USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

Windows 2000 doesn't bother me at all. A lot of Hospitals and businesses still use it. The OS is just the platform their bread and butter software runs on. If the navy brass wasn't so interested in awarding huge contracts for custom software development, they could go out and buy a Garmin chart plotter and a few chart packages. Carry some spare units and have multiple units running on the bridge. Real simple. Real cost effective. Might even save some lives. Even a weekend warrior pleasure boater could step aboard and navigate the ship.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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".

At SUNY Maritime the deckies spent most of their time chipping paint and the engineers spent most of their time wiping oil. And SUNY Maritime is considered the best Maritime college and the graduates have the highest starting salaries of ANY COLLEGE IN THE USA

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

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.

Not so sure about the USN, but RN / RCN / RAN all consider shiphandling to be an important skill. And one of the standard texts is Crenshaw's Naval Shiphandling, I'd lean towards the US at least having it on one of the CDs in the box.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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".

Having the skills and having the paperwork are two different things...

Yes.... in my later years we had to jump through those hoops but that had nothing to do with knowing your job and how to do it...

A bit like Elfin Safety... and needing paperwork before you can climb a ladder...

Its not that hard... mind you I have sailed with more than a few with all the fancy new paperwork who DNHAFC....

Having any qualification... at sea, ashore , or on the dark side of the moon.... simply means that you have met the minimum criteria... doesn't mean you are real bright...or even average bright... maybe not dim .. but...

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Not so sure about the USN, but RN / RCN / RAN all consider shiphandling to be an important skill. And one of the standard texts is Crenshaw's Naval Shiphandling, I'd lean towards the US at least having it on one of the CDs in the box.

The Navys new destroyer was designed overseas. I don't remember where but it has proved to be fatally flawed. I pass by Bath Maine on my way to sailing every summer and see it being built. Year after year I'd go by and see little progress. The US no longer has the ability to design ships and little ability to make them. I hope the Russians have as much trouble as the USA and allies.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Having the skills and having the paperwork are two different things...

Yes.... in my later years we had to jump through those hoops but that had nothing to do with knowing your job and how to do it...

A bit like Elfin Safety... and needing paperwork before you can climb a ladder...

Its not that hard... mind you I have sailed with more than a few with all the fancy new paperwork who DNHAFC....

Having any qualification... at sea, ashore , or on the dark side of the moon.... simply means that you have met the minimum criteria... doesn't mean you are real bright...or even average bright... maybe not dim .. but...

Nailed it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Having the skills and having the paperwork are two different things...

Yes.... in my later years we had to jump through those hoops but that had nothing to do with knowing your job and how to do it...

A bit like Elfin Safety... and needing paperwork before you can climb a ladder...

Its not that hard... mind you I have sailed with more than a few with all the fancy new paperwork who DNHAFC....

Having any qualification... at sea, ashore , or on the dark side of the moon.... simply means that you have met the minimum criteria... doesn't mean you are real bright...or even average bright... maybe not dim .. but...

OK, sure, but that's a somewhat trivial observation -- you can get a diploma or qualification in just about any field, by cramming or otherwise doing something besides actually mastering the material. So what?


As an aside -- I did some teaching in European universities -- unlike in American ones, you get to give oral exams. A vastly more effective way to separate those who actually achieved some real knowledge and understanding, from those who cram and fake it.



So are you saying with all this, that in your view, it's perfectly fine to train deck officers in the USN, by sending them home with a box full of DVD's? Or deck officers in the merchant marine? Then turning them loose? Surely not.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The Navys new destroyer was designed overseas. I don't remember where but it has proved to be fatally flawed. I pass by Bath Maine on my way to sailing every summer and see it being built. Year after year I'd go by and see little progress. The US no longer has the ability to design ships and little ability to make them. I hope the Russians have as much trouble as the USA and allies.

Perhaps that’s because the Navy does not consider most surface ships as critical to winning the next Armageddon war. Aircraft carriers and submarines are where they put the best and brighter. Notwithstanding the recent fiasco with the magnetic “rail gun” catapult on the latest carrier.

Surface ships are about supporting operations. Carriers and boomers are about crushing enemies with overwhelming force.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Perhaps that’s because the Navy does not consider most surface ships as critical to winning the next Armageddon war. Aircraft carriers and submarines are where they put the best and brighter. Notwithstanding the recent fiasco with the magnetic “rail gun” catapult on the latest carrier.

Surface ships are about supporting operations. Carriers and boomers are about crushing enemies with overwhelming force.

The Zumwalt class destroyers are designed by General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman, the same -- American -- shops which design our aircraft carriers and indeed many of our high performance aircraft. There are some foreign subcontractors, chief among which is BAE Systems, which designed and builds the excellent British Type 45 destroyer. A premier design team by any measure.



The development process has been difficult not because of any faults of the designers, but because DOD and Congress can't agree, or even make up their minds separately, what the correct balance of cost vs. capabilities of the vessel are, which is not an uncommon problem with very expensive and revolutionary weapons systems (about $4 billion per copy). It's a procurement process issue, not a design issue.



