run, so if you want happier sailors change the easy thing to change (pay) that doesn't have any effect on the program is what I was thinking.
My personal perspective is that the program chases away a lot of the best and thats a shame because a great chief can make all the difference in the world when it comes to being able to handle a crappy workload, more than pay and other changes.
Maybe they should change the way Nuke chiefs are selected so that it's a more personal and involved process...??
-
I thought that was called pro-pay, unless pro-pay no longer exists you're discussion seems to revolve around the compensation provided by pro-pay versus the effort required to receive it,...
Not as much as you might think,....
Until the day a Navy ship or boat cannot meet it's mission commitment because of NNPP manpower shortages or competent operation of the engineering spaces whatever the NNPP does or has done is working.
How well it works will vary depending on your perspective,... 8)
Pro-pay hasnt gone up in 30 years. Others specialty pays, like flight deck, divers, foreign language experts get more "pro pay" then nukes do.
Also, if they don't have the man power, they will just shorten the watch rotation and duty sections. 5-10's and 3 section duty on a carrier...
The only REAL benefit of being that short on people is being up for e6 before your 4 year point.
how would I fix it? Raise pro pay CONSIDERABLY, make it relatively easy for those 16 year crusty gold firsts to make warrant officer in their field, bring back the attrition rate (i.e. start with more sailors, or prescreen better!), and fatigue rules on sailors on deployment.
-
...And pro pay is still being given to nukes. But it's one thing you still constantly hear people complaining about....
Ahaaaa!
But see?!? You already said it all in an earlier post,...
Fair enough.. I guess that's not entirely what I meant. The nuclear program has higher bonuses than any other program in the Navy and it hasn't made much of a difference. I meant that maybe they should think about increasing regular pay for nukes. And while they are at it, would it really be so bad to have a pay scale that differed a little bit depending on the job? Thats how the real world works.
And as far as his statement "The Navy does not now, and never has wanted everyone to re-enlist", thats true. But they want more to re-enlist than currently do, otherwise the bonus wouldn't be so high.
It would seem you do have a pay scale that differs a little bit,....
Careful what you ask for, you just might get it,.... 8)
-
Haha, now your just running around in circles. As far as the pay issue goes, Starkist is right, propay exists, but it exists for other jobs as well. And in higher dollar amounts than for nuke. What I was originally trying to say is that maybe if you increased nuke pro pay a bit, you'd end up with happier nukes without having to attempt to make changes to a program that master chief's will never approve of.
We can do the pro pay dance all day, but you know what I'm getting at. ;)
-
Fair enough.. I guess that's not entirely what I meant. The nuclear program has higher bonuses than any other program in the Navy and it hasn't made much of a difference. I meant that maybe they should think about increasing regular pay for nukes. And while they are at it, would it really be so bad to have a pay scale that differed a little bit depending on the job? Thats how the real world works.
And as far as his statement "The Navy does not now, and never has wanted everyone to re-enlist", thats true. But they want more to re-enlist than currently do, otherwise the bonus wouldn't be so high.
We do not have the biggest bonus...SEALs do.
I definitely agree about the pay scale. I don't think it is smart that we pay an E-6 cook/storekeeper/refueler/etc. 70k-85k depending on BAH when on the outside they would be lucky to get half of that. Then they can retire and get half of base...no where out there would they be able to do that. On the other hand you have nuke getting paid the same thing, but work much harder and longer. Even if you take workload out of the picture, just talent and ability have to be worth more than someone who barely could get a job anyway (criminal records, academics, GED, not so bright). Less than .06% of the population can be a Navy nuke per the standards. Then you have to convince them to be one....make the pay higher (supply and demand).
We have enough to meet the demand you say...raise the standards and the pay. Then we will have to beat off even good candidate and quality will not be an issue.
-
We do not have the biggest bonus...SEALs do.
I'm assuming that is just an iteration of fact and not a complaint against the status quo,.... [coffee]
-
We do not have the biggest bonus...SEALs do.I'm assuming that is just an iteration of fact and not a complaint against the status quo,.... [coffee]
I messed up, I meant to say we have the biggest re-enlistment bonuses. He's right, Seals have an edge on the initial enlistment, $15,000 to $12000. Last I checked though we were up on the re-enlistment by almost $25,000.
-
Just to add some information based on current facts.
Most recent SRB message:
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2012/NAV12013.txt
According to that, Nuclear trained personnel have the highest multiples in Zone "A" of anyone on the list, including SEALS (their rating is SO now). Zone "A" for SO is 2. For Zone "B", SOs are ahead of both sets of ETs, sub ELTs and surface MMs. Otherwise, nukes come out ahead, again.
Zone "C" and Zone "D" (new zone never covered until 2010) for Nukes is now covered by the Enlisted Supervisor Retention Pay
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2010/NAV10051.txt
In Zone "C", the SOs come out ahead of everyone except sub ETs. SOs don't get a Zone "D".
As for pro-pay or Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP), the most recent NAVADMIN is here:
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2011/NAV11356.txt
Several (i.e. over 5) years ago, the SDAP program and its values were overhauled. This most recent NAVADMIN contains the values, as they currently stand. Nuclear trained operators receive between $150.00/month (non-supervisor at sea) all the way up to $450.00/month (prototype instructor).
As far as the pay making the program better, I disagree. The standard has moved several times during my career, which recently ended after 20 years. When I first entered, if you had any kind of involvement with the civil justice system (i.e. DUI, underage drinking, etc.), they showed you the door. Did it give us a high attrition rate? Yes. Did we lose potentially good operators who had yet to grow up enough to keep themselves out of trouble? Yes. Was the program better off? Highly debateable. We often sent guys (it was only guys back then, so no offense to the female nukes) out of the program that might have benefited from a second chance. However, with the responsibility of what we are entrusted to maintain on a daily basis, a second chance is often something we can't afford to give.
One example of not so good ideas to reduce attrition was the ridiculous idea of "graduating" School with a 2.5 but needing a 2.8 to continue on to Power School. This absolute disaster allowed individuals to "shoot the gap", graduate with a rate, miss out on 1 of their 12 month extensions (back then we had a 4 year contract and a pair of 12 month extensions. 1 was activated when you got your 3rd class crow after School, the 2nd when you went to prototype. I believe they changed that since) and go on to be a conventional MM or EM or ET.
To end my wall of text, I offer this last tidbit. Numerous complaints in the fleet were about "weak" members of the Chief community. This is our own fault. Due to a culture of not wanting to ruin an individuals career or adversely lowering a Reporting Seniors PMA average, evals are not typically written in a truthful manner. Average sailors receive above average marks, increasing their chances for advancement. "Good people" are subsequently up for advancement sooner than they should be. On paper, these sailors look great, which is all the selection board has to look at.
P.S. I honestly have no problem with SEALS getting those bonuses, because I NEVER got shot at during my 20 years. Just saying
-
P.S. I honestly have no problem with SEALS getting those bonuses, because I NEVER got shot at during my 20 years. Just saying
I don't think anyone would. Seals are extremely underpaid as well, and should make more than we do if we really want to be fair.
I don't think more money will necessarily make the program itself better, but it might improve the morale of the people in the program which in essence is doing the same thing. The same could be said for all spec war and a few other programs. I am kind of surprised to see how many people here are opposed to the idea that nukes, seals, etc should be paid more than a boatswains mate for a regular paycheck, throwing out the bonuses. In my experience in the program, thats one of the easiest fixes to change that would help morale. Sayings like "Choose your rate, choose your fate" wouldn't exist in nuclear world if nukes were happy they were paid nearly the same as the rates leaving at noon everyday, hence the blow to morale. A lot of the other gripes I heard about on the ship the most can't be changed because they are too deeply involved with safety or rooted in Navy tradition.
Seemed like a good idea in my head, back to the drawing board I guess..
-
how would I fix it? Raise pro pay CONSIDERABLY, make it relatively easy for those 16 year crusty gold firsts to make warrant officer in their field, bring back the attrition rate (i.e. start with more sailors, or prescreen better!), and fatigue rules on sailors on deployment.
You do realize that there is probably a reason why someone is a 16 yr First class, right?
Also, E-7 is required for CWO eligibility.
-
If you want a better pay scale as a nuke, get out and go commercial nuke. Then again, that wouldn't fix the NNPP, would it? :)
-
If you want a better pay scale as a nuke, get out and go commercial nuke. Then again, that wouldn't fix the NNPP, would it? :)
I would argue that the pay scale is just fine. A slight propay bump, maybe... but this is far from the problem..
-
You do realize that there is probably a reason why someone is a 16 yr First class, right?
Also, E-7 is required for CWO eligibility.
Im not going to debate about why a person in the same position for 16 years is useless where he is and most likely knows QUITE a bit about his trade.
I was speaking more for creating a program for nukes for warrant officer ascension. Think of it along the lines of the aviator warrant officer program they created a few years ago.
edit - *note how I said CWO not LDO.
-
If you want a better pay scale as a nuke, get out and go commercial nuke. Then again, that wouldn't fix the NNPP, would it? :)
Well it does keep the E-5 and E-6 ranks wide open for rapid promotion and better money for those that are in the USN,....
OMG!!! Have we uncovered a military-industrial complex conspiracy between Navy brass and the utility corporate level management?!?!?!
