# Rank and Responsibility



## daftandbarmy (20 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Having said the above nothing will destroy and chance of mission success quite as fast as a faulty or broken supply chain.
> 
> How exactly do I advocate for that ? And is anyone really interested in listening, until of course when its too late.



Just show them this clip and say something like 'No port anchor, no victory'  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdKnZKOhwk


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just show them this clip and say something like 'No port anchor, no victory'
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdKnZKOhwk



Lol that movie is an honest lesson in Naval tactics lol 

Well played btw lol


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> ...Now maybe my experiences aren't indicative of the entire CAF, but I have been disregarded because I'm not "senior enough" by officers with significantly less experience than me. As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...



This is an interesting point you raise, Furniture.  Was the OOD corrected by the CO or XO to align with your advice?

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...



This was something I never got.  Ran a ton of OOD trainees through their on board fire/flood damage control scenarios, and never ceased to be amazed how many people on their duty watch we 'killed' during training because they ignored good advice in a simulated emergency.  :tsktsk: Was glad I had full authority to fail them; but meant I was in on weekends to run them through an exercise, so you can imagine how patient I was when if they repeated the same mistake then.

More than a few zoomies/sup techs had more sea time then hard sea trade folks, and one of the best duty cox'ns ever had was a Sgt FF.

In general, not sure if we promote too many people out of ranks where they are good at what they do and are happy in to fill positions that are over ranked anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Aug 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Furniture said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Underway, perhaps you could help us understand the frustration?  Furniture has been silent on the details:



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Furniture said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am genuinely interested to know what advice, other than consideration of meteorological effects, that a Met Tech could give the OOD of a Canadian warship underway, that an OOD would ignore (if it was truly ignored, and not just considered, then not acted upon) that would represent an egregious lack of differential respect and acknowledgement of expertise, particularly rank-related as Furniture notes?  I'm not a dark blue guy, but my understanding is there are only so many BWK types on a Ship?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This goes both ways.  I've had quite a few Sgt, POs etc... disregard me over the years because my "experience" was less valued than theirs and watched it bite them in the ***.  Sometimes people make mistakes. But I completely understand your frustration .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OOD = Officer of the Day.  

Its a duty watch position in home or foreign port.  The role that a Sgt MetTech would play in that matrix is as a Duty Cox'n.  During various real life or exercise scenarios we (the Duty Cox'ns) have a series of tasks to complete which include explicitly that we are to provide advice to the OOD and take over for them should they become a casualty.   

Often OODs are very junior and inexperienced officers who rely on the advice of a Snr NCM who has copious amounts of more time on the ship. And is thus more familiar with the ships layout and general damage control organization and employment. 

Having said the above the OOD is the one responsible for the ship in the absence of command.  So while we can provide advice, they must weigh it and make decisions, and hold that responsibility.


----------



## Furniture (22 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> OOD = Officer of the Day.
> 
> Its a duty watch position in home or foreign port.  The role that a Sgt MetTech would play in that matrix is as a Duty Cox'n.  During various real life or exercise scenarios we (the Duty Cox'ns) have a series of tasks to complete which include explicitly that we are to provide advice to the OOD and take over for them should they become a casualty.
> 
> ...



That sums it up nicely. Now to be fair, it may have been the colour of my slip-ons that also caused some of the issues as well. 

I also agree with Underway that there are issues with Snr NCMs disregarding Jr Officers as well, but that ties back into my point that rank has weight. We work in an organization that uses a strict hierarchy to determine where we all fit in, so we automatically assign more value to advice given by higher ranks unless we know the member ourselves, then we fall back on personal opinion and experience.


----------



## kratz (22 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> OOD = Officer of the Day.
> 
> Its a duty watch position in home or foreign port.  The role that a Sgt MetTech would play in that matrix is as a Duty Cox'n.  During various real life or exercise scenarios we (the Duty Cox'ns) have a series of tasks to complete which include explicitly that we are to provide advice to the OOD and take over for them should they become a casualty.
> 
> ...



Not to be confused with OOW = Officer of the Watch: Is when the ship is sailing.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

Is the issue one of rank or of appointment, then?  If the Duty Cox’n Has responsibilities to the OOD that’s understandable, it is part of the C2 structure of the Ship - that I’m tracking.  I am also trying to resolve what is being implied by several, that the OOD was so young and inexperienced that they inappropriately didn’t do something that the Sr. NCM advised them to do - and what I am still not seeing described in any kind of detail is a specific example that would support the complaint that the OOD’s actions we inappropriate and/or would put into question the CO’s judgement for that OOD to maintain his/her BWK qualification.  Unless I’m missing something, an OOD (be they an SLt, or Lt for that matter) in the absence of the CO or XO on the bridge is Commanding the Ship on the Captain’s authority. The use of “inexperienced” is thrown around often...is that the right word you should be using? It implies the young OOD is not sufficiently qualified, otherwise they should have followed your advice.  Is your advice so seasoned and unquestionable, that you think it should have weighed more heavily than the OOD’s BWK qualification and, what I would describe as _sufficient_ experience?

???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Furniture (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is the issue one of rank or of appointment, then?  If the Duty Cox’n Has responsibilities to the OOD that’s understandable, it is part of the C2 structure of the Ship - that I’m tracking.  I am also trying to resolve what is being implied by several, that the OOD was so young and inexperienced that they inappropriately didn’t do something that the Sr. NCM advised them to do - and what I am still not seeing described in any kind of detail is a specific example that would support the complaint that the OOD’s actions we inappropriate and/or would put into question the CO’s judgement for that OOD to maintain his/her BWK qualification.  Unless I’m missing something, an OOD (be they an SLt, or Lt for that matter) in the absence of the CO or XO on the bridge is Commanding the Ship on the Captain’s authority. The use of “inexperienced” is thrown around often...is that the right word you should be using? It implies the young OOD is not sufficiently qualified, otherwise they should have followed your advice.  Is your advice so seasoned and unquestionable, that you think it should have weighed more heavily than the OOD’s BWK qualification and, what I would describe as _sufficient_ experience?
> 
> ???
> 
> ...



