Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in... - 6/6/2018 6:41:46 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1073
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
Thought this was interesting and perhaps some of you that were/are in the service can shed more light.

Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship

Link: CLICK HERE

quote:

A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.


Post #: 1
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/6/2018 7:46:30 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 1851
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Is it realistic to expect freshly minted officers to perform flawlessly without building up practical experience?

I ask as a serious question; I knew a guy who was involved with the psychology of ships bridges, and what I took away from him is that more often than not it was information overload that cause problems.

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 2
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/6/2018 8:49:57 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 11423
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Is it realistic to expect freshly minted officers to perform flawlessly without building up practical experience?

I ask as a serious question; I knew a guy who was involved with the psychology of ships bridges, and what I took away from him is that more often than not it was information overload that cause problems.

The airline industry learned that lesson many times over and has a very strict regime of cockpit discipline and crew communication during take-offs and landings. Anyone can pull off a routine procedure they have been trained for and practiced many times but handling an exception in the routine should be practiced many times in the simulators. The primary job will always be controlling the ship or aircraft rather than troubleshooting a glitch.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:21:30 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
Affirmative action in action

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 5:43:41 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 5
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 8:42:49 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23918
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: online
Hi all,

Yep... this links with may last post about the two incidents in 2017:

"Semi OT: Accident reports released in USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain collisions"

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4369691


https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/11/01/navy-crews-at-fault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/

quote:


Navy crews at fault in fatal collisions, investigations find

By: David B. Larter

Accident reports released in USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain collisions


WASHINGTON — Two accidents that claimed the lives of 17 sailors and wounded dozens more resulted from complete breakdowns in standard Navy procedures and poor decision-making by officers and sailors on the bridge of the two warships, according to a Navy report obtained by Defense News.

The Navy plans to release on Wednesday its first official report on the specific causes of the two unrelated collisions this summer when both the destroyers Fitzgerald and John S. McCain struck commercial vessels in crowded sea lanes in the Pacific.

The report reveals that both collisions came after critical failures of officers and sailors on the bridge and raises troubling questions about the basic proficiency of the Japan-based 7th Fleet and the surface Navy as a whole.

In both incidents, sailors on the bridge failed to sound a ship-wide alarm notifying the crew of danger, which is a standard Navy procedure.

Ships at sea must sound five short blasts of the ship’s whistle to alert the crew and the other ship of a coming collision. That did not occur in either collision. Neither the crew members below deck nor the other ships involved had any warning from the Navy that their ships were headed for disaster, the reports found.

Also, neither bridge’s watch standers sought to make bridge-to-bridge radio communication with the approaching ship, which is also a standard Navy procedure.

Yet the specific failures that led to the collisions on each ship were unique.


The June 17 collision between the Fitzgerald and the motor vessel ACX Crystal off the coast of Japan was the result of a complete failure of safeguards put in place to prevent at-sea accidents, as well as clear violations of standing orders to inform the commanding officer when approaching ships pose a safety risk.

The McCain’s Aug. 21 collision with the oil and chemical tanker Alnic MC near the Strait of Malacca appeared to be the result of a series of mistakes by the ship’s bridge watch-standers and heavy risks assumed by the commanding officer in a busy shipping lane.

The reports issued to the public, while incomplete, put to rest a parade of wild theories that arose in the wake of the shocking accidents, which assigned responsibility for the incidents to everything from terrorism to Chinese or Russian cyber attacks.


The reports also shed new light on the full extent of the damage sustained by the destroyers, with no fewer than 14 spaces, lockers and escape trunks on McCain flooding completely, and 17 on Fitzgerald.

In the case of Fitzgerald, the officer of the deck failed to notify the ship’s captain that the destroyer was closing with the Crystal despite standing orders requiring it. On McCain, the captain was present on the bridge the whole time.

Both ships lost track of their situations completely, said Capt. Rick Hoffman, a retired cruiser captain who reviewed the documents for Defense News.

“The thing that stood out to me was in both situations they had minimal situational awareness,” said Hoffman. “In the case of Fitzgerald, nearly criminal negligence on the part of the bridge watch team. And in neither case did the ship sound five short blasts or raise the general alarm to let anyone know they were in danger.”

