Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 2:54:57 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
... and there would be no "affirmative action" programs if it were not for the discrimination that held these people down in the first place. It's about re-levelling the playing field but it doesn't seem so great from the point of view of those who formerly had the advantages. No doubt the program will fade away when it is no longer needed.

_____________________________

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 witpqs)
Post #: 31
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 3:07:25 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline
I can't say what happened , I wasn't there. But I DO know , that in the past , when the USN was suffering from shortages (especially MONEY) , training suffered , and was replaced by that old (and horrible) tradition of "gun-decking". It's not unlike the Russians who under the soviet system would say amongst themselves, "as long as you PRETEND to pay us, we will PRETEND to work".


When the pressure becomes extreme , and the Navy is short of everything but criticism , getting the paperwork satisfactory becomes far more important to one's career then the actual condition of the ship, or crew. This is sounding more and more like the 1970's Navy.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 32
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 3:49:38 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4125
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


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.


Everyone is a minority person. Just not designed political minorities. There are no favors for the minorities that like to play wargames like us. Likewise is there affirmative action for ugly persons?
or for socially awkward persons? or Asian persons in USA? or old persons?
No. Not yet. But it would be when political media makes it politically profitable, then turns into a "industry".

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 33
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 4:54:38 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I can't say what happened , I wasn't there. But I DO know , that in the past , when the USN was suffering from shortages (especially MONEY) , training suffered , and was replaced by that old (and horrible) tradition of "gun-decking". It's not unlike the Russians who under the soviet system would say amongst themselves, "as long as you PRETEND to pay us, we will PRETEND to work".


When the pressure becomes extreme , and the Navy is short of everything but criticism , getting the paperwork satisfactory becomes far more important to one's career then the actual condition of the ship, or crew. This is sounding more and more like the 1970's Navy.

Articles about some of the incidents which led up to this latest study pointed out some details about that in the current situation.

As I said, I do not envy them dealing with the pressures which led to this.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 34
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 5:41:54 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10322
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I get "Enter Your Message Here" messages sometimes which are blank. I think this may come from clicking on the "Report" button, but I can't be sure. I got one this evening and I suspect it might be from comments on this thread. Maybe cutting out the talk about affirmative action would be a good idea.

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 35
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 2:51:14 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesjohns

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.






I'm sorry, I'm not the original poster. I'm all for people of every background be allowed to be the best they can be, but to promote someone like Kara Hultgreen to flight officer when she was unqualified is wrong, and deadly. Is that how far down the rabbit hole we've gone when you can't speak the truth???

(in reply to jamesjohns)
Post #: 36
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 2:53:20 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I get "Enter Your Message Here" messages sometimes which are blank. I think this may come from clicking on the "Report" button, but I can't be sure. I got one this evening and I suspect it might be from comments on this thread. Maybe cutting out the talk about affirmative action would be a good idea.


Wait, so I shouldn't mention Kara Hultgreen and her death, which happened, in relation to the OP article???? I think you should take a look at posting off-topic content instead of silencing the truth.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 37
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 3:26:57 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 4297
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I get "Enter Your Message Here" messages sometimes which are blank. I think this may come from clicking on the "Report" button, but I can't be sure. I got one this evening and I suspect it might be from comments on this thread. Maybe cutting out the talk about affirmative action would be a good idea.


Wait, so I shouldn't mention Kara Hultgreen and her death, which happened, in relation to the OP article???? I think you should take a look at posting off-topic content instead of silencing the truth.

Please do not confuse your opinion with 'truth'. They may or may not be the same.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 38
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 8:10:46 PM   
tarkalak

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline
So for the second incident:
1. The moved the controls from one console to another and messed it up without noticing.
2. The second guy wanted to change the speed on both screws but ended up changing only one.

Don't they have indicators for this stuff on their consoles?

This whole thing sounds like a very bad HMI* design of the consoles is a big part of the problem.

*Human-machine interface

_____________________________

We, the capable, led by the clueless, do the impossible for the good of the ungrateful. And we did so much , with so little, in so small time, that we are now qualified to make anything from nothing.