OOD and BWK are not related. All officers on ship (and CPO2s) apart from the CO and XO stand OOD. 

Some of the times advice was disregarded were related to exercises, discipline, or employment of pers on the watch. I won't name names and specific situations because my intent isn't to make any particular person look bad. The navy is a small world, and I have no interest in feeding rumors, or speculation. The situations were resolved by a debrief from the assessor, or by having someone more senior review things the next day.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is the issue one of rank or of appointment, then?  If the Duty Cox’n Has responsibilities to the OOD that’s understandable, it is part of the C2 structure of the Ship - that I’m tracking.  I am also trying to resolve what is being implied by several, that the OOD was so young and inexperienced that they inappropriately didn’t do something that the Sr. NCM advised them to do - and what I am still not seeing described in any kind of detail is a specific example that would support the complaint that the OOD’s actions we inappropriate and/or would put into question the CO’s judgement for that OOD to maintain his/her BWK qualification.  Unless I’m missing something, an OOD (be they an SLt, or Lt for that matter) in the absence of the CO or XO on the bridge is Commanding the Ship on the Captain’s authority. The use of “inexperienced” is thrown around often...is that the right word you should be using? It implies the young OOD is not sufficiently qualified, otherwise they should have followed your advice.  Is your advice so seasoned and unquestionable, that you think it should have weighed more heavily than the OOD’s BWK qualification and, what I would describe as _sufficient_ experience?
> 
> ???
> 
> ...



OK just a little nomenclature correction first.  OOD and BWK are not one in the same.  One is a daily duty filled by any officer and Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class so qualified and BWK is a qualification for MARS O's (Now NWOs).  BWK is a sea going position and OOD is one filled alongside. Log O's, CSE O's and Engineers all qualify for OOD but only NWO's qualify for BWK.  

An example of advice that a DCox'n would provide an OOD during a fire fighting scenario would be where to set boundaries, or another would be when the men on air are running short and should be switched out.  It could also amount to their being heavy weather coming in and the ships lines need to be reinforced and more fenders put out. Or perhaps when to call the CO about a situation. 

An inexperienced OOD can sometimes be shy and need the reinforcement of a strong Snr NCM to nudge them towards taking control and making the correct decision. 

It takes a very long time for sailors or officers to actually know their ship inside and out.  We get people to a minimum standard and then push them off the jetty to learn the rest on the fly.  And that is where the strength of the Snr NCM may be required to help the OOD. 

I personally haven't had a conflict where an OOD disregarded me.  Of the many many of times I have been DCox'n all of my OODs were interested in working together and knew that I relied on them as much they relied on me.  But I do know these conflicts have happened.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Aug 2018)

So lets try to clear a few concepts up, though Furniture gave you a good answer.

Yes, Officer of the Day is duties in harbour, alongside or (much more rare, especially these days) when spending extended period at anchor or made to a buoy. Officers and CPO2 of all trades can be in the rotation (though, and someone currently in can chime if this no longer the case, the Chief Engineer, a CPO2, does not stand in the rotation due to his job as CERA potentially requiring him/her to act in that capacity in some emergencies and thus would take him/her away from the OOD duties).

However, and unlike "duties" on a base  for instance, you only stand in the OOD rotation after you have completed a series of requirements that show that you have the knowledge to fulfill the duties, been tested before a board and have the confidence of the CO of the ship you serve on. Therefore, all OOD are qualified for the duty before standing their first watch as OOD. This qualification, however, does not necessarily equate experience, and an inexperienced OOD can (and they do :nod make mistakes.

Finally, neither the OOD (harbour) nor the OOW (sea) exercise command.  Command is retained by the CO at all time, save when away (and I don't mean home for the week-end, but away on leave or on duty out of area - such as at a conference in Ottawa, etc.) in which case command passes to the XO, but not to the OOD/OOW. The OOD and OOW only have charge of the ship (and sometimes also control) on behalf of the CO, even though they are referred to as the CO's representative.


----------



## stoker dave (22 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Often OODs are very junior and inexperienced officers who rely on the advice of a Snr NCM who has copious amounts of more time on the ship. And is thus more familiar with the ships layout and general damage control organization and employment.



It has been about 30 years since I first qualified as OOD.  However, I distinctly recall my first board for that qualification:  I failed.  In the board, I was asked how I would handle a situation where I was told to move the ship from one berth to another in harbour.  

I was 24 years old, fresh out of RMC, and had about six months experience on the ship.  During the board, I asked who was on my duty watch.  I was told the POOD was a senior bos'n with 20 years experience.  I failed the board because I basically turned over the task to the POOD to execute:  someone who I am (to this day) confident could have done the job safely and easily.  I had never even seen such a move; never mind be in charge of such a thing. 

As OOD I was overall responsible for the safety of the ship.  I still think the idea to delegate the execution of this task to POOD was the right one.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So lets try to clear a few concepts up, though Furniture gave you a good answer.
> 
> Yes, Officer of the Day is duties in harbour, alongside or (much more rare, especially these days) when spending extended period at anchor or made to a buoy. Officers and CPO2 of all trades can be in the rotation (though, and someone currently in can chime if this no longer the case, the Chief Engineer, a CPO2, does not stand in the rotation due to his job as CERA potentially requiring him/her to act in that capacity in some emergencies and thus would take him/her away from the OOD duties).
> 
> ...



That's good info, thanks OGBD!

I was thinking of the OOW then (and the BWK responsibilities), vice OOD and the custodial/alongside implications, hence my questions about the 'ignored advice' issue -- I now see that there is significantly less (if any at all) 'control of the ship on behalf of the CO' at play (ack the 'Command is always the COs' (or XO's when CO is away), OGBD) in the specific case of an OOD / DCox'n interaction.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> ...We work in an organization that uses a strict hierarchy to determine where we all fit in, so we automatically assign more value to advice given by higher ranks unless we know the member ourselves, then we fall back on personal opinion and experience.