Perish the thought!!!!!!,...(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/Freak279/Angry%20and%20Annoyed/Art_Fail_Suicide_Emoticon_by_Your_F.gif)
-
I would argue that the pay scale is just fine. A slight propay bump, maybe... but this is far from the problem..
You quoted the wrong guy. I'm not the one that thought there was anything wrong with the pay scale. Merely pointing out to those who do that there are other options.
-
You do realize that there is probably a reason why someone is a 16 yr First class, right?
Also, E-7 is required for CWO eligibility.
I only ever knew one gold chevron first, and he came to my boat to be the LELT when I was still a second class. He was all over the nuclear world..., George Washington class subs, cruisers, enterprise, then LA class subs. I knew why he was a 16 year gold chevron first class when we went to do his primary check chemistry and he says "You guys really do primaries here?"
This was the look on my face;
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg)
Anyway, off topic, but yes..., there is a reason they are 16 year firsts and I'd wager it isn't the Navy's fault. He retired at 20 as a first class.
-
I only ever knew one gold chevron first, and he came to my boat to be the LELT when I was still a second class. He was all over the nuclear world..., George Washington class subs, cruisers, enterprise, then LA class subs. I knew why he was a 16 year gold chevron first class when we went to do his primary check chemistry and he says "You guys really do primaries here?"
Anyway, off topic, but yes..., there is a reason they are 16 year firsts and I'd wager it isn't the Navy's fault. He retired at 20 as a first class.
The problem with the advancement system is that for every one of "those" guys, there is another who for whatever reason rubbed a khaki or two the wrong way at some point and in the process made permanent E-6. I met one of those, smartest nuke I've ever met and extremely hard worker, and a permanent E-6 for whatever reason.
And I don't think anyone here doesn't understand that if you want to make more money, go civilian. Just a possible fix for morale since the topic of the post is "How would you fix the NNPP".
Maybe a better topic title would have been "What changes would the NNPP actually be willing to make?" If any of the few answers seem like they'd help the program then there ya go...
-
The problem with the advancement system is that for every one of "those" guys, there is another who for whatever reason rubbed a khaki or two the wrong way at some point and in the process made permanent E-6. I met one of those, smartest nuke I've ever met and extremely hard worker, and a permanent E-6 for whatever reason.
And I don't think anyone here doesn't understand that if you want to make more money, go civilian. Just a possible fix for morale since the topic of the post is "How would you fix the NNPP".
Maybe a better topic title would have been "What changes would the NNPP actually be willing to make?" If any of the few answers seem like they'd help the program then there ya go...
I don't think that this individuals problem is indicative of a problem with the system. I also think you get a money balance with SRB's and shore duty that make up for a good bit of the money difference. I don't think the money difference is so big anyways. You can't compare an SRO to an E5, I would compare them to someone who went officer and was making a good chunk of money. An 04 posted his LES in our office once as a "staynavy" thing and it wasn't a poor mans takehome....
-
I don't think that this individuals problem is indicative of a problem with the system. I also think you get a money balance with SRB's and shore duty that make up for a good bit of the money difference. I don't think the money difference is so big anyways. You can't compare an SRO to an E5, I would compare them to someone who went officer and was making a good chunk of money. An 04 posted his LES in our office once as a "staynavy" thing and it wasn't a poor mans takehome....
Very good point...
However, when he's asking about how to fix the NNPP, you have to remember that most of the NNPP are E-5 and E-6's, not O-4's... Most of those people also get out before they ever really get to the part of the Navy when the pay begins to "catch" up with the civilian side, because they want to be an SRO one day...
-
One final point about money in the NNPP, because I know most people here think it doesn't matter...
The entire topic really doesn't make a ton of sense in the first place.... The NNPP isn't really broken, so it doesn't need fixing. IMO the only thing broken compared to the civilian side is the morale, and that is only of a portion of that group. Now we all know that really the only things to change in the program would be the standards by which it's run, the regulations, or the traditions... And none of that is going to change or can't change.. Which leaves one way "I" can think of to "improve" the program, and that's morale. Like I stated in the last post, since most of the program is made up of junior sailors, their wallet is one easy way to improve the morale.. And you can't take away sea time or give a ship better manning so.... with improved morale comes a "better" program without having to compromise the standards of the program in any way that they won't anyway.
Do I personally think the Navy nukes are underpaid? Nope. But I also viewed the program as more of a paid internship to the civilian world. You come out, and continue to be paid the same as the Navy, and continue to gain experience, and one day if you do well your an SRO making much more money anyway.
For the guys that love the Navy and the sea, they are paid enough because they do stay in. But if enough people stayed in, or everyone was happy, or the program was perfect, the topic wouldn't exist in the first place...
-
I completely agree with this. In fact, the CO of my boat had an E-6 call yesterday and pretty much gave them a yfg speech on how they need to be positive leaders..lead the E-5's and below..be happy to be doing what we do, and that lasted an hour and a half.
I know a bunch of us that would stay in, but I think we're all afraid because there are so many people getting out. It's a shame the Hartford got stuck in the shipyard for 20 months. That means needs of the navy take over and we all get extended if we reenlist. They front loaded everyone at the beginning of the shipyard and haven't sent anyone since then hardly. My division has gotten 1 new guy in the last 2 years..lol. After we get back from our deployment coming up here soon, there will be 2 ET's left and 4 EM's. Everyone else is getting out within a few months of RTP.
It seems almost unfair to the junior guys to leave the boat like that, even after being there for such a long time, except for the ELT's. There are 7 of those guys on the boat. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that they should work on more evenly distributing people through the boats. That, and more propay would be pretty cool. Can't complain for the 11.5 multiple on the SRB.
-
I completely agree with this. In fact, the CO of my boat had an E-6 call yesterday and pretty much gave them a yfg speech on how they need to be positive leaders..lead the E-5's and below..be happy to be doing what we do, and that lasted an hour and a half.
I know a bunch of us that would stay in, but I think we're all afraid because there are so many people getting out. It's a shame the Hartford got stuck in the shipyard for 20 months. That means needs of the navy take over and we all get extended if we reenlist. They front loaded everyone at the beginning of the shipyard and haven't sent anyone since then hardly. My division has gotten 1 new guy in the last 2 years..lol. After we get back from our deployment coming up here soon, there will be 2 ET's left and 4 EM's. Everyone else is getting out within a few months of RTP.
It seems almost unfair to the junior guys to leave the boat like that, even after being there for such a long time, except for the ELT's. There are 7 of those guys on the boat. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that they should work on more evenly distributing people through the boats. That, and more propay would be pretty cool. Can't complain for the 11.5 multiple on the SRB.
ELT's are MMs....M-Div should be using them accordingly...shame on your boat if they aren't.
-
Anyway, off topic, but yes..., there is a reason they are 16 year firsts and I'd wager it isn't the Navy's fault. He retired at 20 as a first class.
Hey Higgs, I was (and I guess still) one of those Golden E-6s. I still enjoyed working with the guys under me as well as most of the officers.
I think if we could keep politicking out of the ranking system then the pay would be more then sufficient.
As for how things are going today in the NNPP, I can only state that the guys I taught are having some fun, but are doing a great job with what they got.
BTW THANK you for your service
-
ELT's are MMs....M-Div should be using them accordingly...shame on your boat if they aren't.
You know, when I was still in... I would have been...irate...at that statement. Now that I'm out, I kinda regret not getting more hands-on with M-div stuff outside of ERF, because that hands-on was 1.) Kinda fun, and 2.) A good 'another viewpoint' for things.
-
You sub guys crack me up.
-
ELT's are MMs....M-Div should be using them accordingly...shame on your boat if they aren't.
Would be great if the boats actually did this. Last boat I was on, the ELTs seldom did any M-Div stuff. Not much can be done when the EDMC doesn't enforce it. Only thing that changed when I was there was the fact that ELTs actually had to attend M-Div training. Before I got there, they didn't. Oh, and I was the E-Div chief, so I could have cared less what they did.
Ben
-
Supervisory SDAP (pro-pay) is now $375, it went up a few years ago (Instructors still get $450).
Contrary to what was stated earlier, there may be several reasons you have a 16 year gold 1st class. It could be poor career decisions, a failed PFA, or something more serious (which in general removes the eligibility to wear gold). I know in my case it was a combination of the first two. I made the mistake of not finishing my PPWS qual before going to my first shore command (at my 9 year point), and then went to Repair Dept instead of instructor duty, so I couldn't qualify for the 3 years I was there. I also failed a PFA while there. Once I got back to a ship, I qualified PPWS (now 12 year point), it was still a couple years before the PFA failure came off my record, then another year before I was at instructor duty and qualified instructor. As soon as those things happened, I earned my anchors (at my 17 year point), along with a couple other guys who were in a similar situation.
-
Wow I qualified all watch stations, including many the normal ROs would not consider (ERLL, ERML,ERUL, ERS, BCE, COW), had the instructor tour (made MTS in less than 6 months), just failed to play the political game out there. I had hoped that my quality of work and high test scores would allow me to advance. but when I was in you basically had to suck up and I am (still) not that type. Got my gold early and kept it.
As for today's nukes, I wish them the best and thank you all for your service.