Konstantin Josef Jireček

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 39
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 10:00:06 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline
OK. The question about Kara Hultgreen was right...and wrong. I was a Naval Aircrewman from 1977 till 2001. The period of Hultgreen's accident was one of tremendous competition between the services (especially Navy and Air Force) as to who could field female combat aircrew the fastest. The president , and especially the 1st lady , had made advancing the cause of women in the military to the forefront of his administration. And the services were busting themselves to comply. No real surprise. BUT....., do you recall my previous post about "gun decking?". It was present here too. There was a whole sale rush to beat the "other services" by getting "the 1st female" in each category. ANY female. Women already in the pipeline were "fast tracked" and their training time "compressed" where ever possible. Anything to bet the "other service". A great many instructors and senior mid level officers were afraid that these women were being set up to fail. A great many people feel that "Revlon" Kara Hultgren was one of them. From all accounts a incredibly gifted pilot , who was rushed. And some skills take time to develop, no matter how gifted the student.

Most of the women were already in the pipeline , or had graduated to non-combat aircraft. All they needed was a "transition period" at the RAG (replacement air group) to learn their aircraft , then a year or so as a "nugget" (junior flyer that needed seasoning... and a year or so in the squadron and a cruise would generally do it). I served with many such women NFO's , pilots and aircrew who did great (and I cheerfully would have and still would fly into combat with them). Usually older , experienced women , like their male counterparts would do just fine.

One notable exception were junior enlisted female air crew candidates. A 17 year is never as mature as a 24 year old college graduate. But SAR swimming is a young , strong persons job. And a great many young women were pushed at that job without really considering physical strength , endurance or determination. Admission standards were not enforced and strongly as they should have been. And a great many women were set up to fail.

Later , when slightly older , more seasoned candidates were selected , and given time to build up and prepare for the challenge , they did just fine.


The point is , that was an ugly , unfair period in which scoring in the "battle for the 1st" by people in leadership positions made this period a very , very disgraceful transition. The services SHOULD have done better. And those women who picked up the gauntlet and tried to meet the challenge should be admired. They should have been given a better chance and opportunity. Instead the services "threw them against the wall" and figured if they threw enough some would stick. You don't do that to human beings. Period.



This I think is what some of the postings meant by "affirmative action" run amuck. What they should have said , was "badly, badly administrated.

Sorry if I ruffled feathers. But I honestly felt it need to be said.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to tarkalak)
Post #: 40
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/9/2018 11:26:38 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6181
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
Its not what you say but how you say it, well written Steve.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 41
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 12:18:12 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

Its not what you say but how you say it, well written Steve.



Thanks Jeff. One story about Hultgren that illustrates the respect in which she was held in her community. She was present at that famous Tail hook convention that drew the wrath of the press and Congress. As she was walking toward the "gauntlet" with a male member of her squadron , a inebriated officer came up and grabbed one of her breast. She didn't bat an eyelash , but turned to her friend and asked "hold my beer". She then brought up her knee with great force against the offenders genitals . She looked down as he hit the floor , took back her beer then said to her friend "you were saying?" Pretty much every pilot that heard the story swore that they'd be happy to fly with her, and every enlisted said that they would be proud to salute her. This was were so many female officers whined about feeling "so unempowered".

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 42
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 3:58:44 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

OK. The question about Kara Hultgreen was right...and wrong. I was a Naval Aircrewman from 1977 till 2001. The period of Hultgreen's accident was one of tremendous competition between the services (especially Navy and Air Force) as to who could field female combat aircrew the fastest. The president , and especially the 1st lady , had made advancing the cause of women in the military to the forefront of his administration. And the services were busting themselves to comply. No real surprise. BUT....., do you recall my previous post about "gun decking?". It was present here too. There was a whole sale rush to beat the "other services" by getting "the 1st female" in each category. ANY female. Women already in the pipeline were "fast tracked" and their training time "compressed" where ever possible. Anything to bet the "other service". A great many instructors and senior mid level officers were afraid that these women were being set up to fail. A great many people feel that "Revlon" Kara Hultgren was one of them. From all accounts a incredibly gifted pilot , who was rushed. And some skills take time to develop, no matter how gifted the student.