If you mean "we" in a RCN sense, I'll acknowledge that.  CAF-wide, that is not always the case.  Some organizations within the CAF have a different (and non-personal relation based) experience/responsibilities valuation environment, where rank is not the prime discriminator of who directs what actions; however, not all CAF members may have been exposed to such an environment.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If you mean "we" in a RCN sense, I'll acknowledge that.  CAF-wide, that is not always the case.  Some organizations within the CAF have a different (and non-personal relation based) experience/responsibilities valuation environment, where rank is not the prime discriminator of who directs what actions; however, not all CAF members may have been exposed to such an environment.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Care to elaborate? There are actually situations in the RCN where the NCM is running the show and the officer is just supporting.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate? There are actually situations in the RCN where the NCM is running the show and the officer is just supporting.



CANSOF.  Rank / qualification in all cases, often (usually) qualifications drives assignment of responsibilities and could see personnel of higher rank assigned to/working for personnel of lower rank for extended periods.

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CANSOF.  Rank / qualification in all cases, often (usually) qualifications drives assignment of responsibilities and could see personnel of higher rank assigned to/working for personnel of lower rank for extended periods.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Aircrew. It is not at all unusual to have a lower ranking aircraft captain legally entrusted with directing the actions of a crew composed of higher ranking individuals- including in some cases the aircraft captain's own Commanding Officer.

The wise aircraft captain knows and understands that his/her power only lasts for the duration of the flight. No one much minds being yelled at in a "preservation of life situation". It is not a good practice to treat your higher ranking "subordinates" poorly in non-urgent situations, however...


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Aircrew. It is not at all unusual to have a lower ranking aircraft captain legally entrusted with directing the actions of a crew composed of higher ranking individuals- including in some cases the aircraft captain's own Commanding Officer.
> 
> The wise aircraft captain knows and understands that his/her power only lasts for the duration of the flight. No one much minds being yelled at in a "preservation of life situation". It is not a good practice to treat your higher ranking "subordinates" poorly in non-urgent situations, however...



SKT, since you're fully tracking the AC's authorities & accountabilities, particularly as explicitly codified in the National Defence Act, and the 'few days' you've spend embarked on HMCS(pl.), does the OOW qualify as (acting) Ship's Captain in the same way as an Aircraft Captain does?

G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> SKT, since you're fully tracking the AC's authorities & accountabilities, particularly as explicitly codified in the National Defence Act, and the 'few days' you've spend embarked on HMCS(pl.), does the OOW qualify as (acting) Ship's Captain in the same way as an Aircraft Captain does?
> 
> G2G



No. An OOW must understand the concepts of Command, Charge and Control. What follows is my understanding of the situation, based on years of sea-going experience and sitting more than a few OOW boards as the honest broker.

Unless incapacitated at sea, a ships' captain never relinquish Command of his/her ship, as codified within the NDA.

Charge means that an OOW has authority over all persons onboard an HMC Ship, except the CO and XO. The OOW also, within limits defined by the CO in various orders, can maneuvere the ship.

Control is the term defining who actually is "driving" the ship- similar to the aviation context. For example, even though the CO maybe on the bridge, sitting in their comfy chair, the OOW has control. Unless the CO sees something that scares the crap out of him/her, then he takes control from the OOW and issues the corrective conning orders. Things go really badly when it is not clear to the bridge crew who has control. That transfer has to happen quickly and clearly.

I'm sure an NWO will be along shortly to correct me. It is what they live to do... 8)


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2018)

Danke SKT!


----------



## MARS (22 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Control is the term defining who actually is "driving" the ship- similar to the aviation context. For example, even though the CO maybe on the bridge, sitting in their comfy chair, the OOW has control. Unless the CO sees something that scares the crap out of him/her, then he takes control from the OOW and issues the corrective conning orders. Things go really badly when it is not clear to the bridge crew who has control. That transfer has to happen quickly and clearly.
> 
> I'm sure an NWO will be along shortly to correct me. It is what they live to do... 8)



Around the NWO has arrived 

That was actually pretty accurate SKT.  But what you explained as Control, is still likely Charge, in your example.  Everything else is correct.

I rarely gave up Control, unless I needed to, for sleep purposes, mostly, or for training purposes.  Control involves a greater latitude for autonomous decision making than Charge.  The OOW with Charge follows the planned route, adjusts speed within pre-defined limits, to maintain course or make the ETA and other decisions such as that,  as an example. Greater course or speed requirements require a call or a report to me, as the CO, to explain and recommend the new COA since I am likely retaining Control. So there is a significant amount of decision making going on and orders being given, but all within the limits of Charge.  The occasions for the OOW to call me are numerous, mine (and most COs) were about 30 different occasions, where their requirement to make a decision and give a new order exceeded the limits of Charge.

Control is divided into 3 distinct areas, involving maneuvering, the employmentweapons and sensors and the tactical employment of the ship itself.  

In layman's terms and without quoting the MARCORD/NAVORD itself, the person with whatever aspect of Control they have been delegated is the person who gets called to make decisions on that matter.  So if I delegate Control of maneuvering  to the XO overnight, then in my scenario above, the OOW with Charge calls the XO if they need to exceed the limits of Charge (i.e. a massive course or speed change). The XO may still need to call me for certain things, but basically that is the deal.