-
I know they old saying "A B#*%ing sailor is a happy sailor" but I just wanted to get some input from both new and old glow-worms on what you would do to "fix" what we perceive to be wrong with the Navy Nuke program, and not just the broad brush stroke of "raise the standards of recruitment" or "do away with NRRO", I mean real specific answers. I am sure that there is a lot that we would agree on and even some that we wouldn't. Who knows maybe someone with some power will read this and see what they can do to put it into play.
Good thread idea. I wish I could go out and do some maintenance as a conventional and come back to finish nuke school/prototype/whatever else they want me to do. If I could learn how to fix stuff/make it run, I can really understand the more complicated stuff they share with us in class. If I never see that equipment except in an hour of lab or a study room, I don't really get to experience how it works.
Also, we wouldn't have that stigma I keep hearing about. Heard about a chief who got to his first boat as 1st class because he get E-5 at NNPTC and got to stay as a junior instructor. Then he got E-6. Then he got to his boat. Bunch of people at the mess told him he was out of uniform. He told him he was new. He didn't earn a lot of respect. As soon as a non-nuke saw his uniform, all they saw was a 1st class without service stripes, ribbons, warfare pin, etc. If we got some experience and then went back to school, we'd get some of that out of the way, and we'd probably be fresher on the material when it comes to study time. Keep in mind, they teach us simple stuff at first then a bunch of complicated "how stuff works" stuff later. Then, I hear they put us on boats and tell us to go back to doing simple stuff. People are on hold of power school for like 3 months and then on hold for like 9 months for prototype. That's a whole year of doing nothing to learn or qualify. You forget a lot in that time and you could've been on a conventional ship doing some of your job and helping the navy instead.
-
.......Also, we wouldn't have that stigma I keep hearing about. Heard about a chief who got to his first boat as 1st class because he get E-5 at NNPTC and got to stay as a junior instructor. Then he got E-6. Then he got to his boat.
"Stigma" means they're jealous. Are you supposed to not take advantage of chances to improve your lot in life? In 1991, I made Chief. A friend of mine and I went to the CPO club in our dress blues with one red service stripe each. A crusty old bastard walked up to us and said something to the effect of, "Darn push-button nukes. It took me 18 years to make Chief." To which my friend replied, "Glad to see you finally got your shyte together." Then we drank a beer together. Good times.
WRT to the hold business. It blows. Get over it. Years ago nukes used to go to conventional ships between A school and Nuke Power School. It cost lots of money and there was some unplanned for attrition and some other things I don't remember, but the risk and cost did not outweigh the benefit.
-
Also, we wouldn't have that stigma I keep hearing about. Heard about a chief who got to his first boat as 1st class because he get E-5 at NNPTC and got to stay as a junior instructor. Then he got E-6. Then he got to his boat. Bunch of people at the mess told him he was out of uniform. He told him he was new. He didn't earn a lot of respect. As soon as a non-nuke saw his uniform, all they saw was a 1st class without service stripes, ribbons, warfare pin, etc.
First, anytime someone starts a sentence with, "I heard...", you can be 99% sure you don't need to listen.
From your recent posts, I don't think you'll have this E-6's problem.
The NNPP is set up to train Nukes. After serving on a submarine and a conventional surface ship, the mentality of formality, procedural compliance, complete system understanding, whatever other training term we're currently promoting in Nuke-land, is like night and day between nuke and conventional surface.
One of the benefits (I will not say "THE REASON") of "the way it is" now is the the only exposure you'll ever have to operating a Navy engine room is the zero-defect, always perfect, no mistakes mindset. NNPP will not have to train you to stop saying, "well on my gas turbine plant (or oil fired steam, or diesel), I used to [insert practice abhorrent to nukes]"
The Officer and Chief leadership of the Nuclear navy will change the program when they think it needs changing.
-
Good thread idea. I wish I could go out and do some maintenance as a conventional and come back to finish nuke school/prototype/whatever else they want me to do. If I could learn how to fix stuff/make it run, I can really understand the more complicated stuff they share with us in class. If I never see that equipment except in an hour of lab or a study room, I don't really get to experience how it works.
Also, we wouldn't have that stigma I keep hearing about. Heard about a chief who got to his first boat as 1st class because he get E-5 at NNPTC and got to stay as a junior instructor. Then he got E-6. Then he got to his boat. Bunch of people at the mess told him he was out of uniform. He told him he was new. He didn't earn a lot of respect. As soon as a non-nuke saw his uniform, all they saw was a 1st class without service stripes, ribbons, warfare pin, etc. If we got some experience and then went back to school, we'd get some of that out of the way, and we'd probably be fresher on the material when it comes to study time. Keep in mind, they teach us simple stuff at first then a bunch of complicated "how stuff works" stuff later. Then, I hear they put us on boats and tell us to go back to doing simple stuff. People are on hold of power school for like 3 months and then on hold for like 9 months for prototype. That's a whole year of doing nothing to learn or qualify. You forget a lot in that time and you could've been on a conventional ship doing some of your job and helping the navy instead.
You don't need stripes/anchors/bars on your uniform to beget respect...
Your "hands-on" time will ultimately come, as far as "oh this makes sense because I did it in the fleet!".... not quite. DEFINITELY for A-school, but not so much for power school, and even less so for the wire rates.
Your job and "helping the navy" is to qualify your NEC. Too many young sailors seem to forget that here. You are absolutely useless anywhere else then where you are now. Keep that in your head, and focus on what you have to do.
We had a couple "super-spu's" show up to our ship. One in particular had a rather large ego, but he wound up backing that up, qualifying all the way through watch supervisor in just over a year (passing chiefs that showed up on the ship before him). He's now a chief as well...
-
....One of the benefits (I will not say "THE REASON") of "the way it is" now is the the only exposure you'll ever have to operating a Navy engine room is the zero-defect, always perfect, no mistakes mindset. NNPP will not have to train you to stop saying, "well on my gas turbine plant (or oil fired steam, or diesel), I used to [insert practice abhorrent to nukes]"....
Good point, the "tricks" used to keep DD 827 topped off with both fresh and feed water would make a nuke cringe,....
a lot,....
I learned early the "ustafish" was better left the "unsaidfish",....
-
I didn't mean to get anyone defensive when I made any comments about nukes being promoted quickly. All I was saying was that nukes, like myself, earn a lot of rank for 0 fleet experience, 0 qualifications, and 0 leadership experience. Meanwhile, our shipmates are out there for years, frequently leaving the navy as PO3 or lower. My suggestion was that nukes get some fleet experience while on hold so the respect we're owed due to rank was also earned based on experience. That's all I was saying.
My suggestion to improve things would be to send nukes to the fleet as conventional rates for 1 deployment in order to get inexperienced nukes some experience with basic maintenance, navigating ships, and earning qualifications. With this experience, I bet the scores at NPS would increase due to more hands-on learning and familiarity with the basics.
-
My suggestion to improve things would be to send nukes to the fleet as conventional rates for 1 deployment in order to get inexperienced nukes some experience with basic maintenance, navigating ships, and earning qualifications. With this experience, I bet the scores at NPS would increase due to more hands-on learning and familiarity with the basics.
That's alot less time of those 6 years spent standing the watch that they actually need filled. I'd rather safely pump them out fast to man the plants.
The passing rates are clearly high enough or we would have less deployments.
Nukes don't need to navigate above the waterline, nonetheless from the bridge.
No way this is a cost efficient idea or convenient logistically.
Warfare can be earned later. Any other qual would be expired before they could do it again.
Leadership, well, can't really teach that one. I've seen experienced people who weren't worth their digicam blousing strap. I've seen new people who caught up quickly.Why waste the time figuring out if some other ship is going to screwed or a good deal?
I was never a big fan of the SPU E-6 or the "Never qualified Ex-RMC human answering machine with a baby E-6".....but I can't imagine how they could fix that idea. That's the result of an advancement system designed to cover cooks and nukes.
-
Wow, nice to see this thread is STILL going.
Having done just over a year in the commercial fleet, I can tell you there are some things that make life in the civilian plants more pleasant than the Navy. If there was some way to make changes that moved towards some of those differences, I think it might just be a little better.
Fatigue Rules: You are required by LAW to have so many hours off between on hours. I know you would have difficult times implementing this in the Navy, but it would help. No more keeping guys up all hours of the night for no good reason, especially when they aren't getting paid any extra(more on that next). It would also make the command become more efficient at managing their workers. Why be efficient, when you can just have all your guys stay around "just in case" with no budget or fatigue rules to worry about.
Overtime: Look Nukes are first ones on, last ones off. Has been and always will be. But as previous posters have commented, we get paid a little over those guys that are kicking sand after colors everyday sitting on 10 section duty. I know there was talk at one point about paying guys 100 per day for every day over a certain number for days underway in a year. After 9/11 it got nixed when they realized how much it would cost. IF they can do that, they I am sure they can come up with a way to get nukes some sort of bonus similar to overtime. It is amazing how the knowledge that you are getting paid X dollars for every hour you are working on top of your normal pay, how your out look changes on quality of life.
Work load: We are operators, maintenance techs, QA/QC, procedure writers, painters, and janitors. Civilian world, that is all different departments. I know it is not really possible to have a division of painters and cleaners, but at least acknoledge that we are doing the work load of several different groups of people.