Most of the women were already in the pipeline , or had graduated to non-combat aircraft. All they needed was a "transition period" at the RAG (replacement air group) to learn their aircraft , then a year or so as a "nugget" (junior flyer that needed seasoning... and a year or so in the squadron and a cruise would generally do it). I served with many such women NFO's , pilots and aircrew who did great (and I cheerfully would have and still would fly into combat with them). Usually older , experienced women , like their male counterparts would do just fine.

One notable exception were junior enlisted female air crew candidates. A 17 year is never as mature as a 24 year old college graduate. But SAR swimming is a young , strong persons job. And a great many young women were pushed at that job without really considering physical strength , endurance or determination. Admission standards were not enforced and strongly as they should have been. And a great many women were set up to fail.

Later , when slightly older , more seasoned candidates were selected , and given time to build up and prepare for the challenge , they did just fine.


The point is , that was an ugly , unfair period in which scoring in the "battle for the 1st" by people in leadership positions made this period a very , very disgraceful transition. The services SHOULD have done better. And those women who picked up the gauntlet and tried to meet the challenge should be admired. They should have been given a better chance and opportunity. Instead the services "threw them against the wall" and figured if they threw enough some would stick. You don't do that to human beings. Period.



This I think is what some of the postings meant by "affirmative action" run amuck. What they should have said , was "badly, badly administrated.

Sorry if I ruffled feathers. But I honestly felt it need to be said.


No, your post makes sense and was informative.

And no, I don't think that's what they meant by "affirmative action" (and what they meant is not even what affirmative action is, anyway). If they meant what you said, they'd have said what you said.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 43
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 3:58:49 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I get "Enter Your Message Here" messages sometimes which are blank. I think this may come from clicking on the "Report" button, but I can't be sure. I got one this evening and I suspect it might be from comments on this thread. Maybe cutting out the talk about affirmative action would be a good idea.


Where do we go to report the report system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


Please do not confuse your opinion with 'truth'. They may or may not be the same.



Opinions aren't truths.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 44
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 4:59:53 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I get "Enter Your Message Here" messages sometimes which are blank. I think this may come from clicking on the "Report" button, but I can't be sure. I got one this evening and I suspect it might be from comments on this thread. Maybe cutting out the talk about affirmative action would be a good idea.


Where do we go to report the report system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


Please do not confuse your opinion with 'truth'. They may or may not be the same.



Opinions aren't truths.

To your first question - use a PM to Bill rather than the Report hypertext.

To your comment - I agree with your opinion!

_____________________________

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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 45
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 6:10:06 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

OK. The question about Kara Hultgreen was right...and wrong. I was a Naval Aircrewman from 1977 till 2001. The period of Hultgreen's accident was one of tremendous competition between the services (especially Navy and Air Force) as to who could field female combat aircrew the fastest. The president , and especially the 1st lady , had made advancing the cause of women in the military to the forefront of his administration. And the services were busting themselves to comply. No real surprise. BUT....., do you recall my previous post about "gun decking?". It was present here too. There was a whole sale rush to beat the "other services" by getting "the 1st female" in each category. ANY female. Women already in the pipeline were "fast tracked" and their training time "compressed" where ever possible. Anything to bet the "other service". A great many instructors and senior mid level officers were afraid that these women were being set up to fail. A great many people feel that "Revlon" Kara Hultgren was one of them. From all accounts a incredibly gifted pilot , who was rushed. And some skills take time to develop, no matter how gifted the student.

Most of the women were already in the pipeline , or had graduated to non-combat aircraft. All they needed was a "transition period" at the RAG (replacement air group) to learn their aircraft , then a year or so as a "nugget" (junior flyer that needed seasoning... and a year or so in the squadron and a cruise would generally do it). I served with many such women NFO's , pilots and aircrew who did great (and I cheerfully would have and still would fly into combat with them). Usually older , experienced women , like their male counterparts would do just fine.

One notable exception were junior enlisted female air crew candidates. A 17 year is never as mature as a 24 year old college graduate. But SAR swimming is a young , strong persons job. And a great many young women were pushed at that job without really considering physical strength , endurance or determination. Admission standards were not enforced and strongly as they should have been. And a great many women were set up to fail.