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Aug 2018)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> It has been about 30 years since I first qualified as OOD.  However, I distinctly recall my first board for that qualification:  I failed.  In the board, I was asked how I would handle a situation where I was told to move the ship from one berth to another in harbour.
> 
> I was 24 years old, fresh out of RMC, and had about six months experience on the ship.  During the board, I asked who was on my duty watch.  I was told the POOD was a senior bos'n with 20 years experience.  I failed the board because I basically turned over the task to the POOD to execute:  someone who I am (to this day) confident could have done the job safely and easily.  I had never even seen such a move; never mind be in charge of such a thing.
> 
> As OOD I was overall responsible for the safety of the ship.  I still think the idea to delegate the execution of this task to POOD was the right one.



Had that exact scenario happen to me in real life as a SLt for a short notice cold move that came up after hours. The Chief Bos'n mate (aka Buffer) of a sister ship happened to be around and I was more than happy to have him basically direct the whole thing while standing on the bridgewing beside him and the QHM pilot. Still had charge, but wasn't going to pretend I knew more than the guy with 25 years experience at doing exactly that kind of thing.  Went off without a hitch, got done safely, and even learned a few things.

I guess I'd have failed the same board!  Was a pretty good lesson to learn early though; being responsible and in charge doesn't mean you have to pretend you know better than an expert (but delegation doesn't mean disappear). Not a natural leader by any means, but that general approach has worked out pretty well so far.

Notice in Ottawa that the GOFOs/ Chiefs that do that seem to be a lot more relaxed than the micromanagers; they can give general direction and make decisions, but otherwise stay out of the weeds unless things start going off the rails. They also tend to take the time to mentor people and explain some of their thought process, which takes a bunch of effort, but seems to result in more capable subordinates, so makes it easier in the long run.  Too bad that the PER bubbles sometimes tend to favour nanomanagement as it's a more visible style of 'supervision'.


----------



## Nuggs (22 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate? There are actually situations in the RCN where the NCM is running the show and the officer is just supporting.



As partial example would be a homeport duty watch aboard a submarine.

They do not employ an OOD but a DWS (Duty watch supervisor).

The qualification board is equivalent to OOD, but held by personnel of the rank PO2 and above.

Not really an officer just supporting, but frequently no officer present.


----------



## Underway (22 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate? There are actually situations in the RCN where the NCM is running the show and the officer is just supporting.



INT.  The SME does the brief.  Their INT O boss might sit in but the Sgt INT OP briefs Command when its within their area of expertise.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Aug 2018)

MARS said:
			
		

> Around the NWO has arrived
> 
> That was actually pretty accurate SKT.  But what you explained as Control, is still likely Charge, in your example.  Everything else is correct.
> 
> ...



Thanks MARS. I once knew all of this stuff off by heart...


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate? There are actually situations in the RCN where the NCM is running the show and the officer is just supporting.



During a fire fight or a search op. The soldier who can see the enemy, or the suspect device, is in charge as far as I'm concerned, until we can suppress the enemy position, or get on with the clearance.


----------



## stoker dave (23 Aug 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I guess I'd have failed the same board!



Thanks for the validation. 

This thread (or perhaps another) was saying how the advice of senior NCOs was being ignored by very junior officers.  The point is that I think some of the very junior officers were trained (or at least somewhat influenced) that way as illustrated in the example above. 

As a follow up, I passed my second OOD board.  When presented with a scenario in which I had little or no experience, I was the "take charge" guy who was hands-on directing everything.  I am sure that would not have ended well and certainly isn't how I would approach a real situation, but I passed the board.  But I think that speaks to another problem altogether. 

I guess the pinnacle of my OOD experience was during Gulf War I.  My duty watch was over 100 people including an air defence battery and armed soldiers.  But I digress.  Sorry for the thread drift.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Aug 2018)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Thanks for the validation.
> 
> This thread (or perhaps another) was saying how the advice of senior NCOs was being ignored by very junior officers.  The point is that I think some of the very junior officers were trained (or at least somewhat influenced) that way as illustrated in the example above.
> 
> ...



Just to provide a peek at the other side of the coin, one of my first Platoon Sergeants was incompetent, mistrusted by everyone, and a violent bully as well.

At a very early point in my military career this was a good learning experience too, like how to load your most SNCO on C&P and, meanwhile, during operations, lead through the Section Commanders to ensure survival of the platoon members


----------



## Pusser (24 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If you mean "we" in a RCN sense, I'll acknowledge that.  CAF-wide, that is not always the case.  Some organizations within the CAF have a different (and non-personal relation based) experience/responsibilities valuation environment, where rank is not the prime discriminator of who directs what actions; however, not all CAF members may have been exposed to such an environment.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



In the Navy, position is generally more important than rank.  Although the ship's establishment tends to put personnel of appropriate rank into positions, the posting plot does not always cooperate.  However that doesn't change the relationship.  The captain of a ship is still the captain, even if the ship is carrying more senior officers and even if one of those more senior officers is the captain's boss.  I've witnessed a situation where the XO was actually junior in rank to one of the department heads, but he was still the XO and, therefore, held command authority over the department head. As a department head, I myself was of equal rank to the XO, but senior to him - didn't matter.

I was in an interesting situation once though where I had to stand up for my rights.  The XO felt that only Naval Ops officers should be OOD in foreign ports (ostensibly because of the "force protection" requirement).  He further intended that I (the most senior officer in the Wardroom) would stand foreign port duty watches as 2OOD.  We had a closed door discussion where I made it clear that I would not be standing 2OOD under somebody junior to me, particularly anyone who was still in grade school when I was serving my first tour at sea as a HOD. I also explained that not only did I have more actual sea time than most of the other officers on board (certainly all the engineers), but that as a LogO I had spent some time on deployed ops and so I was actually more experienced in force protection than anyone else in the Wardroom.  Luckily, he conceded, but I was a little shocked that he had even considered this.  Experience and qualifications are all well and good, but that does not mean that rank and seniority are completely ignored.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Aircrew. It is not at all unusual to have a lower ranking aircraft captain legally entrusted with directing the actions of a crew composed of higher ranking individuals- including in some cases the aircraft captain's own Commanding Officer.
> 
> The wise aircraft captain knows and understands that his/her power only lasts for the duration of the flight. No one much minds being yelled at in a "preservation of life situation". It is not a good practice to treat your higher ranking "subordinates" poorly in non-urgent situations, however...