The Navy did not release the full investigations but only a summary of the findings, citing ongoing legal proceedings. The collisions led to the relief of both commanding officers and several other crew members, as well as the destroyer squadron commander, the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group commander and the 7th Fleet Commander.

It was the first time a numbered fleet commander has been relieved since World War II.

The Navy tasked Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Phil Davidson with conducting a wide-reaching review of operations in 7th Fleet and the surface Navy more broadly. A 33-member panel conducted the review and the results are set to be rolled out later this week.

Davidson is set to recommend an admiral be appointed to oversee the implementation of his recommendations, according to a copy of the endorsement letter obtained by Defense News.


Fitzgerald

The probes into Fitzgerald and McCain discovered two very different sets of conditions with a common outcome.

As the Fitzgerald sailed into the busy waters near Japan it cut through a channel with specific rules for navigation known as a a traffic separation scheme. The ship did not have the navigation patterns on its charts and repeatedly drove across the bow of ships exiting the channel.

The Fitzgerald’s commanding officer was in his cabin prior to the collision, which took place at 1:30 a.m. The report documents numerous mistakes made by the officer of the deck, who is the main officer in charge of safe navigation while on watch.

At one point, the Fitz crossed the bow of an oncoming merchant ship at a range of less than 650 yards — fewer than four ship-lengths — but the officer of the deck never informed the captain, a violation of standing orders that requires the skipper to be summoned to help oversee hazardous conditions.

The CO, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, did not know the ship was headed for a collision until the bow of the ACX Crystal punched into his stateroom. He was ultimately rescued by crew-members as he clung to the outside of the ship. He had been in command for less than a month.

Also, at no point prior to the collision did the officer of the deck attempt to make contact with the Crystal on bridge-to-bridge radio, nor did the OOD try to maneuver to avoid Crystal until only a minute before the collision.

Meanwhile, down in the Fitzgerald’s combat information center, which displays inputs from the ship’s weapons systems and radars, the watch standers there failed to “tune and adjust their radars to maintain an accurate picture of other ships in the area,” the report found. That means CIC failed to track the multiple ships exiting the channel.

The Fitzgerald’s watch-standers also failed to use the Automated Identification System, a publicly accessible computer program that provides real-time updates on the location and speed of merchant ships in the area.

Fitzgerald’s lookouts failed as well, with the investigation indicating the sailor or sailors assigned to look out for hazards were literally looking the other way the whole time.

“Watch-standers performing lookout duties did so only on Fitzgerald’s port side, not on the starboard side where the three ships were present with the risk of collision,” the report reads.

The report also found that crew fatigue was likely a factor because the ship had a full day of inspections and qualifications prior to the accident.

With no warning, sailors below deck at the time of the collision had between 30 and 60 seconds to evacuate the rapidly flooding berthing. Some were jarred awake by seawater flooding their bunks.

Seven sailors died on Fitzgerald, all of them in and around the flooded berthing compartments.


McCain

The complete breakdown in Navy norms on Fitzgerald stands in sharp relief to the accident on McCain, where the commanding officer presided over the whole incident.

It was just before dawn when the McCain headed into the Strait of Malacca, one of the busiest waterways in the world. The ship’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Alfredo Sanchez, had been on the bridge overseeing navigation in the heavily trafficked area near Singapore for more than four hours when the accident occurred at 5:23 a.m.

The failures on McCain began hours before accident.

Sanchez had decided to give his crew some extra rest and delayed orders putting his crew on what is known as sea and anchor detail, which requires more sailors and puts the ship at a higher state of readiness. That includes a bulked up navigation team, a full suite of lookouts and a master ship driver on the bridge.

Sanchez ordered the crew to set sea and anchor detail at 6 a.m. instead of an hour prior, when the ship entered the shipping lane heading into the Strait of Malacca. The ship’s operations officer, executive office and navigator had all recommended the ship set sea and anchor at 5 a.m. for safety reasons.

The critical failure came when the current was pushing the ship left and Sanchez noticed the helmsman — usually a junior sailor charged controlling the ship’s steering and speed when ordered by the officer of the deck or conning officer — was having trouble keeping the ship on course.