Later , when slightly older , more seasoned candidates were selected , and given time to build up and prepare for the challenge , they did just fine.


The point is , that was an ugly , unfair period in which scoring in the "battle for the 1st" by people in leadership positions made this period a very , very disgraceful transition. The services SHOULD have done better. And those women who picked up the gauntlet and tried to meet the challenge should be admired. They should have been given a better chance and opportunity. Instead the services "threw them against the wall" and figured if they threw enough some would stick. You don't do that to human beings. Period.



This I think is what some of the postings meant by "affirmative action" run amuck. What they should have said , was "badly, badly administrated.

Sorry if I ruffled feathers. But I honestly felt it need to be said.


No, your post makes sense and was informative.

And no, I don't think that's what they meant by "affirmative action" (and what they meant is not even what affirmative action is, anyway). If they meant what you said, they'd have said what you said.



Like any lawyer would say it depends by who you mean by "they". If you are talking about those who've corresponded with this threat , then the answer is easy...let's ask them. OK you folks out there , what did you mean.


If by "they" you mean the people who saw service during this period and actually lived it and experienced it , I'm afraid but I must strongly disagree with your findings. Slightly short of "you're talking through your hat", but not that short. Because the people of that period didn't suffer through the concept and ideal of "affirmative action" in the military in that era , but a incredibly botched execution. From 1972 till the present , military leaders , like Pavlov's dogs foam and drool at the mouth when they hear "affirmative action". Because they generally don't hear "let's help those who've been disadvantaged in the past advance themselves" , but something that weirdly transforms into "hey , here something that I can use to advance my own career!". (Mel Brooks said it best in "Blazin' Saddles". "Gentlemen , it's time to protect our phoney balony jobs!".

Those who experienced the 1970-1990's in the military , became very jaundiced at the ridiculous programs put forth as "equal opportunity". One of my favorite was introducing "ethnic food". The idea was for every body to "experience other culture"s foods". (In the Navy we already had that , it was called travel and port calls). So some genius introduced "soul food, Asian food , Latin American foods," etc. It was disastrous! People of those cultures were offended , as it bore no resemblance to the "food" they were familiar with. Others were offended as they were being forced to eat things not of their choice. (Someone once told me...a Navy cook, was what we have here is the equivalent of feeding a child peas...and he doesn't like peas...it's no better when he's 18!). It did unify most of the cultures against the government program. And taught us that the US Government was as capable of ruining ethnic food and any other.

Then there were all the mandatory lectures on other cultures. Done by a college or and educator they might have been interesting or well received. After all, part of joining the military is to meet new people, things and ideas. But the government instead said "we've got this" and decided to educate people about people just like they did venereal disease or dental hygiene. With military , mono-tone training films. Another military success! (For those mid level officers who could claim this on their fitness reports!). Once again , revulsion was pretty much universal.

Every day was some new "program" to advance some "social cause". And it went on year after year , with no more success than the previous program . While in reality , the issues were generally being solved by the troops themselves. I recall a Army NCO (a former drill instructor) who told me, "we don't need that crap! When you get in my unit , were are all the same color...GREEN!".


But once again , by forcing people to endure endless "social training", (generally called "Affirmative action") instead of doing mission critical training or work , the programs backfired , as "gundecking" reared it's ugly head. As long as you signed the attendance sheet ( in the Navy it was called the 1600) you fulfilled your responsibility. You then slept, worked on other paper work or if really daring , slipped out the back door when the lights went out. (Savy instructors held the 1600 till AFTER the film or lecture.) Then of course every person was rated on their evaluations or fitness reports under affirmative action. Anything less than perfect was the end of your career. (4.0 , later 5.0). Captains mast (article 15) you could survive. Screw up on behavior , appearance , military knowledge , all were inferior to EOR (equal opportunity remarks) in value. More than once during a 6 year period when I was permanently medically grounded and worked as a Yeoman (clerk) heard the CO or other senior officers contemplating mast or courts martial ask, "yea but how's his EOR scores?". It was that important.




