USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Maybe the recent spate of drunk flying incidents are former Air Force - I'm still curious why you rate the Air Force so well?

Nope, I wasn't in the Air Force. I rate the Air Force so high because if you screw up flying you crash and burn. In the Navy you just hide under the bureaucracy. Darwinism. It ensures a minimum level of competency.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Paul L

By Defense Industry I meant Boeing, Lockheed, etc. They do pay well.

Ah, civilian Defence Industry, understood.....

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It may have posted before, but this article gives some insight into what is wrong with the USN's watchkeepers:

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...ure-in-crisis/

Interesting I was wondering what a SWOS in a box was or is. Heck I was wondering what a SWAS is.

It does look like they go back to the drawing board for a fundamental rethink.

Some dumb ass like me would have thought navigating ships was a basic navy function.
Even realizing there are many “Naval trades or professions which are not ship driving”

Ship board training can be very good, or not. if you are lucky and the culture already exists. If the culture doesn’t exist already it’s not going to work well until you create the culture which takes a long time.
Without an established culture training is likely to be very inconsistent.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...ure-in-crisis/

Mostly smoke. If the officers didn't learn what they needed at the Naval Academy they're not going to learn it in another class. If they need to be spoon fed basic and simple skills they aren't fit for duty. They need professionals that can take the initiative to gain the skills they need to do an exceptional job. Why does the Navy feel they need a "merit badge" and associated training for the most basic of skills? Leave it to the Navy to take advantage of a tragedy to pad an already bloated budget with additional training funding.

The Naval Academy is a university - it is not just SWOs there - but also aviators, engineers, logisticians, and every other officer trade in the Navy and Marines. The actual schooling for navigation, collision avoidance and naval operations is SWOS. Do you think merchant mariners are any different? They must take courses and pass exams, gain qualifications, get work experience at that level, do more schooling and pass more exams, and so forth to move up the ranks.

BTW, I didn't ask if you were in the Air Force. I assumed you had no, or very little, military experience. I wondered why the admiration for an institution that does have a high incidence of crashing and burning, literally and figuratively?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The Naval Academy is a university - it is not just SWOs there - but also aviators, engineers, logisticians, and every other officer trade in the Navy and Marines. The actual schooling for navigation, collision avoidance and naval operations is SWOS. Do you think merchant mariners are any different? They must take courses and pass exams, gain qualifications, get work experience at that level, do more schooling and pass more exams, and so forth to move up the ranks.

BTW, I didn't ask if you were in the Air Force. I assumed you had no, or very little, military experience. I wondered why the admiration for an institution that does have a high incidence of crashing and burning, literally and figuratively?

I'm familiar with the process. It doesn't apply to the navy though. It's like firefighters that are given an exemption to the CDL licensing requirement in private industry and the result is an astronomical accident rate.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The Naval Academy is a university - it is not just SWOs there - but also aviators, engineers, logisticians, and every other officer trade in the Navy and Marines. The actual schooling for navigation, collision avoidance and naval operations is SWOS. Do you think merchant mariners are any different? They must take courses and pass exams, gain qualifications, get work experience at that level, do more schooling and pass more exams, and so forth to move up the ranks.

BTW, I didn't ask if you were in the Air Force. I assumed you had no, or very little, military experience. I wondered why the admiration for an institution that does have a high incidence of crashing and burning, literally and figuratively?

Actually they are in training to become Naval Officers first and the profession is secondary. What is your affiliation with the US military, if any?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I'm familiar with the process. It doesn't apply to the navy though. It's like firefighters that are given an exemption to the CDL licensing requirement in private industry and the result is an astronomical accident rate.

It absolutely applies. They removed the formal seamanship education and replaced it with a bunch of self-study CDs, that they're supposed to teach themselves with in between the regular 100-hr workweek demands.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Actually they are in training to become Naval Officers first and the profession is secondary. What is your affiliation with the US military, if any?

I answered you about that already.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It absolutely applies. They removed the formal seamanship education and replaced it with a bunch of self-study CDs, that they're supposed to teach themselves with in between the regular 100-hr workweek demands.

For a Naval Academy graduate that should be more than sufficient. They are quite a bit above average intelligence and it really doesn't take that much. The Navy is looking for an excuse for Buffy killing sailors so they don't have to put her down. Secondly you have no idea what midshipmen are taught or you wouldn't have made that statement.