This exits similarly in the NCM aircrew world, related to Category and/or appointments.  In the LRP fleet, NCMs have a Category we qualify for.  After our initial course, we are *B* Cat (Basic Category) operators (same goes for FEs).  After an upgrade (OJT) program, phase evals and a final check box and flight, we then qualify as *A Cat* (Advanced Category).  Regarding "who is the boss" on the aircraft, simulator, trg...an A Cat Cpl has authority over any B Cat Cpl/MCpl/Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO.  I've been in the situation before where as the crew Lead on a deployment, one of my B Cats was the Sqn AES Op Leader (MWO). 

On top of that, the FOM (Flight Ops Manual) directs certain appointments that the CO shall appoint, one of them is the Lead AES Op.  Lead AES Ops must be A Cat and are recommended to the CO by the Sqn AES Op Leader.  Once appointed by the CO, the Lead is responsible for things including the task assignment, discipline and training of all crew AES Ops.  However, a good Lead AES Op will _also_ understand they are responsible to the Lead ACSO, who in turn is responsible to the crew commander.  The CO can giveth, and also taketh away...

There's an....'urban legend'...about a flight where the RADAR OP saw a significant Wx hazard (squall line), gave recommendations to the flight deck for deviations.  Those were considered and bypassed;  aircraft entered the Wx at 16k, exited at 5k, all changes in altitude were...involuntary in nature.  Major icing, all the fun stuff.  End of mission, RTB.  When the RADAR OP (an A Cat) realized they were going to penetrate the line, he called for the tac tube to secure and strap in, according to the urban legend.  (no, it wasn't me...)

A good example of how rank, command, SME/positional knowledge, qualifications etc must all work together correctly to function as intended.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2018)

Thought I'd add, I am enjoying these threads on the inner workings of the RCN.  Folks like me can end up on the fling-wing side and change our hotels for bong bongs and flying stations, so I appreciate the insight.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In the Navy, position is generally more important than rank.  Although the ship's establishment tends to put personnel of appropriate rank into positions, the posting plot does not always cooperate.  However that doesn't change the relationship.  The captain of a ship is still the captain, even if the ship is carrying more senior officers and even if one of those more senior officers is the captain's boss.  I've witnessed a situation where the XO was actually junior in rank to one of the department heads, but he was still the XO and, therefore, held command authority over the department head. As a department head, I myself was of equal rank to the XO, but senior to him - didn't matter.
> 
> I was in an interesting situation once though where I had to stand up for my rights.  The XO felt that only Naval Ops officers should be OOD in foreign ports (ostensibly because of the "force protection" requirement).  He further intended that I (the most senior officer in the Wardroom) would stand foreign port duty watches as 2OOD.  We had a closed door discussion where I made it clear that I would not be standing 2OOD under somebody junior to me, particularly anyone who was still in grade school when I was serving my first tour at sea as a HOD. I also explained that not only did I have more actual sea time than most of the other officers on board (certainly all the engineers), but that as a LogO I had spent some time on deployed ops and so I was actually more experienced in force protection than anyone else in the Wardroom.  Luckily, he conceded, but I was a little shocked that he had even considered this.  Experience and qualifications are all well and good, but that does not mean that rank and seniority are completely ignored.



There are dedicated FPOs now, but on my last deployment the OOD rotated through the HODS (heads of departments), WeapsO and OpsO, so basically the senior folks in the wardroom.  

That was the nice thing on the 280s with LCdr HODs; there was much less of that kind of thing, as you had the rank as well as the seniority, and the relationship with the XO was quite different.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2018)

Is the AirDet Commander (a Maj, if I'm not mistaken) a HOD or equivalent once they are embarked?  I'd be grateful if the command/control relationship between the CO and Det Comd could be explained (or, if already on here, point me to the thread...my search came up with nodda).  What happens if the CO says "I want you to put your egg beater in the air in 2 hours" and the Air Maj says "none of my crews are rested, the orders say we can not legally fly for X hours"?

Likewise, how does the Det MWO function with the Cox'n for the things those ladies and gents are concerned with?


----------



## brihard (24 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is the AirDet Commander (a Maj, if I'm not mistaken) a HOD or equivalent once they are embarked?  I'd be grateful if the command/control relationship between the CO and Det Comd could be explained (or, if already on here, point me to the thread...my search came up with nodda).  What happens if the CO says "I want you to put your egg beater in the air in 2 hours" and the Air Maj says "none of my crews are rested, the orders say we can not legally fly for X hours"?
> 
> Likewise, how does the Det MWO function with the Cox'n for the things those ladies and gents are concerned with?



If I may ask the favour, can we break it down a level farther and give the necessary context so that a curious army NCO could get it? I have neither navy nor Air Force exposure, but I am very curious about these chain of command relationships just from a standpoint of expanding my professional knowledge on ‘ways to do things’. I do find it interesting; I just have very little foundational knowledge to start from.

I gather that Hel Air Det is a best with some uniqueness and maye autonomy (?) onboard ship? I can infer it has some necessary technical independence on ship and I imagine the SNCO would quite rightly few them as ‘his(her)’ troops, but what does this look like day to day, and how does this interface with the ship’s command team?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Aug 2018)

Let me try to answer you, EITS. But be mindful that my answer is based on knowledge that is out of date, so someone can correct me if need be.

First of all, the Airdet Commander IS considered a HOD. She his the air department HOD when an Airdet is embarked.