The master helmsman who would perform these tasks during a sea and anchor detail was still in the chow line at the time.

At 5:20 a.m., Sanchez ordered a second watch-stander to help run the controls to steer the ship, letting the helmsman keep control of the rudder while giving the second watch-stander control of the speed and position of the ship’s two propellers — a position known as the lee helm.

Putting two sailors at the separate positions required changing the ship’s steering configuration and shifting control of engine propeller speed to another part of control console.

But changing the control mechanisms immediately led to confusion because they mistakenly shifted all of the controls — both rudder and engine speed — to the second console.

As a result, the helmsman could no longer control the steering. He initially believed he had lost steering due to a mechanical failure, when in fact, he was just confused about the configuration of the equipment.

Four minutes before the collision, confusion began to run wild on the bridge while watch-standers attempted to fix a nonexistent loss of steering.

Complicating the situation further, changing in steering configurations forced the rudder to revert to a center line position, releasing the previous position that was set to the right between one and four degrees to fight the current that was pushing the ship left.

With the rudder unintentionally set to center line, the current continued to push the ship left of track.

During the confusion, when the bridge thought they had lost control of steering, the commanding officer ordered the engine to slow the ship’s speed from 20 knots to five. But the sailor at the console controlling the speed of the two propellers only slowed the port shaft to five knots, while the starboard shaft was still turning at 20 knots, abruptly pushing the ship sharply to the left and into the track of the Alnic MC for more than a minute.

An officer on the bridge ordered the steering controls to be shifted to a space near the rear of the ship that can also control steering, known as aft steering. But that was not yet manned due to Sanchez’s decision to man sea and anchor at 6 instead of 5 a.m.

The McCain’s steering configuration was changed five times in the roughly three minutes before the collision, according to the Navy report.

By the time the aft steering was manned and the sailor on the bridge fixed the speed issue that was forcing McCain left of track, it was too late.



Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 11:24:01 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1500
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Wow! That was some serious screw up on McCain. But I wonder, what most of the crew was doing on both of those ships. Playing cards?

Isn't it strange, that both destroyers operated alone? I thought they always had to be part of Battle Group. That is main difference between modern Cruiser, and Destroyer, as they are like 300 tons, and 10 meters more, in size comparison.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 7
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 2:37:00 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 8
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 3:08:18 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2977
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

OH YES. I've been hearing horror stories about the Navy for years. And I've mentioned it in other posts on this forum.

To openly discuss the problems would probably upset people and get this thread locked.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 9
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 3:20:11 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

If not, what you posted basically amounts to "affirmatively seeking to increase the ethnic diversity of the Navy [which to my knowledge is not even a policy; affirmative action typically refers to admissions practices in the education sector] is why the Navy is having trouble with basic seamanship - not any structural issue with the Navy's training or anything like that." This has offensive (and untrue) racial implications.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


OH YES. I've been hearing horror stories about the Navy for years. And I've mentioned it in other posts on this forum.

To openly discuss the problems would probably upset people and get this thread locked.


This would imply that the problem is more in policy and procedure.

I don't think that civilly discussing it would get the thread locked, I say go for it - 'cause I wanna read about it.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 10
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:00:22 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
Take a look at what Apollo 11 posted.

Now, if it isn't a personnel problem, which it is, than it is either equipment failure-I don't see that as the problem-or the Navy has forgotten how to teach basic seamanship.

So is teaching basic seamanship a lost art like the chemical formula or composition for Greek Fire or all the supposed great teachings and knowledge of Atlantis?

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 11
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:30:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
I seriously doubt that all those officers were incapable of learning and honing the skills they were supposed to master.

It's a leadership problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 12
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:44:59 PM   
Sigma8510

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 4/15/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a former Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.

< Message edited by Sigma8510 -- 6/7/2018 4:50:12 PM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 13
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:50:20 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a formal Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.

Good for you and thank goodness for people like you.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sigma8510)
Post #: 14
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:50:51 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a formal Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


Okay, so you've told me I was wrong, now tell me why the USN can't teach basic seamanship.