But I have no idea what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Yes, we spend far too much on "defense", and yes, the fundamental mission of our military has not been rationally defined -- to dominate the entire world by force? Come on . . . But don't blame ship designers for that, or even the U.S. military itself. It's the politicians that set the goals.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Zumwalt class destroyers are designed by General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman, the same -- American -- shops which design our aircraft carriers and indeed many of our high performance aircraft. There are some foreign subcontractors, chief among which is BAE Systems, which designed and builds the excellent British Type 45 destroyer. A premier design team by any measure.



The development process has been difficult not because of any faults of the designers, but because DOD and Congress can't agree, or even make up their minds separately, what the correct balance of cost vs. capabilities of the vessel are, which is not an uncommon problem with very expensive and revolutionary weapons systems (about $4 billion per copy). It's a procurement process issue, not a design issue.



But I have no idea what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Yes, we spend far too much on "defense", and yes, the fundamental mission of our military has not been rationally defined -- to dominate the entire world by force? Come on . . . But don't blame ship designers for that, or even the U.S. military itself. It's the politicians that set the goals.

Looks like you drank the cool-aid. It's wasn't designed by an american company. It will submarine a sink itself if driven into 12' head seas. It's power plant is questionable. It's not the fault of Congress. The Navy personnel were more concerned with feathering their own nest than providing for our national security. You say it was designed by TWO companies. Spread the responsibility and tangle a web they can't figure out themselves. I guess it makes for more kickback opportunities. The link to this thread is that the Navy can't do anything right and is totally incompetent.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...ttleship-35172

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-problem-41807

Navy's Revamped Stealth Destroyer Looks Less Stealthy As It Leaves San Diego For Trials - The Drive

[TrentePieds]

This thread has now evolved into a discussion about US politics, a topic that lies far, far outside the compass of this forum, and a topic from which a yachtsman can learn nothing about practical shiphandling. A number of observations have been made along the way by people who manifestly do know how to handle a ship, and for that we must all be grateful. It is my view, nevertheless, that we are well past the point of diminishing returns in that respect. I am therefore closing the thread.

Should participants in the current discussion wish to confine themselves to PRACTICAL SHIP HANDLING, we can reopen the thread, or, should a sharpened focus be considered desirable, someone can start a new thread.

TrentePieds

[El Pinguino]

"Originally Posted by El Pinguino
Having the skills and having the paperwork are two different things...

Yes.... in my later years we had to jump through those hoops but that had nothing to do with knowing your job and how to do it...

A bit like Elfin Safety... and needing paperwork before you can climb a ladder...

Its not that hard... mind you I have sailed with more than a few with all the fancy new paperwork who DNHAFC....

Having any qualification... at sea, ashore , or on the dark side of the moon.... simply means that you have met the minimum criteria... doesn't mean you are real bright...or even average bright... maybe not dim .. but...
Dockhead's reply...
OK, sure, but that's a somewhat trivial observation -- you can get a diploma or qualification in just about any field, by cramming or otherwise doing something besides actually mastering the material. So what?


As an aside -- I did some teaching in European universities -- unlike in American ones, you get to give oral exams. A vastly more effective way to separate those who actually achieved some real knowledge and understanding, from those who cram and fake it.



So are you saying with all this, that in your view, it's perfectly fine to train deck officers in the USN, by sending them home with a box full of DVD's? Or deck officers in the merchant marine? Then turning them loose? Surely not.'


I must say I am quite unsure what you thought I was trivialising... that is essentially how the entire British Merchant Navy was trained .. back when they had one....
I was with one of the better liner companies.... my final year as a cadet was spent as junior watchkeeper.

So what? a person can have studied for years and still just scrape through..

And at no time did I suggest sending USN people home with a box full of DVDs... don't know where you got that idea.

One thing I find of interest in the above is that you appear to be unaware of the role of 'Orals' in the British system... you appear to know everything else.

'Writtens' involving ship stability, principles of navigation, chartwork etc involved a pass rate - depending on the paper - of anywhere between 70% and 100%.

'Orals' was quite different, one on one with the examiner and anything from 30 minutes to several hours....
Practical compass work involving adjusting a real compass..in a binnacle... on casters, buoyage, demonstrating a good understanding of seamanship based on the type of ships you had been serving on.... explaining how you would rig a heavy lift derrick for instance.

Then there was 'the rules'...... one mistake and you were out the door... no multi choice questions....

What would you do, why would you do it and what rule applies....show any sign of weakness and you would really be in for it.... that is where the 'several hours' would come into play...

All those winky wanky course out there these days.... could be fun to go on esp if a trip overseas was involved. But for ship handling ... forget it...

Carry on, chaps!

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

"Originally Posted by El Pinguino
Having the skills and having the paperwork are two different things...