I will say that a couple of things good about the navy is that they more or less trust their operators to do menial tasks from memory(at least when I was still in). In the civilian plant, you can't touch a valve without having some piece of paper in your hand that tells you to do itand only as often as it tells you.
Just my two cents again.
-
Back in the day, it was 15-30 days between boot camp, A-school, nuke school, prototype, and then to the fleet or instructor duty. I went in in March of 66, and reported aboard Bainbridge in May of 1968 as an E-5 RO. I find what is happening these days as a disgrace and waste of tax payer's money. To me it is amazing that an organization like NUCPWR, prideing itself on professionalism, yet cannot manage to move people through training in a timely fashion.
Sea/shore rotation was 2-3 years. Nukes could, and did go to a non-nuke billets, but for no more then 2 years (I did as an LPO in OE division on Decatur), after which they then had to return to a nuke assignment to re-qualify, or if away from a nuke billet, they had to be sent back to prototype as a student.
As a nuke, underway, I pulled the 4-8 watch rotation, not bad, up at 03:30, stand watch, do a normal day work assignment, catch a nooner, back on watch 15:45, off watch, catch the movie, hit the rack at 22:30 and start it all over again. That was underway, as there was nothing else to do, no big deal.
I left the Navy not because of the at sea hours, but because of the never ending three section or less in port duty rotation. Perhaps if the money for a nuke was as it is now, it would have been more tolerable, but even with the re-enlistment bonus it was not. One of the suggestions from that period was to assign/rotate additional nukes to assist in port operations and reduce the work load, especially for the RO's as only they then stood shutdown watches.
On the notion of sending a nuke to the conventional fleet, it is not a good one. Not only are the standards lower there, leading to the development of bad habits, but the experience of 5 or better in port duty is one not easily forgotten. When my enlistment was up, I attempted to get my nuke designator dropped, but to no avail. Not even COMCRUSDESPAC could do it, then I got orders to Enterprise, it was then that I left the service.
Lastly, the issue of retention is not a big one for the Navy. By design, in a static size fleet, you need attrition. The reason is simple, there can only be so many Chiefs and E-6's, unless of course you expect those people to clean mats and bilges and do PMS. The days of the chambray blue chief is long past.
Being a Navy nuke is what it is. You either like it or you do not.
-
.... I find what is happening these days as a disgrace and waste of tax payer's money. To me it is amazing that an organization like NUCPWR, prideing itself on professionalism, yet cannot manage to move people through training in a timely fashion.....
I'm not sure but it seems the logistics and attention to detail on security clearances is exponentially greater than when we were in,...
The touchy feely Navy spends a lot more time being sure everybody is physically and mentally healthy, and without a tour in SE Asia on a river boat or something else in country to motivate them the pipeline moves no faster than the slowest water slug in that line,...
Of course, I could be wrong,...
Sea/shore rotation was 2-3 years. Nukes could, and did go to a non-nuke billets, but for no more then 2 years (I did as an LPO in OE division on Decatur), after which they then had to return to a nuke assignment to re-qualify, or if away from a nuke billet, they had to be sent back to prototype as a student.
By the early 80's sea / shore was 5 and 2, it was uncommon to go to a non-nuke billet, and definitely not before 5 years at sea, things getting worse vis a vis 1968,...
As a nuke, underway, I pulled the 4-8 watch rotation, not bad, up at 03:30, stand watch, do a normal day work assignment, catch a nooner, back on watch 15:45, off watch, catch the movie, hit the rack at 22:30 and start it all over again. That was underway, as there was nothing else to do, no big deal.
I left the Navy not because of the at sea hours, but because of the never ending three section or less in port duty rotation. Perhaps if the money for a nuke was as it is now, it would have been more tolerable, but even with the re-enlistment bonus it was not. One of the suggestions from that period was to assign/rotate additional nukes to assist in port operations and reduce the work load, especially for the RO's as only they then stood shutdown watches.
In port was nearly always 4 section duty (6 maybe 8 if you were a blueshirt EDPO) on the SSN, port and stbd for the forward deployed boomers, pretty much 8 section on the destroyer I was ordered to before nuke school,...
Something is getting better in the 80's vis a vis 1968,...
I left the Navy because I was married, end of story,...
For me (singular), the Navy was the easiest job I ever had, have ever had,....
Show up on time, do what you're told, don't leave without checking out first, keep your head down and keep moving,...
Everything you need to advance, make more money, etc. is all laid out for you, all you have to do is pick it up, complete the cards, read the books, put in your time, take the exams and move on to the next chevron,...
All that hurt pride BS about being a nuclear janitor diving a bilge?!?!?!?
Oh please, it all paid the same, and you couldn't screw up diving a bilge or loading stores, imagine getting pro-pay as a blueshirt EWS/EDPO to dive a bilge while some piss poor A-ganger with the same number of stripes does similar or worse for less,....
On the notion of sending a nuke to the conventional fleet, it is not a good one. Not only are the standards lower there, leading to the development of bad habits, but the experience of 5 or better in port duty is one not easily forgotten. When my enlistment was up, I attempted to get my nuke designator dropped, but to no avail. Not even COMCRUSDESPAC could do it, then I got orders to Enterprise, it was then that I left the service.
I liked the conventional Navy,...
When it was time to go nuke, I adapted to the new rules,...
Lastly, the issue of retention is not a big one for the Navy. By design, in a static size fleet, you need attrition. The reason is simple, there can only be so many Chiefs and E-6's, unless of course you expect those people to clean mats and bilges and do PMS. The days of the chambray blue chief is long past.
Seems like a static paradigm between '68 and '88,...
I don't know what a chambray blue chief is,...
Being a Navy nuke is what it is.
Yup,...
You either like it or you do not.
Had I stayed in, I would have changed my paradigm,...
20+ years as a sea-shore rotating enlisted nuke is a bit long,...
I just figured I'd answer as you put so much effort into a thread which has been sucking wind for the better part of the last two years,....
At one time though, this thread was hopping,.... :P ;) :) 8)
-
At one time though, this thread was hopping,.... :P ;) :) 8)
A very smart man once said, "You can't fix the NNPP.... it ain't broke."
-
A very smart man once said, "You can't fix the NNPP.... it ain't broke."
It's one of my favorite gleanings from this thread,... 8)
You can't fix the Navy, it's not broke.
-
I don't understand all the hatred for Gold E-6's. I used to think the same thing when I was going through the pipeline. I would see a gold first class and immediately think that guy was a dirtbag. This was mainly because most instructors were the ones who made Chief rather quickly and that's all I had been exposed to at that point. After going to the fleet I saw a few who lived up to that stereotype, but definitely not all of them. Some people just honestly do not desire to make E-7. I include myself in that list at this time.
I don't think being a Chief is a bad thing at all, it's just not for me at this point in my career and life. I've personally gotten myself in a position after 9 years in the Navy where it's going to take me at best 3 more years to make Chief, mainly because I went to an NRMD billet vice an instructor one. That choice was mainly made because I was going through a divorce at the time and wanted a job that had more normal hours than prototype. I had already pre-screened for prototype, I just didn't want that schedule. And with the somewhat normal schedule I have here I managed to start a new social life and get remarried. I've since taken orders to decom a ship, which more than likely means no PPWS for me. Since I just started a new family I'm fine with sacrificing advancement for not being deployed the first few years of my marriage.
Some people enjoy being middle-management and enjoy the pay-to-responsibility ratio. I may be viewed as a "dirtbag" to some, probably people on this board included. I consider myself knowledgeable and hard working, and I have the evals to prove it so I'm fine with that. At the end of the day I have less responsibility and I will get to go home earlier and more frequently than a Chief and spend that time with my family.
If at any time the Navy tells me I have to make E-7 to retire I will buckle down and do my best to accomplish that, since that will benefit my family. But until then I'll be just fine retiring as a gold E-6. And as long as the Navy continues to allow it, there are going to be people like me.
-
I don't follow your reasoning/logic.
A) Why is it going to take 3 years for you to be up for chief? Are you referring to the myth that you need Ews/PPWS to get your anchors? As recently as 2011's chief results, we had two CPO-Selects without ever having qualed watch sup.
B) How does making more money as an E7 not benefit your family? I understand that a chief stays later at times, and is generally prone to be more stressed. But the retirement pay of an E7 compared to an E6 drawn out over the latter half of your life equates to tens of thousands of dollars. Imho, that's worth the extra headache.
Generally speaking, the gold crows are disrespected due to their unwillingness to give a damn about their job or do hard work. This has been my experience with ALL I have met met. If you're an exception to that generalization, then kudos, but that is basically the reasoning behind the "hatred" for gold E6's.
-
The general thinking of the selection board in the past, since at least 2000, is that as a Chief the watch you will be standing is EWS/PPWS. Since the Master Chiefs sitting the board expect those sailors they select to already be doing the job of a Chief, the expectation exists. Those selected in years past without having been qualified had something else in their record to demonstrate "Sustained Superior Performance", the super phrase for becoming a member of the Mess.