Like any other department, the CO, who has command over ALL at sea, can order the department to do things that are contrary to "general" orders or instructions of their trade, in the same way that he/she can order the Engineering department to do something that is against the Naval Engineering Manual - which are "orders" governing the operation of the Engineering department. However, this said, any CO doing so would have to file a report to superiors detailing the reasons for his acting in this way with the Airdet commander also doing the same on her side of the House (that is through her wing) (or on the engineering side for engineering decisions). Either way, that CO would have to have damn good - solid -reasons to have done so against the rules or the advice of an Airdet commander to avoid very unpleasant consequences for her career.

In other words, "fly me over to the other ship because I don't feel like a trip in the Rhib" is not going to cut it, while "fly this medical emergency casualty to the AOR because he needs the immediate assistance of the medical team there to save his life" will,  if the helo crew hasn't got it's beauty sleep.

As for the MWO relationship with the Coxn, you have to remember that the Coxn is not in any department's chain of command. The CPO2's and MWO report to the XO and CO through their HOD's. The Coxn is sort of "staff" to the process and his/her role is more general oversight of administration and discipline while acting in an advisory role to the CPO2's/PO1's and MWO's where personnel issues are concerned. Her (the Coxn's ) relationship to the Airdet MWO is of the same nature and there is no problem that I've ever heard of in doing that.

When we say, in Canada, that the Coxn is part of the "command team", that is because the group composed of the CO, the XO and Coxn is really made up of the CO, being in command, and the XO/Coxn acting as her adviser whenever matters leave time for discussions and the bringing of differing points of views. A normal situation would see the team get in the CO's cabin, with the CO explaining the facts of the situation, then usually turning to the Coxn and saying "What do you think, Chief?", then followed by "XO?", then breaking into a general discussion until an apparent consensus is reached - or it becomes clear that it's one of those situation where the CO must be the final arbiter.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is the AirDet Commander (a Maj, if I'm not mistaken) a HOD or equivalent once they are embarked?  I'd be grateful if the command/control relationship between the CO and Det Comd could be explained (or, if already on here, point me to the thread...my search came up with nodda).  What happens if the CO says "I want you to put your egg beater in the air in 2 hours" and the Air Maj says "none of my crews are rested, the orders say we can not legally fly for X hours"?
> 
> Likewise, how does the Det MWO function with the Cox'n for the things those ladies and gents are concerned with?



They are a HOD equivalent (but are on the duty airO watch rotation vice OOD). I'm sure someone else can explain the command/control relationship from the orders, but depends a lot on the personality on how well it actually works.  

Good airdet is part of the crew, and tries to make sure they are able to support ship operations as much as possible.  That means looking ahead, and adjusting the schedule as required so you aren't stuck in a crew rest period when you are doing something the helo would be useful for.  MWO is one of the CHODs, so same responsibilities as the other CPO2s to the Coxn, and same idea there.  In general, they have the same administrative roles as other HODs/CHODs in terms of reporting to the Command team, and should work with the ops team and other departments to make sure that schedule conflicts are sorted and the capabilities the helo brings is there when required. A lot of the deck evolutions, landing/take off and other things they do limit what the ship can be doing at the time, so they can't just change plans without talking to other HODs.

Bad airdet doesn't integrate at all, ignores the ships plans, and does things like tell the CO they can't fly for a real SAR because their 12 hours down didn't cover the 8 hour crew rest because was interrupted by a smoke detector getting set off (which triggers a rapid investigation by a small team).  :facepalm:

To be fair, the ship's crew can be hostile when they roll on, so the 'us vs them' can start pretty quick if there aren't specific efforts to stop that. Pitching on all ship activities like cleaning stations and bringing the garbage ashore is a small thing that helps a lot, but the PMCs of the messes welcoming them in is pretty key.  

Have seen both good and bad; generally people get the crew rest bit, but it's when it starts getting abused that it causes issues. A lot of navy types know exactly what the limitations really are, and when they can push it, so the det loses credibility really quick if they start trying to stretch it to cover any time there is something going on that needs bodies.

For tech things they still go back to 1 CAD, but there is lots of interface with the navy equipment, so spent a lot of time working with the Maj to make sure he had enough helo fuel, the bear trap and other helo support kit was working, and things were otherwise okay. We shared a cabin, which actually worked out pretty good for keeping track of their plans and sorting things out.

For Brihard;
Air det brings a bunch of kit with them, but there are a number of fitted helo support systems, and the engineer on the ship (that was me) is responsible for the quality of the helo fuel, and the working order of that whole system.  There is a stoker, electrician, and a few people trained as helo-crash fire fighters from my department that were part of all the flight ops.  When there isn't an air det embarked, there are a number of bosns that are trained to do the deck evolutions, and a few people that are trained to direct the take off/landings as well. There is a whole qualification for that (SWOAD, Ship without air det) and normally part of an embarked air det's role is to make sure the ship company stay current on their individual quals, and new people get trained up as well.

The air det shouldn't really be autonomous at all; everyone has their own separate reports back to some kind of shore organization (I had my own technical oversight ashore).  Unless all the HODs/CHODs are marching in lockstep to the CO's plan, it can be a bit of a mess.  We met formally as a group for at least 30 mins every other day with the XO/Coxn, and the CO normally got all the HODs together a few days before a port visit, but were constantly talking outside of that anyway.  Not really sure if the comparison works, but guessing it's the equivalent to a platoon made up of sections that come from a mix of inf, log, eng, comms etc all in the field under a single commander.  You can each do a good job at your specific area, but unless you coordinate with everyone else, it won't work on the whole.


----------



## Pusser (25 Aug 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There are dedicated FPOs now, but on my last deployment the OOD rotated through the HODS (heads of departments), WeapsO and OpsO, so basically the senior folks in the wardroom.
> 
> That was the nice thing on the 280s with LCdr HODs; there was much less of that kind of thing, as you had the rank as well as the seniority, and the relationship with the XO was quite different.



My little story actually occurred in a 280...

On another note, it is worth mentioning that although the XO is second in command of the ship, HODs only report to him/her on administrative issues.  On operational matters, all HODs report directly to the CO (and the wise ones make sure they keep the XO informed...).