Yes.... in my later years we had to jump through those hoops but that had nothing to do with knowing your job and how to do it...

A bit like Elfin Safety... and needing paperwork before you can climb a ladder...

Its not that hard... mind you I have sailed with more than a few with all the fancy new paperwork who DNHAFC....

Having any qualification... at sea, ashore , or on the dark side of the moon.... simply means that you have met the minimum criteria... doesn't mean you are real bright...or even average bright... maybe not dim .. but...
Dockhead's reply...
OK, sure, but that's a somewhat trivial observation -- you can get a diploma or qualification in just about any field, by cramming or otherwise doing something besides actually mastering the material. So what?


As an aside -- I did some teaching in European universities -- unlike in American ones, you get to give oral exams. A vastly more effective way to separate those who actually achieved some real knowledge and understanding, from those who cram and fake it.



So are you saying with all this, that in your view, it's perfectly fine to train deck officers in the USN, by sending them home with a box full of DVD's? Or deck officers in the merchant marine? Then turning them loose? Surely not.'


I must say I am quite unsure what you thought I was trivialising... that is essentially how the entire British Merchant Navy was trained .. back when they had one....
I was with one of the better liner companies.... my final year as a cadet was spent as junior watchkeeper.

So what? a person can have studied for years and still just scrape through..

And at no time did I suggest sending USN people home with a box full of DVDs... don't know where you got that idea.

One thing I find of interest in the above is that you appear to be unaware of the role of 'Orals' in the British system... you appear to know everything else.

'Writtens' involving ship stability, principles of navigation, chartwork etc involved a pass rate - depending on the paper - of anywhere between 70% and 100%.

'Orals' was quite different, one on one with the examiner and anything from 30 minutes to several hours....
Practical compass work involving adjusting a real compass..in a binnacle... on casters, buoyage, demonstrating a good understanding of seamanship based on the type of ships you had been serving on.... explaining how you would rig a heavy lift derrick for instance.

Then there was 'the rules'...... one mistake and you were out the door... no multi choice questions....

What would you do, why would you do it and what rule applies....show any sign of weakness and you would really be in for it.... that is where the 'several hours' would come into play...

All those winky wanky course out there these days.... could be fun to go on esp if a trip overseas was involved. But for ship handling ... forget it...

Carry on, chaps!

Well you must be an old fart and predate STCW 78 as well, I might as well keep drifting.

Bugger never asked me a single question about ships I’d sailed on.
The question which sticks in my mind

“Well Jack, tanker man ehh, no point asking you about them” “what can you tell me about grain cargoes” ?
After about 10 minutes.
I mumbled something about putting stuff in the bilges.

He woke up a bit, and yelled st me “ stuff, stuff, what stuff, why would you put stuff in the bilges”?
I hadn’t a clue what it was or why you would put anything in the bilges or what it would be.
So he asked, “what Might be in the bilges”?
I eventually figured out water and it might go stagnet.

“So stagnet water in the bilges, why do you think you would put stuff in bilges”?

I still,hadn’t a clue, but I came up with some inspiration and told him.

“To stop mosquitoes breading and spreading malaria”

At which point he just about passed out laughing at me.
He told me it’s was the worst and most stupid answer from any candidate in his entire carear as an examiner.
What He found it really funny, he couldn’t tell me I was wrong even though he had never heard of a single case of malaria ever being caused by mosquitoes in the bilges.

When he quite laughing he asked if new even one single thing about grain cargoes. I admitted I didn’t.
So he asked how could I find out. Probably in the code for loading gr@in cargoes..

He gave me a 2nd Mate cert anyway, wished me luck told me stay on tankers and away from cargoe ships.
It’s in a drawer somewhere, CPE lapsed long ago. Long before GPS or AIS was invented. When Radars came with colouring pencils

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

Well you must be an old fart and predate STCW 78 as well, :

Bugger never asked me a single question about ships I’d sailed on.

Masters in 72 ( I think) ...

Examiner for 2nd Mates...'Clan Line eh? How big was the Jumbo on your last ship?'

Me ' 5 tons'

Clan Line - as you no doubt know- was well known for heavy lift ... as I recall up to 150 or 180 ton...used to take almost a full day to rig one...often for one lift ... but my last ship had been one of their new reefers.....

'Oh...' Sez he ' That's going to upset more than a few of the other examiners...'

Can't recall where we went after that..... but I'm glad he never asked me about grain. I recall once after carrying some grain like cargo in a single hold having to go and open up the bilges... had been 'sealed' with burlap to stop grain getting in and blocking the strum boxes.... thats the limit of my knowledge.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

At SUNY Maritime the deckies spent most of their time chipping paint and the engineers spent most of their time wiping oil. And SUNY Maritime is considered the best Maritime college and the graduates have the highest starting salaries of ANY COLLEGE IN THE USA

What is your affiliation with SUNY Maritime? If this is true, I don't thing the students are getting their money's worth. Doesn't say much for the quality of American merchant sailors, either.