So the point of this rabbling tirade is to make a simple point. Words mean different things to different people. And no where is that truer that between people who've served and those who haven't. Almost as great is between people who've had radically different experiences. EVEN people who have served during DIFFERENT periods. I('ve tried on many occasions to explain to WW2 vets , the point of view of Vietnam vets , and even more 1970's-90 vets to people currently serving or with service in different nation's military. They might as well speak different languages. And as a matter of fact they do.


Many of the 1970-90's vets hear the words "affirmative action" with a gut rolling , nausea surging "oh God no, here it comes again!" In the civilian world of that era , Affirmative action meant changes in the way we hire , educate and basically give a step up to people who have in the past been denied it. In the military it's "you are going to be made to feel guilty for and pay penance for something you never did!" Which creates resentment. Fear. And loathing.

We haven't had race riots in the barracks , cross burning on the carriers or the absolute nastiness of race relations in the military that we had in the 1960's for a long , long time. But it's not because of the "Good idea fairy" programs , it's because we eliminated the draft , required high school education , eliminated choices between prison and military service , and in general significantly improved the quality of those people who are PERMITTED to serve. And there is the difference. But never forget...words have POWER. Respect that power and you'll understand the difference. Any body who says "they should say what they mean" should seriously ask him or herself , "are we speaking the same language?".

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 46
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 6:47:02 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Thanks for the lesson in what was going on in the USA and what came under the umbrella of "affirmative action". When I responded about it, I was talking about a much more limited program here.
For example, one of the initiatives was to get Federal Government Managers (I was one) to think about the criteria they use in running a competition to fill vacancies. It made clear to me that some of the things I valued (like very good command of the English Language) were not fair to minority candidates who did not start out in Canada.
For most jobs I was filling, being plainspoken was good enough and fit in well with their co-workers who were not using university level English. So I amended my criteria to better suit the job, with less emphasis on English requirements. I had no regrets about the people I hired under the changed criteria. In fact the previously disadvantage seemed much more enthusiastic about working than the average Canadian who expected to be hired and promoted in due course.

_____________________________

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 AW1Steve)
Post #: 47
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 7:00:34 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8371
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


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.

We refer to it as "sterile cockpit". There is a very strict protocol for crew to contact cockpit and cockpit has strict limitations on monitoring crew dialog.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 48
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 7:31:41 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


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.

We refer to it as "sterile cockpit". There is a very strict protocol for crew to contact cockpit and cockpit has strict limitations on monitoring crew dialog.




I'm reminded of the "mantra" I used to hear from the cockpit when ever real or simulated emergencies used to occur ..."fly the airplane, fly the airplane , fly the $%$%^^&&&^ airplane!". When I asked one of the senior NATOPS instructor pilots (training evaluator pilots) "What's that all about?" , he laughed and said "when you get all wrapped up in the emergency crap, it's good to have someone pointing out the basics. An four engine airplane can fly with three engines. As Long as SOMEONE keeps in mind he's supposed to be flying it!". Procedures, procedures, procedures doesn't sound as good , but it is almost as meaningful!

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 49
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/10/2018 11:34:11 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I was referring to a few of the responses in this thread with that use of "they."

I did ask them, immediately. All I got in response was further inappropriate insinuation.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 50
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/11/2018 2:19:53 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I was referring to a few of the responses in this thread with that use of "they."

I did ask them, immediately. All I got in response was further inappropriate insinuation.



Hmmm. Could it be , just a little , that they might think that you are trying just a bit too hard to live up to your "LOG-IN Name"? And that it's just not worth the bother? After all, if you are capable of arguing down the Norse Gods, that is ALL THE Norse Gods, what chance do we mere mortals have?

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 51
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/11/2018 4:20:32 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I was referring to a few of the responses in this thread with that use of "they."

I did ask them, immediately. All I got in response was further inappropriate insinuation.



Hmmm. Could it be , just a little , that they might think that you are trying just a bit too hard to live up to your "LOG-IN Name"? And that it's just not worth the bother? After all, if you are capable of arguing down the Norse Gods, that is ALL THE Norse Gods, what chance do we mere mortals have?