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Aug 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not really sure if the comparison works, but guessing it's the equivalent to a platoon made up of sections that come from a mix of inf, log, eng, comms etc all in the field under a single commander.  You can each do a good job at your specific area, but unless you coordinate with everyone else, it won't work on the whole.



You're giving us too much credit, I'm afraid. The Infantry will always impose their will on the others you mention (whether or not it makes sense) and then charge the machine guns frontally #becausespartamatters


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is the AirDet Commander (a Maj, if I'm not mistaken) a HOD or equivalent once they are embarked?  I'd be grateful if the command/control relationship between the CO and Det Comd could be explained (or, if already on here, point me to the thread...my search came up with nodda).  What happens if the CO says "I want you to put your egg beater in the air in 2 hours" and the Air Maj says "none of my crews are rested, the orders say we can not legally fly for X hours"?
> 
> Likewise, how does the Det MWO function with the Cox'n for the things those ladies and gents are concerned with?


As was noted by several others, the HELAIRDET Comd is HOD of the Air Dept. according to SHOPs, he/she is actually the final authority on whether it is safe to launch a helo. The Ship CO cannot actually over rule the HELAIRDET Comd  in this area (many have have tried). It normally does not come to that. But, I have worked for a few COs who liked to push the envelope more than was prudent and it was clear that they did not actually understand the ramifications of what they were ordering me to do.

In addition to following all relevant RCN orders while embarked, HELAIRDETS also answer to 1 CAD on the residual authorities that he retains when he transfers a Det to the RCN (flight safety, airworthiness, training and advancement of crews, to name a few).

Crew rest gets tossed around a lot as a punchline, but it is something that the RCN is only slowly staring to get. By regulations (not negotiable) my crews and maintainers can only work 42 hrs in a rolling 3 day period, with no day lasting longer than 16hrs and every rest period (note I did not say sleep period) must be 8 hrs long and uninterrupted. Interupt it, and the clock re-starts. There is a legend about a Sea King TACCO drifting off to sleep while in the dip in the North Atlantic, late one night after a long series of night ASWEXs. He woke up suddenly and looked around at the crew, hoping no one had noticed him asleep. To his horror, he noticed that the entire crew was asleep. Near as anyone could tell afterward, the helo maintained a stable hover on its own for 45 mins. That is scary stuff. That said, I have also flown all night on a real SAR in the Arabian Sea and totally blown my crew duty day- the orders specifically allow for us to break orders for the preservation Of life.

Back to the RCN - I have routinely watched OOWs take the ship when they have not slept properly in days or weeks. They are in charge of a billion dollar warship and responsible for the lives of 250 people and they are so sleep deprived that they barely know their own names. I don't get it, myself.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Back to the RCN - I have routinely watched OOWs take the ship when they have not slept properly in days or weeks. They are in charge of a billion dollar warship and responsible for the lives of 250 people and they are so sleep deprived that they barely know their own names. I don't get it, myself.



That's a common complaint; TBH wish there was something similar on the RCN side.  Got to have the pleasure of being the damage control officer for a real fire after a month of 2-3 hours of broken sleep a night, and have seen COs barely able to see (which is normally when everything short of emergencies go to the XO).  Can't drink at sea, but can run everyone hard enough that they are about as functional as blackout drunks.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Aug 2018)

I should also add that, in my two decades of flying in the MH community, i have worked with far more good ships than bad ones. Some have been so much fun to be a part of and we were so well integrated that we really didn't want to back to the Sqn at the end the of the sail. The bad ships were almost always caused by a Commanding Officer who micromanaged or who put himself first and grandstanded on the backs of his people. A CO who looks out for his crew and who has a decent tolerance for minor errors as people learn, is almost always rewarded by a crew who will move heaven and earth for them. A good sense of humour doesnt hurt either. Sailing can suck at times and the crew will usually attempt to spice things up. If the CO can roll with that and laugh at some of the antics (as long As they are safe and in safe and in reasonable taste) everyone relaxes a bit.

The nice things about being at sea are the autonomy (although the Air Div occasionally likes to try to reach into the ship with a 6000NM screw driver and give direction. Usually without consulting the RCN CoC, which puts the Det Comd in a bad spot) and the simplicity of life- you eat, sleep, fly and workout. That is about it.


----------



## Underway (25 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is a legend about a Sea King TACCO drifting off to sleep while in the dip in the North Atlantic, late one night after a long series of night ASWEXs. He woke up suddenly and looked around at the crew, hoping no one had noticed him asleep. To his horror, he noticed that the entire crew was asleep. Near as anyone could tell afterward, the helo maintained a stable hover on its own for 45 mins. That is scary stuff.



If its a legend it's awful close to the truth with one pilot I met, who happened to be the one flying that aircraft.  Details were different but situation (everyone asleep for 45 min) exactly the same.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2018)

Great info in the replies, thanks for that.  The RCAF recently implemented a fatigue risk management program.  Aside from the crew rest/duty day regs, our orders also allow any crewmember to self-ground, including for fatigue.  

...the entire crew was asleep...the helo maintained a stable hover on its own for 45 minutes.  ~shudder~   That made my blood run cold when I read it.


----------



## Underway (25 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Great info in the replies, thanks for that.  The RCAF recently implemented a fatigue risk management program.  Aside from the crew rest/duty day regs, our orders also allow any crewmember to self-ground, including for fatigue.
> 
> ...the entire crew was asleep...the helo maintained a stable hover on its own for 45 minutes.  ~shudder~   That made my blood run cold when I read it.



Now I may be wrong here, but I understood that the Sea King has a hover assist function.  Not sure what that means exactly but if that story is more than a "fish story" then it probably saved the life of the aircrew.