(in reply to Sigma8510)
Post #: 15
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 4:56:36 PM   
Sigma8510

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 4/15/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a former Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


Okay, so you've told me I was wrong, now tell me why the USN can't teach basic seamanship.

I made no determination if you were right or wrong. And I will not engage in a discussion of what current naval leadership has as a challenge to address. My comment was towards the implications of what you were inferring with respect to “affirmative action”. With that said, I will leave this conversation.

< Message edited by Sigma8510 -- 6/7/2018 4:57:27 PM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 16
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 5:27:40 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a formal Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


Okay, so you've told me I was wrong, now tell me why the USN can't teach basic seamanship.

I jumped in already and I will do so one more time with this: It's not "can't" it's "hasn't". There is no way they lack the human capital to get that job done. They face many challenges and conflicting priorities. I am 100% sure it isn't easy. By whatever mechanism they have drifted away from a core competency.

It's a leadership problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 17
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 6:15:06 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a formal Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


Okay, so you've told me I was wrong, now tell me why the USN can't teach basic seamanship.

I jumped in already and I will do so one more time with this: It's not "can't" it's "hasn't". There is no way they lack the human capital to get that job done. They face many challenges and conflicting priorities. I am 100% sure it isn't easy. By whatever mechanism they have drifted away from a core competency.

It's a leadership problem.


Can you elaborate on this "leadership" problem? Leaders are made up of people, many, if not all, are willing to give their lives for you and I.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 18
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 6:40:33 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Take a look at what Apollo 11 posted.

Now, if it isn't a personnel problem, which it is, than it is either equipment failure-I don't see that as the problem-or the Navy has forgotten how to teach basic seamanship.

So is teaching basic seamanship a lost art like the chemical formula or composition for Greek Fire or all the supposed great teachings and knowledge of Atlantis?


But personnel problem is not related to affirmative action. A personnel problem means they're either not good at assigning people to the right jobs, or training people for their jobs, or both.

A problem with affirmative action would imply that there is a racial/ethnic superiority/inferiority at play, which is what I am taking issue with. I think you probably did not mean to say that, but that is the meaning of what you said.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 19
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 6:43:35 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a formal Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


Okay, so you've told me I was wrong, now tell me why the USN can't teach basic seamanship.

I jumped in already and I will do so one more time with this: It's not "can't" it's "hasn't". There is no way they lack the human capital to get that job done. They face many challenges and conflicting priorities. I am 100% sure it isn't easy. By whatever mechanism they have drifted away from a core competency.

It's a leadership problem.


Can you elaborate on this "leadership" problem? Leaders are made up of people, many, if not all, are willing to give their lives for you and I.

"leadership" = US Navy leadership. Being "willing to give their lives for you and I" does not make them immune from criticism and most certainly does NOT in any way, shape or form reinforce your very amorphous claim that the problem is "Affirmative action in action". No matter who you are or what you have done your claim does not have merit. Your claim is vague yet you want any who disagree to give you chapter and verse details.

Various levels of US Navy leadership have made decisions regarding priorities and standards which clearly have yielded a bad situation. No matter why or the situations in which they made those decisions that is the root of it and the only place where it can be solved. It is up to the US Navy leadership to identify the specific decisions, situations, pressures involved and so on. That is very obvious and, as I already pointed out, it is not easy. I do not envy them the situations they had to deal with which got them to the present situation or what they must now do to fix it. But the plain fact is Navy leadership messed up and now they have to fix it. I have every confidence they are not being distracted by claims like affirmative action being to blame.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 20
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 6:44:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
And: I am out of this thread.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 8:43:26 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
Sorry, USN officers Kara Hultgreen was killed due to affirmative action. I know you all know who she was. If you don't, google her name and see what a travesty it was to promoter her to Flight Officer.

Waving your hands and declaring me wrong when we know I'm correct doesn't change anything.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/7/2018 8:56:36 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

And: I am out of this thread.

+1 And so am I.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 23
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/8/2018 2:18:20 PM   
bobdina

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline
Can't be bothered either, I have much better things to do then read this drivel.