Now, having said all that, everyone’s personal opinion is now a moot point. The below quote is from NAVADMIN 349/11 - JANUARY 2012 E7 NAVY-WIDE EXAMINATION AND FY13 ACTIVE E7 SELECTION BOARD CYCLE 214
“I. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRAINED PERSONNEL.
TO BE SELECTION BOARD ELIGIBLE FOR E7, PERSONNEL IN NUCLEAR RATINGS MUST HAVE QUALIFIED AS ENGINEERING WATCH SUPERVISOR (EWS) OR PROPULSION PLANT WATCH SUPERVISOR (PPWS). IF A MEMBER'S OFFICIAL RECORD DOES NOT ALREADY INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION OF EWS OR PPWS QUALIFICATION, THIS DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY PERS-802 BY 4 JUNE 2012. ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION OF EWS OR PPWS QUALIFICATION INCLUDES (1) AN EVALUATION WITH "EWS" OR "PPWS" IN BLOCK 29, OR
(2) A LETTER FROM THE MEMBER'S COMMAND FORWARDED TO THE BOARD VIA THE MEMBER WHICH CERTIFIES EWS OR PPWS QUALIFICATION.”
So, according to that requirement, if a First Class isn’t EWS/PPWS qualified by the given date, they won’t make Chief because they won’t be SEL (Selection Board Eligible).
As for the title of this post, the program isn’t broken; it’s different.
We experienced a stretch where boats/ships were almost always undermanned. One of the reasons come up with was the program’s high attrition rate. ADM Bowman, DNR for most of the early 2000’s, made a point that attrition needed to be lowered because we were not giving enough deserving sailors a chance to overcome some initial failures. Again, whether we agree with his sentiment or not is irrelevant. The NNPP is what it is. Adapt and overcome, deal with it and move on, continuing to perform at our highest as individuals while pushing others to do the same.
-
....ADM Bowman, DNR for most of the early 2000’s, made a point that attrition needed to be lowered because we were not giving enough deserving sailors a chance to overcome some initial failures. Again, whether we agree with his sentiment or not is irrelevant.....
I could be wrong but, the NRC does not adhere to that sentiment when it comes to granting operating licenses,...
So, if you're a sailor in the NNPP, succeeding due to ADM Bowman's sentiment, you might want to consider staying in the USN, as the attrition rate for former sailors in license class is observably (if not empirically) higher than it used to be,...
of course, I could be wrong,...
if I am, some of the licensed posters here will be sure to correct me,...
I will respectfully suffer the blows of such correction,... ;D
(well, 99 out of 100 of them anyways),... ;)
in all cases, we thank you for your service,...
(sic)
-
I could be wrong but, the NRC does not adhere to that sentiment when it comes to granting operating licenses,...
So, if you're a sailor in the NNPP, succeeding due to ADM Bowman's sentiment, you might want to consider staying in the USN, as the attrition rate for former sailors in license class is observably (if not empirically) higher than it used to be,...
of course, I could be wrong,...
if I am, some of the licensed posters here will be sure to correct me,...
I will respectfully suffer the blows of such correction,... ;D
(well, 99 out of 100 of them anyways),... ;)
in all cases, we thank you for your service,...
(sic)
You're correct. The success rate of Navy nukes was never that great to begin with, but has been worsening. In my 5 short years in the biz, I've seen officers, chiefs and first classes go down in flames. BZ might be have a better feel for the numbers, but I think the failure rate of Navy nukes hovers right around 55-60% right now, industry wide. You do have some places that have better success with them than others. I think that comes down to the quality of the training department AND the candidate.
Besides licensing, I've seen fewer Navy nukes being hired into the NLO ranks at my places of employment. The utility has been opting for people out of college with engineering degrees and other relevant experience instead of a 6 and out Navy nuke.
Skim these forums..., how many 6 and out Navy nukes post about struggling to find a job?
I'm not saying correlation equals causation..., but something has changed over the years.
And again, that is just from what I've experienced over my short 5 years.
Justin
-
You're correct. The success rate of Navy nukes was never that great to begin with, but has been worsening. In my 5 short years in the biz, I've seen officers, chiefs and first classes go down in flames. BZ might be have a better feel for the numbers, but I think the failure rate of Navy nukes hovers right around 55-60% right now, industry wide. You do have some places that have better success with them than others. I think that comes down to the quality of the training department AND the candidate.
Besides licensing, I've seen fewer Navy nukes being hired into the NLO ranks at my places of employment. The utility has been opting for people out of college with engineering degrees and other relevant experience instead of a 6 and out Navy nuke.
Skim these forums..., how many 6 and out Navy nukes post about struggling to find a job?
I'm not saying correlation equals causation..., but something has changed over the years.
And again, that is just from what I've experienced over my short 5 years.
Justin
I talked to a recruiter from Palo Verde just last month and he told me that his utility is no longer hiring instant SRO.
-
Skim these forums..., how many 6 and out Navy nukes post about struggling to find a job?
If they're struggling, I'd be willing to bet they had unreasonable expectations of their actual levels of training and qualifications; OR they're trying to break into unrelated fields; OR they're location dependent; or...
If a Navy nuke is willing to start work for roughly the same paycheck (maybe a little bit less to begin with until promotable qualities are demonstrated) and isn't fixated on a specific location, the jobs are there and are hiring eagerly.
-
The general thinking of the selection board in the past, since at least 2000, is that as a Chief the watch you will be standing is.....
I could be wrong but, the NRC does not adhere to that sentiment when it comes to granting operating licenses,...
You're correct. The success rate of Navy nukes was never that great to begin with, but has been worsening. In my 5 short years in the biz, I've seen officers, chiefs and first classes go down in flames. BZ might be have a better feel for the numbers,...
If they're struggling, I'd be willing to bet they had unreasonable expectations,...
Once the ELT's jump into the room, a cyber party is bound to ensue,.....
-
If they're struggling, I'd be willing to bet they had unreasonable expectations of their actual levels of training and qualifications; OR they're trying to break into unrelated fields; OR they're location dependent; or...
If a Navy nuke is willing to start work for roughly the same paycheck (maybe a little bit less to begin with until promotable qualities are demonstrated) and isn't fixated on a specific location, the jobs are there and are hiring eagerly.
I agree, they often have unreasonable expectations, but many simply aren't making it past the trash container with their resumes. At least not at my last 2 locations.
Justin
-
I talked to a recruiter from Palo Verde just last month and he told me that his utility is no longer hiring instant SRO.
I think I know why. When I was there for a short time, they had a whole bunch of instants in class..., quite a few were KAPL engineers that stood shift supervisor (or whatever they called the civilian lead of a shift at NY prototype)..., from what I hear, that class wasn't very successful. It's hard to justify hiring "instants" when you invest so much capital in them and get no return on that investment.
Justin
-
Besides licensing, I've seen fewer Navy nukes being hired into the NLO ranks at my places of employment. The utility has been opting for people out of college with engineering degrees and other relevant experience instead of a 6 and out Navy nuke.
Skim these forums..., how many 6 and out Navy nukes post about struggling to find a job?
Justin
I was at TAP class a few weeks ago and a guy from Entergy was there at the jobs panel. He said flat out if you're a 6 and out Navy Nuke you better have something more than just your 4 years of experience to bring to the table such as a degree or EWS, otherwise finding work in the industry is gonna be difficult.
-
I was at TAP class a few weeks ago and a guy from Entergy was there at the jobs panel. He said flat out if you're a 6 and out Navy Nuke you better have something more than just your 4 years of experience to bring to the table such as a degree or EWS, otherwise finding work in the industry is gonna be difficult.
The sharp point of that spear was reflected on years ago,...
I don't need the Navy to provide me with experienced people for NLO Jobs. I can get what I need from the Junior Colleges, factories and such. We train from the ground up and we have much higher standards for performance so it doesn't matter where I get them from. All I need is someone with High Standards, a willingness to work and some intelligence. 15 years ago I knew I could get the first qualification I mentioned by hiring from the Navy. Now it's simply not true. I've seen some of the rocks the Navy puts out these days so now many don't meet qualification number 3 and so far as two, one doesn't need Navy experience to be a hard worker.
One of the very best ROs I know we snagged from Burger King and in my mind so far as work ethic, standards and plain ability to understand and operate a nuke plant this guy has very few peer, I learned a lot about my current facility from them.
It's my view someone without commercial experience shouldn't be commenting on what type of experience is applicable to the real world.
If you wanna fix Nuke school, put me in charge :)
Mike
I would have to agree about standards going down in the Navy Nuclear Program--I was in 1985-2005 and about midway I noticed a lot of "rocks" in the fleet--The saying for Prototype previously was "We are a filter" and around midway of my time in changed to "We are a Pump" --a septic tank pump obviously. The Navy didn't teach me a thing about being a hard worker, but instead demotivated any attempts at such with their asinine wasting of time with petty crap. I think they need to look at what thay have changed in the last 20 years in the nuclear pipeline and change it back to the way it used to be--that may entail spending more money on the program and cease trying to squeeze water out of a brick--or a rock in this case.
When it comes to encouraging Navy nukes to stay in the Navy perhaps Bowman got it right,...
From the old Navy perspective anyways,...
The old Navy never did like Rickover's radical notions much anyhow,...