He might not have succeeded if Thor wasn't hammered!

_____________________________

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 AW1Steve)
Post #: 52
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/11/2018 7:56:10 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I was referring to a few of the responses in this thread with that use of "they."

I did ask them, immediately. All I got in response was further inappropriate insinuation.



Hmmm. Could it be , just a little , that they might think that you are trying just a bit too hard to live up to your "LOG-IN Name"? And that it's just not worth the bother? After all, if you are capable of arguing down the Norse Gods, that is ALL THE Norse Gods, what chance do we mere mortals have?

He might not have succeeded if Thor wasn't hammered!


I like the way you guys think.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 53
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 1:42:40 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8371
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


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.

We refer to it as "sterile cockpit". There is a very strict protocol for crew to contact cockpit and cockpit has strict limitations on monitoring crew dialog.




I'm reminded of the "mantra" I used to hear from the cockpit when ever real or simulated emergencies used to occur ..."fly the airplane, fly the airplane , fly the $%$%^^&&&^ airplane!". When I asked one of the senior NATOPS instructor pilots (training evaluator pilots) "What's that all about?" , he laughed and said "when you get all wrapped up in the emergency crap, it's good to have someone pointing out the basics. An four engine airplane can fly with three engines. As Long as SOMEONE keeps in mind he's supposed to be flying it!". Procedures, procedures, procedures doesn't sound as good , but it is almost as meaningful!

So going back to OP, in some ways it isn't surprising if you reflect a bit. Go to a lake, or the sea, and you don't see too many 'young' sailors any more. When I was a teenager at the coast, I sailed. Granted just barely larger than a 'dingy', but you learn the rules. I wasn't alone, the area was full of kids doing it. Now, its all old farts like me, hardly any kids.
I'm not suggesting that navigating a 6m sail is in anyway the same as a 1500t ship, BUT … when you have 'survived' a few catastrophe's in your 6m sail the ability to think/react under pressure has been learned in a far safer environment.
Like:
the first time you stray out too far and the wind backs around ...
the first time you miss read your leeway and there you are with a larger ship on your bow ...
the first time you tack too late and there is the ____
etc.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 54
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 5:25:38 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


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.

We refer to it as "sterile cockpit". There is a very strict protocol for crew to contact cockpit and cockpit has strict limitations on monitoring crew dialog.




I'm reminded of the "mantra" I used to hear from the cockpit when ever real or simulated emergencies used to occur ..."fly the airplane, fly the airplane , fly the $%$%^^&&&^ airplane!". When I asked one of the senior NATOPS instructor pilots (training evaluator pilots) "What's that all about?" , he laughed and said "when you get all wrapped up in the emergency crap, it's good to have someone pointing out the basics. An four engine airplane can fly with three engines. As Long as SOMEONE keeps in mind he's supposed to be flying it!". Procedures, procedures, procedures doesn't sound as good , but it is almost as meaningful!

So going back to OP, in some ways it isn't surprising if you reflect a bit. Go to a lake, or the sea, and you don't see too many 'young' sailors any more. When I was a teenager at the coast, I sailed. Granted just barely larger than a 'dingy', but you learn the rules. I wasn't alone, the area was full of kids doing it. Now, its all old farts like me, hardly any kids.
I'm not suggesting that navigating a 6m sail is in anyway the same as a 1500t ship, BUT … when you have 'survived' a few catastrophe's in your 6m sail the ability to think/react under pressure has been learned in a far safer environment.
Like:
the first time you stray out too far and the wind backs around ...
the first time you miss read your leeway and there you are with a larger ship on your bow ...
the first time you tack too late and there is the ____
etc.


Agreed - not panicking and taking appropriate action in an emergency is a priceless attribute. I learned how to handle a car on ice by driving on a lake with little snow and hard clear ice (i.e. not textured). Consequently when I start skidding on icy streets I have always been able to keep control and steer away from collisions because I did not panic and stomp on the brakes the way most drivers do.