I think you know when I said it doesn't apply I meant the Navy doesn't require CG certification for anything. It really was crystal clear. (pun intended)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

For a Naval Academy graduate that should be more than sufficient. . . .it really doesn't take that much. . .

Obviously it is not sufficient.




"It really doesn't take that much" -- to learn to be a competent seaman, to learn navigation and collision avoidance, to learn ship handling? Really?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Obviously it is not sufficient.




"It really doesn't take that much" -- to learn to be a competent seaman, to learn navigation and collision avoidance, to learn ship handling? Really?

It's no substitute for experience and just as importantly aptitude. Maybe if the Navy was required to have 3 merchant mariner masters on board with one on the bridge at all times, things would get better.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.....
"It really doesn't take that much" -- to learn to be a competent seaman, to learn navigation and collision avoidance, to learn ship handling? Really?

Yes, really....

It used to be under 36 months seatime.... much of it spent chipping rust and suji-ing... from going to sea to being a watch keeper... less if you had done 'pre sea'.

Maybe the last 6 months would be spent on watch - making the mate's tea..

Unless of course you were with Bank Line in which case you would be standing your own watch as Uncertificated 3rd Mate at the age of 19 or less ( and the Old Man would get an extra 5 quid a month for watching over you...)

Six weeks at King Ted's , then sit ( and pass ) your 'ticket' down Dock Street, , and you would be unleashed on an unsuspecting world ... standing your own watch.... most probably a few days after your 20th birthday.

I believe it is easier these days.... sigh...

Shiphandling? I suspect your interaction with ships' officers has mainly involved ferrymen.

As a rule only people in the short sea trades and the oil industry do their own shiphandling. Some can pick it up in a week, some never ever will.

Most ship masters and officers simply take her from pilot to pilot.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Obviously it is not sufficient.




"It really doesn't take that much" -- to learn to be a competent seaman, to learn navigation and collision avoidance, to learn ship handling? Really?

Yes. Pleasure boaters with no training or experience, certifications or licensing, operate vessels in much more congested waters without much trouble. A little common sense goes a long way.

I do understand that it can be a long and challenging road to become a quasi competent seaman for some but that's just not the case for everyone. Aptitude is key here, don't try and put a square block in a round hole.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's no substitute for experience and just as importantly aptitude. Maybe if the Navy was required to have 3 merchant mariner masters on board with one on the bridge at all times, things would get better.

Neither experience nor aptitude is enough without training. It takes years, even for a very talented person, to acquire the knowledge and skill required to competently drive a ship.



You can't learn it just by doing it, and certainly not by doing it wrong. So experience without training is useless.




The extent to which the Navy is not taking all this nearly seriously enough, might also be reflected in the fact that the Fitz's "main navigation system", according to the report, was running on some kind of old PC running Windows 2000. Can that be true? And that AIS is being displayed on a -- laptop. A billion dollar warship? It's hard to believe, and perhaps is misreported. Surely there has to be a proper ECDIS on board.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Yes, really....

It used to be under 36 months seatime.... much of it spent chipping rust and suji-ing... from going to sea to being a watch keeper... less if you had done 'pre sea'.

Maybe the last 6 months would be spent on watch - making the mate's tea..

Unless of course you were with Bank Line in which case you would be standing your own watch as Uncertificated 3rd Mate at the age of 19 or less ( and the Old Man would get an extra 5 quid a month for watching over you...)

Six weeks at King Ted's , then sit ( and pass ) your 'ticket' down Dock Street, , and you would be unleashed on an unsuspecting world ... standing your own watch.... most probably a few days after your 20th birthday.

I believe it is easier these days.... sigh...

Shiphandling? I suspect your interaction with ships' officers has mainly involved ferrymen.

As a rule only people in the short sea trades and the oil industry do their own shiphandling. Some can pick it up in a week, some never ever will.

Most ship masters and officers simply take her from pilot to pilot.

Makes one wonder, whether 1 mile minimum CPA is enough . . .





But seriously -- the commercial mariners I know, have been though a lot more than what you describe, including a maritime academy or two, and undergo regular (every 5 years?) retraining and recertification. Maybe the standards are different in different countries, but up here at least, in the First World, you can no longer get an STCW certificate on the basis of sea time alone, and you can't even keep your certification without regular retraining. Getting radar and ARPA certificates is not trivial, and cannot be done without training.



In a nutshell, concerning current STCW requirements: https://www.mptusa.com/pdf/STCW_guide_english.pdf.


A far, far cry from "SWO in a Box".