-
I was at TAP class a few weeks ago and a guy from Entergy was there at the jobs panel. He said flat out if you're a 6 and out Navy Nuke you better have something more than just your 4 years of experience to bring to the table such as a degree or EWS, otherwise finding work in the industry is gonna be difficult.
If the company can be picky because it offers great location, pay, and promising futures.... why not be picky?
If the company is located in Where?, MS.... or about 2 and a half hours outside of civilization, GA or uses a dated pay scale...... you may have an easier time.
It's not the job of the Navy to prep its sailors for fine paying civilian careers, just to maintain the standards of the Navy (wherever they may be) and keep ships afloat.
-
...It's not the job of the Navy to prep its sailors for fine paying civilian careers, just to maintain the standards of the Navy (wherever they may be) and keep ships afloat.
(http://files.sharenator.com/post_28_13345621858962_30_best_photographs_ever_taken-s640x480-333480-535.jpg)
[clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]
-
If the company can be picky because it offers great location, pay, and promising futures.... why not be picky?
If the company is located in Where?, MS.... or about 2 and a half hours outside of civilization, GA or uses a dated pay scale...... you may have an easier time.
It's not the job of the Navy to prep its sailors for fine paying civilian careers, just to maintain the standards of the Navy (wherever they may be) and keep ships afloat.
(http://files.sharenator.com/post_28_13345621858962_30_best_photographs_ever_taken-s640x480-333480-535.jpg)
[clap] [clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]
Very true, but then perhaps recruiters should tell them that up front, recruiters fill Nuke wanna be's head's with thoughts of sugar plum fairies, commands tell them that more quals will get them good jobs outside and last time I checked recruitment and retention is part of the Navy.
-
Very true, but then perhaps recruiters should tell them that up front, recruiters fill Nuke wanna be's head's with thoughts of sugar plum fairies, commands tell them that more quals will get them good jobs outside and last time I checked recruitment and retention is part of the Navy.
I disagree,...
No one who comes to these boards and reviews the typical perception of a recruiter can come away with the sugar plum and fairy visual,...
That same warning is found on dozens of websites related to recruiting and enlistment,...
It was the same warning I gave my own son before he enlisted 14 years ago,...
It is the same warning my son and all my children were given by their high school guidance counselors, I suspect it is the default warning of the NEA,...
It is the same warning (or informed decision advice if you prefer) that pretty much every ex-military parent I have ever spoke with about this topic gives to their children considering enlistment,...
and yet,...
they still choose to smoke cigarettes,...
they still choose to have sex, unprotected or otherwise,...
they still choose to drive without a seatbelt,...
they still choose to experiment with controlled substances,...
and they still choose to let the recruiter play to their ego and become 6YO's in the face of all "informed decision" advice to the contrary,...
I've seen two broad category types of ex-nukes here and elsewhere;
whiney bastards and mature adults,...
some whiney bastards are technical whizz kids but still whiney bastards,...
some mature adults are lower 50% but still mature adults,...
at the end of the day it's their choice,...
own it and live with it,... [coffee]
-
I disagree,...
No one who comes to these boards and reviews the typical perception of a recruiter can come away with the sugar plum and fairy visual,...
That same warning is found on dozens of websites related to recruiting and enlistment,...
It was the same warning I gave my own son before he enlisted 14 years ago,...
It is the same warning my son and all my children were given by their high school guidance counselors, I suspect it is the default warning of the NEA,...
It is the same warning (or informed decision advice if you prefer) that pretty much every ex-military parent I have ever spoke with about this topic gives to their children considering enlistment,...
and yet,...
they still choose to smoke cigarettes,...
they still choose to have sex, unprotected or otherwise,...
they still choose to drive without a seatbelt,...
they still choose to experiment with controlled substances,...
and they still choose to let the recruiter play to their ego and become 6YO's in the face of all "informed decision" advice to the contrary,...
I've seen two broad category types of ex-nukes here and elsewhere;
whiney bastards and mature adults,...
some whiney bastards are technical whizz kids but still whiney bastards,...
some mature adults are lower 50% but still mature adults,...
at the end of the day it's their choice,...
own it and live with it,... [coffee]
going back to my post
Very true, but then perhaps
I did not disagree just stating that the Navy is not without fault in this. "Buyer Beware" only goes so far.
"It's not the job of the Navy to prep its sailors for fine paying civilian careers, just to maintain the standards of the Navy (wherever they may be) and keep ships afloat."
"Needs of the Navy" includes the above statement and also includes recruiting and retaining of good talent, when the pressures drives recruiters and COs to oversell the civilian job market impressionable young men of 20 (to 40 [whistle] ) probably believe those they see as an authority figure (then they run into BZ [devious] ). All of us exNukes have been exposed to the Navy Nuclear Program propaganda machine about how good they are and what their civilian prospects are (of course it's true for us exELTs [king] ) so I don't think that laying a little of this (at least a small amount) at the feet of the Navy is appropriate. As for taking any web site serious over an institutional establishment, it would violate the authority structure example you put forward using your kids as examples.
"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." D.M.
[GH]
[coffee]
Sorry Mike I know that you take this site very serious. [salute]
-
....."Buyer Beware" only goes so far....
Asking the Navy to run Port of Call: Bayonne, New Jersey in the recruiting office is a bit much,...
Time to stop splitting hares on this one,...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/08/ubisoftstocksplit.jpg)
-
It just occurred to me the Lexington, formerly homeported in Pensacola and guarded by the valiant men of the USS Robert A. Owens (BITD when nukes pulled conventional sea time before nuke school) was never replaced in her CVT role,....
Sooooo,....
If Navy pilots no longer need a CVT, why do Navy nukes need a prototype?!?!?!?
I'm just saying,.... :-\
-
Prototype was a good way to thin out the herd. People may have had the classroom smarts but struggle with physical operation of equipment.
It would be inconvenient for an operational vessel to be dead in the water because some nub made a mistake.
The current NNPP is not about thinning the herd, it's about pushing the entire herd through the chute and into the fleet and letting the fleet deal with it.
The conventional fleet has lots of nubs too, I was one of them once. Vessels dead in the water because of one nub watchstander are not the concern.
It just doesn't happen enough to warrant a statistical blip.
-
The current NNPP is not about thinning the herd, it's about pushing the entire herd through the chute and into the fleet and letting the fleet deal with it.
The conventional fleet has lots of nubs too, I was one of them once. Vessels dead in the water because of one nub watchstander are not the concern.
It just doesn't happen enough to warrant a statistical blip.
My class was thinned as much in prototype as it was in power school. People could memorize a power tree but not have the skill to complete a qual manual. I wouldn't want to fly to Bahrain and hop on board to get my first look at an operational power plant.
-
My class was thinned as much in prototype as it was in power school. People could memorize a power tree but not have the skill to complete a qual manual. I wouldn't want to fly to Bahrain and hop on board to get my first look at an operational power plant.
Then again, the current anecdote is the fleet is thinning them out as much as the pipeline nowadays.
Is this an inaccurate observation?
It is mostly acquired from the number of posters here being booted for medical, and sad panda, and etc., etc.,
To the point though, if the fleet can train pilots without a CVT why do the nukes need prototypes and MTS's?
We're talking about cracking up multimillion dollar aircraft on billion dollar flight decks as opposed to turning the wrong valve, paralleling out of phase or touching the shim switch without performing a repeat back first,...
Do I (Joe taxpayer) really need multimillion dollar investments year after year just so you (Joe sailor) don't feel a little intimidated with your first real life TG startup?
I mean really, I qualified on the D1G with a D2W core and a nifty thing called a DFT all of which was slave to a demon known as the HAGAN cabinet and none of which were to be found anywhere on a 637 or 616 class with an S5W/S3GC3 propulsion plant where I spent 1293 days underway on nuclear power.
I did enjoy the working vacation in upstate New York though, prototype was one of my top three stints during my adventure in the USN.
I'm not thinking so,...
-
....(how else could an ELT play?)
If we're keeping the p-types and MTS's around because the ELT's need them,....
well,.....
that's something completely different,...
they are then (obviously) the wisest of all NNPP investments,... :P ;) :) 8)
-
If we're keeping the p-types and MTS's around because the ELT's need them,....
well,.....
that's something completely different,...
they are then (obviously) the wisest of all NNPP investments,... :P ;) :) 8)
The proto-in-a-trailer could remotely open a source window to give the nublets the appropriate faux N-16 but real gamma dose, to simulate staying too long in the sample cabinet, valves stuck open, etc. Mix up various Hanford tank leakage effluent to give the kiddies something to analyze. These are all things, that if the NNPP did a contract with Boeing or some other Fortune 100 to build a simulator, would be incorporated.
-
Maneuvering/EOS watch standers could be adequately trained on an IDE (Interactive Display Equipment) simulator, similar to commercial simulators.
MMs could be trained at a 600# steam plant school, alongside conventional mechanics.
Boilerwater/Feedwater can be taught in a classroom setting at the various homeports (I think there is a conventional BW/FW course taught for secondary chemists already).
Radcon is virtually nonexistent in the surface fleet, unless you are assigned to the ENTERPRISE. Even then, she is on her last deployment currently.
The reshaping of the current version of prototype would probably cost less than will be expended converting two Los Angeles class attack subs into the newest MTSs.