_____________________________

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 PaxMondo)
Post #: 55
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 12:43:01 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14363
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
Status: offline
In both sailing , and driving on ice , you learn a very important concept that is ALWAYS applicable to aviation...thinking about what you are GOING to do, rather than simply waiting to happen then reacting. It's a rare skill these days. Just watch anyone drive or even walk up a street. They are fixated on their cell phones , music or self and not in preparing for what might happen. Instead they generally wonder what the heck happened AFTER the event. My pilots and flight engineers always called this "getting ahead of the power curve". I simply believed that if you were reacting to what happened , you were not planning what would happen.

In our game (WITP AE) we struggle for the initiative and try to make our opponents react to us. I've always felt we should try to do the same thing to life. Plan it, not react to it. Or as a Police sergeant actor on a 1970's TV show used to say , "let's do it to them people , before they do it to us". (Of course I doubt that anyone here is old enough to recall the show).

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 56
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 1:44:52 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 5234
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Or as a Police sergeant actor on a 1970's TV show used to say , "let's do it to them people , before they do it to us". (Of course I doubt that anyone here is old enough to recall the show).


Hill Street Blues, pizza boy

One thing they teach in advanced driving class (not the State Patrol kid stuff, but NASCAR & INDY instructor). is learning to drive without using your brakes. You will have to, obviously, but the attempt was for you to drive while trying not to touch them. It is a mental game with yourself, every time you did, it was a 'mental' score against you. If your honest with yourself, you would be amazed at how this can increase your awareness of what is going on around you.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 57
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 4:01:45 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10685
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Or as a Police sergeant actor on a 1970's TV show used to say , "let's do it to them people , before they do it to us". (Of course I doubt that anyone here is old enough to recall the show).


Hill Street Blues, pizza boy

One thing they teach in advanced driving class (not the State Patrol kid stuff, but NASCAR & INDY instructor). is learning to drive without using your brakes. You will have to, obviously, but the attempt was for you to drive while trying not to touch them. It is a mental game with yourself, every time you did, it was a 'mental' score against you. If your honest with yourself, you would be amazed at how this can increase your awareness of what is going on around you.

I was a Defensive Driving Course instructor, and situational awareness is one of the first things taught - constant scanning of mirrors and looking as far ahead as you can to see what is developing. Distractions in the car can spoil the analysis of the situation so I don't turn to look at people I am talking to, and will interrupt my conversation if I need a moment to see if everything around is safe enough to let my focus wander. Some people think this rude, but it has saved my bacon a few times!

_____________________________

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 Lecivius)
Post #: 58
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 7:14:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11138
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
The difference between driving a car, or being in a cockpit, and a surface combatant or a sub, is that in the latter you have to operate through a team. A skimmer is the most complex because CIC, distant and out of sight, is a core part of collision avoidance. In one collision the CO was on the bridge (don't know if he had taken the conn), and the collision still happened. The OODs might have known exactly what to do, but their team on the controls failed them. I don't know, but it's more complicated than in an airplane or car where the decision-maker is holding the controls.

The article contains nuggets that indicate the problem(s) to me. Informality of communication. Lack of sim time, and lack of at-sea exercise time. A deployment is not when you practice a lot of emergencies. You do that on local ops and during work-ups pre-inspections. It has been widely reported that the surface fleet has been worked to death during our 17 years of war. Too few ships, too little backstop time. Add to this new missions like THAAD and a whole lot more ocean to cover in anti-terrorist, anti-piracy missions not present in the Cold War, and I think a lot of basic training has slid. It can be fixed, but at some point the people ABOVE the Navy need to understand that ships stretch only so far, and so do crews. Just because you have 300 ships doesn't mean you have 300 ships.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 59
RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfall... - 6/12/2018 8:03:39 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 4297
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In our game (WITP AE) we struggle for the initiative and try to make our opponents react to us. I've always felt we should try to do the same thing to life. Plan it, not react to it. Or as a Police sergeant actor on a 1970's TV show used to say , "let's do it to them people , before they do it to us". (Of course I doubt that anyone here is old enough to recall the show).

Hill Street Blues, 1981-1987.
The first 2 things to go with age are memory and I forget the other.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship Page: <<   < prev  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

0.161