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 24
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/8/2018 3:31:39 PM   
wegman58

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 12/28/2013
From: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)
Status: offline
At 1:30 in the morning, they would be sleeping. Getting ready (or sleeping) at 5 am, I think I remember reveille at 6 am, but it's been 40 years since I was shipboard.

And you do NOT stint on Sea and Anchor detail - long and tiring - yes, but...

And don't they have the 'Collision Alarm' any more?

Scariest shipboard moment was, "Bos'n, stand by the collision alarm." I was on an ammo ship, we had an aircraft carrier to port and a frigate botched the approach on the starboard side. WAY too close to comfort, we could see the looks on the faces of the frigate's bridge crew.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 25
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/8/2018 4:31:00 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Sorry, USN officers Kara Hultgreen was killed due to affirmative action. I know you all know who she was. If you don't, google her name and see what a travesty it was to promoter her to Flight Officer.

Waving your hands and declaring me wrong when we know I'm correct doesn't change anything.


...

I'm sorry (am I?), but you're not correct. You are dead wrong. Assuming that's your sincere belief (), and knowing what I do about how humans work, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time explaining why because you'll just "wave your hands" and continue on.

Thanks for the glimpse of your character, it's always good to know who I'm talking with.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 26
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/8/2018 5:00:42 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Sorry, USN officers Kara Hultgreen was killed due to affirmative action. I know you all know who she was. If you don't, google her name and see what a travesty it was to promoter her to Flight Officer.

Waving your hands and declaring me wrong when we know I'm correct doesn't change anything.


...

I'm sorry (am I?), but you're not correct. You are dead wrong. Assuming that's your sincere belief (), and knowing what I do about how humans work, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time explaining why because you'll just "wave your hands" and continue on.

Thanks for the glimpse of your character, it's always good to know who I'm talking with.



Right back at you. The feeling is mutual.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 27
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/8/2018 11:46:45 PM   
jamesjohns

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 12/2/2013
Status: offline
To Rusty1961

I just had to comment about the affirmative action post you made.

First, there are plenty of other places on internet to discuss political view points. Let’s try to keep politics out of this board; it would ruin a wonderful message board. I am all for debating P51 vs P47, what would have happened if Japan invaded New Zealand, or was Douglas McArthur over or under rated? We are united by our enjoyment of an amazing game with WITPAE and lets keep it to that.

Second, I am curious about your own military experience, if you have served wondering what branch, years you where in and positions? Although I was not in the Navy, I did serve as an Infantry and Cav Enlisted and Officer for 20 years from mid 80’s to mid 00’s. I had the privillage of working with and leading people from all different backgrounds from around the US and other countries. I never felt I was judged on anything other than my ability to do the job assigned me. Having been in command positions, affirmative action was never considered when selecting people for tasks, promotions or awards. It was can they do the job and how good are they at it.




(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 28
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 12:13:52 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4249
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a former Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


If you needed affirmative action to reach the position you have then you are no good enough for (any) navy in that position.
I have no doubt that so called "afirmative action" which is discrimination and will never end because it gives political media power has much to due with current state of the US Navy, It made it much more political, that means that officers of political bent being promoted, people that essentially care about status and appearances. I just needed to see US male sailors on women high heels to know where the service was going on and what were sizeable part its priorities.

(in reply to Sigma8510)
Post #: 29
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 1:32:39 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 23648
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigma8510

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Affirmative action in action


What has that got to do with it?



Everything.

As a former Navy Surface Warfare Officer with 26 years of service to our country, I take great offense at what you are implying. Not to mention the fact that I probably meet your criteria for being a part of “affirmative action”. Your comments speak volumes on your level of respect for all who serve, regardless of race, creed, or color. Lucky for you, most service members would give their life to protect your freedoms.


If you needed affirmative action to reach the position you have then you are no good enough for (any) navy in that position.
I have no doubt that so called "afirmative action" which is discrimination and will never end because it gives political media power has much to due with current state of the US Navy, It made it much more political, that means that officers of political bent being promoted, people that essentially care about status and appearances. I just needed to see US male sailors on women high heels to know where the service was going on and what were sizeable part its priorities.

He did *not* say he "needed affirmative action" to reach anything; it was an oblique was of saying he is a member of a minority population.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152