Doing domething the same way "because that's how we've always done it" is a horrible decision making process.
-
Maneuvering/EOS watch standers could be adequately trained on an IDE (Interactive Display Equipment) simulator, similar to commercial simulators.
MMs could be trained at a 600# steam plant school, alongside conventional mechanics.
Boilerwater/Feedwater can be taught in a classroom setting at the various homeports (I think there is a conventional BW/FW course taught for secondary chemists already).
Do they still have the old 1200# plant in some decrepit brick buildings at Great Mistakes?
-
a nifty thing called a DFT all of which was slave to a demon known as the HAGAN cabinet
While serving on Texas (CGN-39) on Christmas port call in Livorno Italy (1981 I think), the Hagan in #1 plant would not cooperate and nobody aboard could fix the damned thing. So what did we do? A Fast Frigate was also in port so they sent over a Senior Chief Boiler Tech. I issued him a TLD and he had that piece of junk up and running in less than an hour. Never had another problem with it.
-
While serving on Texas (CGN-39) on Christmas port call in Livorno Italy (1981 I think), the Hagan in #1 plant would not cooperate and nobody aboard could fix the damned thing. So what did we do? A Fast Frigate was also in port so they sent over a Senior Chief Boiler Tech. I issued him a TLD and he had that piece of junk up and running in less than an hour. Never had another problem with it.
which dovetails nicely with this question:
....Is this because of the average attitude of the ex-navy nuke? They have been told for years that they are the cream of the crop in the Navy and for a lot of us it tends to give us a sense of being more important that we really are....
and this answer:
Attitude, leave the I am holier than Non Navy Nukes and I am the cream of the crop attitude at your house.....
-
mean really, I qualified on the D1G with a D2W core and a nifty thing called a DFT all of which was slave to a demon known as the HAGAN cabinet and none of which were to be found anywhere on a 637 or 616 class with an S5W/S3GC3 propulsion plant where I spent 1293 days underway on nuclear power.
That Hagan thing ain't so antique. I stood there with a smile when the feed system air signal controlling piece o crap was hoisted out of the Ike for the last time. It was one of the most challenging pieces of equipment to operate for sure.
\
I'd like to hear more on this. Sounds like a good idea.
Then again, the current anecdote is the fleet is thinning them out as much as the pipeline nowadays.
Is this an inaccurate observation?
It is mostly acquired from the number of posters here being booted for medical, and sad panda, and etc., etc.,
To the point though, if the fleet can train pilots without a CVT why do the nukes need prototypes and MTS's?
We're talking about cracking up multimillion dollar aircraft on billion dollar flight decks as opposed to turning the wrong valve, paralleling out of phase or touching the shim switch without performing a repeat back first,...
Do I (Joe taxpayer) really need multimillion dollar investments year after year just so you (Joe sailor) don't feel a little intimidated with your first real life TG startup?
The fleet doesn't remove people based on their learning or operating ability. The fleet removes people who aren't mature enough to handle the stresses of being an adult with a job and some people with legit issues that got swept through. Nukes can go straight to sea from power school, but I think the qual process would need to be modified to merge the mechanical/electrical/reactor operator basics of power plant operation and the demands of a real warship. It could be done for sure. Why not?
-
Does a gas turbine tech do any type of "hands on training" at a land based mockup of a gas turbine before they are shipped out to the fleet? I doubt it.
In my opinion, the NPTUs can be done away with.
-
Does a gas turbine tech do any type of "hands on training" at a land based mockup of a gas turbine before they are shipped out to the fleet? I doubt it.
In my opinion, the NPTUs can be done away with.
8 week A school in Great Mistakes
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/gsm.htm (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/gsm.htm)
-
Does a gas turbine tech do any type of "hands on training" at a land based mockup of a gas turbine before they are shipped out to the fleet? I doubt it.
In my opinion, the NPTUs can be done away with.
Does NR view the prototypes to have any purpose beyond training? Equipment testing? Procedure implementation? Research?
USC doesn't play ECU until Saturday, so perhaps a NR type who wanders one of these facilities would have some insight?
-
KAPL uses them for testing and research. I believe Bechtel or Lockheed or whatever corp. is in charge nowadays of the Kesselring Site actually OWNS the S8G and MARF plants.
Still though...I learned a lot more actually shifting the EP on my boat then I ever did as a student at NPTU. Maybe there's a TINY bit of merit of sending kids through to see how quals work. Still though...that's a lot of cash just to teach them how to ask "Do you have time for a checkout?"
-
KAPL uses them for testing and research......
And they don't need Navy enlisteds to perform that function,...
-
KAPL uses them for testing and research. I believe Bechtel or Lockheed or whatever corp. is in charge nowadays of the Kesselring Site actually OWNS the S8G and MARF plants.
Nope. DOE still owns the plants. KAPL (now combined with Bechtel Propulsion Machinery Corporation) is contracted to run the facility and operations of the plants. On the opposite end of the spectrum, at the MTS, the contractor runs student training, and the Navy is responsible for operation of the plants.
-
...The fleet doesn't remove people based on their learning or operating ability....
Based on numerous empirical observations I beg to differ,...
here's the latest;
Thanks. BNEQ is a whole different story and water under the bridge so to speak, it came to a bird, with all due respect to him, not trusting me with being an operator. To be more specific: I don't know why I can draw BFPL but not list every single exact coordinate the graph changes, but blow every thing else out the water.
Before the Navy I have a decent background in low voltage electronics, which helped me a lot going through the pipeline, when it came to BE, Digital, and... that last A-school class everyone hated: ICE. Yeah I remember feeling like I already knew it our grasped it fast. But to answer your question I'd rather fix broken electronics to actual operating. Being an ET I'm good with computers; building, operating, fixing, all that, whatever an ET would do in a civilian plant. I imagine there's several different jobs in a civilian plant that an ET would do on a boat.
Prototype should have weeded out book smart, hands stupid before the fleet wasted 18 months plus on this billet. If the fleet has to do this job, p-type is a redundant, paid vacation for staff and students alike (IMNSHO). As a taxpayer, my inclination is that perhaps it's time to staunch the fiscal bleeding.
....Nukes can go straight to sea from power school, but I think the qual process would need to be modified to merge the mechanical/electrical/reactor operator basics of power plant operation and the demands of a real warship. It could be done for sure. Why not?
agreed,...
(sic)
-
Prototype should have weeded out book smart, hands stupid before the fleet wasted 18 months plus on this billet. If the fleet has to do this job, p-type is a redundant, paid vacation for staff and students alike (IMNSHO). As a taxpayer, my inclination is that perhaps it's time to staunch the fiscal bleeding.
1) p-type is never a vacation.
2) BNEQ!!!! No, no, no....... Ive seen people who can't operate a rack light or a commode without a babysitter pass BNEQ. Somebody had to have been super special to get weeded out here. Finding the 95k ton chunk of steel was harder than BNEQ.
-
1) p-type is never a vacation.
it was for me, right at the top of my favorite Navy duty stations,...
rotating shift,...one's and three's and five's off,...
paid twice a month,...
living 17 minutes from the front gate,...
allowed to live like an adult on the local economy, take care of your business and we will not mind it for you, show up on time, do what's expected on shift, go home on-time,..
four real seasons,...
great scenery and local stuff to do,...
easy, peasy, lemon squeezy good times,...
perhaps things have changed,... :-\
-
Prototype should have weeded out book smart, hands stupid before the fleet wasted 18 months plus on this billet. If the fleet has to do this job, p-type is a redundant, paid vacation for staff and students alike
Its not a vacation for anyone to keep an aging reactor plant operational.
This time, I have to disagree with you.
-
Its not a vacation for anyone to keep an aging reactor plant operational.
This time, I have to disagree with you.
ah well, there is that,....
my doctor says something similar every time I walk through his door,... 8)
-
Its not a vacation for anyone to keep an aging reactor plant operational.
This time, I have to disagree with you.
What say you to the notion of having the nubs feel the steam and smell the phosphates with the BTs in Great Mistakes for 8 weeks, then off to Simulators sans reactors at Goose Creek?
-
What say you to the notion of having the nubs feel the steam and smell the phosphates with the BTs in Great Mistakes for 8 weeks, then off to Simulators sans reactors at Goose Creek?
I say I don't believe they have BTs anymore,...
then again,...they don't have a lot of things anymore,...
-
I say I don't believe they have BTs anymore,...
then again,...they don't have a lot of things anymore,...
Ok......
For the cost of a couple hundred washouts , we could set up some donkey boilers, a 600# steam plant, a small TG set and a main engine/water brake system.
-
Ok......
For the cost of a couple hundred washouts , we could set up some donkey boilers, a 600# steam plant, a small TG set and a main engine/water brake system.
that would be a MTS,... 8)
-
that would be a MTS,... 8)
Indeed it would. And if I was ever SecNav, it would be the power source to a refurbished LORAN station, far from the temptations of drunk driving, chasing Skiddie Kiddies, DITY move scams etc.
-
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70471
I wonder if he'll fix it?
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=440
-
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70471
I wonder if he'll fix it?
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=440
So you think it's broke?
-
So you think it's broke?
Aaaaaaaaaaand they're off!!!
-
I wonder if he'll fix it?
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=440
Any skipper that could successfully drive and park the 683 with its......unique camber and....special handling during dives...has my vote!! :P
-
So, if you're a sailor in the NNPP, succeeding due to ADM Bowman's sentiment, you might want to consider staying in the USN, as the attrition rate for former sailors in license class is observably (if not empirically) higher than it used to be,...
of course, I could be wrong,...
You're not wrong.
We have replaced a formerly high Navy Nuclear Power training attrition rate with low Initial License Training throughput.
That 30 to 50% filter will catch the SMAGs, since the Navy opened the filter bypass, we backflush them out here.
-
You're not wrong.
We have replaced a formerly high Navy Nuclear Power training attrition rate with low Initial License Training throughput.
That 30 to 50% filter will catch the SMAGs, since the Navy opened the filter bypass, we backflush them out here.
I agree. 30% of my most recent class dropped, 75% of the drops were Navy nukes.
Justin
-
Sorry I just found this funny as an old cruiser sailor....we were happy when we had five and dimes ;)
"Also, if they don't have the man power, they will just shorten the watch rotation and duty sections. 5-10's and 3 section duty on a carrier... "
-
Sorry I just found this funny as an old cruiser sailor....we were happy when we had five and dimes ;)
Or when those POS distilling units would go OOS, then port-n-starboards! >:(
-
Been away for a bit but I find it quite comical that after 26 pages the consensus reached one of two conclusions:
1) It's not broke OR
2) Raise the pay.
The Navy has done #2 many times. People are still leaving at a similar rate (lower now thanks to a poor economy). Any more bright ideas?
-
Does a gas turbine tech do any type of "hands on training" at a land based mockup of a gas turbine before they are shipped out to the fleet? I doubt it.
In my opinion, the NPTUs can be done away with.
My son graduated from the GC NPTU in the last few months.
There are certainly issues with keeping even one of the 60 50 year old MTS up and available for training.
He qaulified several weeks before graduation and volunteered each day to work with members on his crew who had not yet qualified ( on days when finding make work for him to do was a challenge - which was every day he did not have watch ).
Apparently the standards were relaxed in the last week or two so that virtually everyone who had not given up previously was able to qualify.
Failure and self removal were apparently the same thing. Those who wanted out went to medical and reported depression or some other disqualifying condition.
However, IMHO, the above are all things that a competent organization can fix by policy changes, training and/or training facility investments.
I was able to observe my son first hand multiple times through out the Nuke pipeline. He came home for emergency leave for a terminal illness in A school, T-Track Leave, Christmas holiday in Power School, Pre-Fill Leave, emergency leave for a funeral during the first few months of Prototype, and a 30 day leave before reporting to his boat. ( The member of the Greatest Generation who was supposed to die a few weeks after A School started, instead lived a relatively healthy life for another year and half ).
The difference in this Sailor between the Pre-Fill leave, and the 30 day leave after prototype graduation was dramatic. The self driven check out process without hand holding, the requirement for this unmarried sailor to live outside the barracks, take care of himself, and qualify with feedback which was often non-existent except when it was negative, and the ability to interact with veteran Nukes and pick and choose from conflicting career advice, made him decisive and unflappable.
In this one case at least, the Sailor who recently reported to his boat while underway, somewhere in the Pacific, was much different than he would have been had he gone straight from the Military Technical Training School environment of NNPTC to his boat.
Just one father's opininion. A father who went from his own technical training school directly to his first command thirty forty years ago without anywhere near that amount of seasoning or maturity. Take it for what it is worth.
-
Apparently the standards were relaxed in the last week or two so that virtually everyone who had not given up previously was able to qualify.
Failure and self removal were apparently the same thing. Those who wanted out went to medical and reported depression or some other disqualifying condition.
The quoted portion from your post is not factual.
Cheers,
GC
-
The quoted portion from your post is not factual.
Cheers,
GC
Good to hear. I certainly would not want it to be true.
But then again, a lot of things are going on in this country which I wish were not true.
-
From 20 years of experience in the Navy nuke field, what normally happens is a twisting of things to fit one's own need or justify one's own view.
Individuals or small groups within the organization are unhappy about something (literally anything). They see one scenario play out and then start talking "This is what everyone is doing.". This morphs into what is known as confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is a cognitive science term that describes a human tendency to search for, remember or interpret information in such a way that it confirms one's own preconceptions. An example of this is the "everybody thinks X" idea. This is what your son was experiencing from some of the staff at prototype.
I can say that things within the program did indeed change during my 20 years. ADM Skip Bowman was at the head of some of those changes. One of his initiatives was to lower attrition. Some would say we lowered our standards; I would not agree with that assessment. What we did do was work in other opportunities for those that struggled to show that they could, indeed, do the job. I know several very successful nukes who struggled with classroom work and would have failed out under the old structure. However, because they were afforded a second chance, they were able to push through (usually with around a 2.6 GPA) and ended up being very good operators in the fleet.
Just some food for thought. Also, congratulations to your son and to you! As a father, you should be proud of his making it through the pipeline. Best of luck to both of you in the future.
-
GC is correct. We (as instructors) don't lower our standards right at the end. If a student is still around by then it's because they have shown the desire to succeed and that they generally have the ability. By about week 21, most of their classmates have qualified, so we are able to focus a little more on them and get them ready to qualify. Some instructors might be a little more liberal with the grading criteria around week 22/23, but typically they are like that all the time.
Also if a student is still around by week 22, I don't usually have enough to justify disenrolling them (I try to do that by week 17).
-
I know they old saying "A B#*%ing sailor is a happy sailor" but I just wanted to get some input from both new and old glow-worms on what you would do to "fix" what we perceive to be wrong with the Navy Nuke program, and not just the broad brush stroke of "raise the standards of recruitment" or "do away with NRRO", I mean real specific answers. I am sure that there is a lot that we would agree on and even some that we wouldn't. Who knows maybe someone with some power will read this and see what they can do to put it into play.
For 5 years old men have cried about decreasing standards and lower output quality of the NNPP. It's probably an older trend than 08. Meanwhile, the watch has been safely been turned over as carriers and submarines sail safely on longer and longer deployments with rough sea - shore rotations. 8 month deployments have become normal topside. I hated our 8 month deployment, but these guys do it regularly now.
Still doesnt need fixing IMHO.
-
Good to hear. I certainly would not want it to be true.
But then again, a lot of things are going on in this country which I wish were not true.
When I was at prototype, it was under-staffed and backlogged. There are only so many watches the plant can support; only so many checkouts to go around. This made the beginning of being in-crew extremely frustrating. Show up early, get on the top of the check-out list. Then get kicked out immediately because we were not a certain class. "You're not the priority" we would be told. Being knowledge complete except end of cards (which were off-limits until a couple weeks before graduating), coming to work for weeks knowing that you're going to sit in a cubicle for 12 hours and cannot possibly make progress toward graduating was really annoying. Instead of finishing a month early and having August in Saratoga practically off, I graduated two months late thanks to backlogs.
Then one day it was "our turn." The skies opened up and we were put on the watchbill. Staff gave us checkouts over junior classes. And we graduated. Well, most of us...we had some FEW and board failures. It wasn't because they lowered the standard; it was because after months of studying for 12 hours a day in a cubicle and finally an opportunity to get watchstanding experience, we had the knowledge required to graduate.
What your son perceives as 'relaxing the standards' is actually his class reaping the benefits of their knowledge coming together after a year in nuclear power training and a staff that was making them the priority for checkouts and watches. It's the moment he realized that he was being expected to do what thousands upon thousands of Sailors before him did, and that it doesn't take a genious to pass the program, but just someone who knows 62.5% of the material.
The 6 month prototype training schedule planned for various phases of plant operation. Through various other factors it may have become backlogged (in my case, a training hold), and in those cases the students will be held as long as they need to graduate.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
-
When I was at prototype, it was under-staffed and backlogged......
well, five years without a post,....
which can only mean,....
it's fixed,....
mission accomplished,...
anchors aweigh!!!!!!!
-
What is there to fix?
-
What is there to fix?
fair question,....
for five years and ten days, 779 posts, and over 378,000 views,....
somebody, thought something needed fixing,.....
-
10 years in the Navy and being a student at prototype was hands down my worst tour ever. I swear if I had one bullet and a free pass to shoot anyone it would be that a**hole E-5 who screamed "no talking in the training area" every 15 minutes at someone whispering 2 cubicle rows away that I couldn't even hear.
Anyway, I wouldn't say it's "fixed." It does what it does. The senior/master chiefs are pissed off that it doesn't filter enough rocks, the submarine force is frustrated that all the JOs are hitting the fleet as O-2's and separating before shore duty thanks to delays in the pipeline. But hey, it's all perfect I suppose.
Modified for language
-
10 years in the Navy and being a student at prototype was hands down my worst tour ever........
sorry to hear that,...
I really liked prototype,....
so much so that 37 years later (WOW, when did THAT happen?!?!?!?!):
I'm still living right around the corner from the place,...
and the spooky part is,...
37 years before I was stationed at the NPTU there was no NPTU,...
dam, Trinity had yet to occur,...
and yet, the NNPP is still here and still sustaining the engine rooms with adequate (or better) personnel,...