As for fatigue for OOW, the crews going on deployment are very stripped down.  They are only sailing with 3 watchkeepers and 3 2OOW.  Ideally by the end of the 6 month deployment most of, if not all the 2OOW will have their tickets thus reducing workload on the qualified watchkeepers.  However the qual'd watchkeepers still have divisional and day work to do.  DeckO for example is one of them.  With the aircrew embarked and MTOG embarked, OJT billets etc... there are not a lot of extra bunks to go around.  

The last ship I sailed on the CO threw out the book on sleeping during "working hours" for OOW's.  I believe the statement was "If you are tired sleep, don't abuse it and it won't be taken away. Naps are fine.  Rack monsters are not."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Aug 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Now I may be wrong here, but I understood that the Sea King has a hover assist function.  Not sure what that means exactly but if that story is more than a "fish story" then it probably saved the life of the aircrew.
> 
> As for fatigue for OOW, the crews going on deployment are very stripped down.  They are only sailing with 3 watchkeepers and 3 2OOW.  Ideally by the end of the 6 month deployment most of, if not all the 2OOW will have their tickets thus reducing workload on the qualified watchkeepers.  However the qual'd watchkeepers still have divisional and day work to do.  DeckO for example is one of them.  With the aircrew embarked and MTOG embarked, OJT billets etc... there are not a lot of extra bunks to go around.
> 
> The last ship I sailed on the CO threw out the book on sleeping during "working hours" for OOW's.  I believe the statement was "If you are tired sleep, don't abuse it and it won't be taken away. Naps are fine.  Rack monsters are not."



The Sea King has a coupler, which allows for a stable hover. The Coupler greatly reduces pilot workload, especially at night or in bad weather. It is a masterpiece of anolog technology, straight out of the 1960s. No pilot would dream of taking his hands away from the controls and trusting his life to it, however.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is something that has always bothered me, and apparently bothers some of our NATO allies (i'm starting to hear); the CO of a ship does not have absolute tactical control over his helicopter, which means neither would a NATO fleet commander. Other NATO countries (like the US) have air forces that belong to the Navy, not to the Air Force. Not so much so in Canada; all of our Air Forces answer ultimately to 1 CAD.



It is a subtle distinction that even Winnipeg struggles with de temps en temps, but on operations, 1 CAD does not own any aircraft.  The Air Component Commander does, and he is subordinate to Comd CJOC.  Likewise, the Navy does not sail on operations - the Maritime Component Commander owns all ships, and he too is subordinate to Comd CJOC.

The fact that those individuals (and their HQs) are both quadruple-hatted, and that we do not have a Land Component Commander significantly muddies those waters...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The other 1% of the time happens when the ship is sailing for the weekend, and the air crew is about to leave on a routine mission near Halifax on a Friday, but for some reason bring their suit cases with them. Wouldn't it surprise you to find out that they end up having a mechanical issue just as Shearwater becomes the closer landing site? So they land at Shearwater and can't come back to the ship until the helo is fixed on Monday, so they get to go home. Good thing they had their suitcases with them...



Maybe I'm not getting the context quite right, but I also take an overnight bag on certain occasions;  getting launched on a SAR on a weekend, doing a LRPF (pilot trainer away from the local area).  On time we were in Andøya, and had a part shipped over that had to be picked up in Oslo; those of us who went brought an overnight bag.  If we'd of broken down and *ended up in Oslo, at least we'd of had civies and a toothbrush.  Is there any chance the suitcases were 'good planning', like it would be on lots of occasions for fixed wingers?

* no one would have been upset to spend a few days in Olso...but no one would intentional doing something to ground the aircraft either.



> if the CO (or fleet commander) was to say "were all out of missiles and main gum ammo; our last option to save the HVU is to have the Cyclone close to point blank range and try and pepper that enemy warship's fire control radar with the C6", well they counldn't do that. They'd have to call Winnipeg first and get permission.



Ya, ya I remember seeing a video about this type of warfare!   8)

"..._command turns to a desperate, new tactic_..." seems to be a fitting summary.   :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2018)

[quote author=Eye In The Sky] ..but no one would intentional doing something to ground the aircraft either.
[/quote]
Especially not the infantry when accidentally exposed to sweet airforce accommodations  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2018)

I will not defend the RCAF on the tactical control of Maritime Helicopters. They didnt bother to read the NATO Maritime doctrine and what it says about who controls Naval Air Forces (the MCC does, although those forces may well be coordinated on a theatre wide, joint ATO- not that helicopters usually show up on the ATO. We are too "small potatoes"). Instead they have created a real doctrinal muddle. It could be solved through the creation of a MAOC to mirror the CAOC, or the Air Div could just accept that MH is different when they write the TOCA message.

As for taking overnight bags while flying- i do it when i am actually doing a run ashore for parts, medevac or a pax transfer. I broke down once while at a USN base while on a medevac. I was smart enough to at least have brought my flight suit so I could get out of my immersion suit, but my Aircraft Captain was stuck in his all day, until we could find the NEX and buy some clothes. Contrary to popular myth, no one would purposely u/s an aircraft. On the other hand, no one is going to fly an unserviceable aircraft back to the ship over open water. We dont love you guys that much. Taking a day pack is just prudent.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Aug 2018)

Folks, just a reminder to steer away from specific force protection levels/distances that someone could use to do us harm downrange.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Especially not the infantry when accidentally exposed to sweet airforce accommodations  ;D



//recruiting tanget on//

Honestly...it's a myth.  Our Accn aren't that great when we're away from homeplate (see picture below).  There have been a few times I've even had to share 2 bedroom apartment with another crewmember!   rly:



Honestly, we do have it pretty jammy.  The worst Accn I've stayed in during my time on Sqn?  Cold Lake, during MF/MG.  Scotland is always a good go.

See your local PSO shop about opportunities to remuster to Commissioned and Non Commissioned aircrew trades.

//recruiting tanget off//


----------



## dimsum (26 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Honestly, we do have it pretty jammy.  The worst Accn I've stayed in during my time on Sqn?  Cold Lake, during MF/MG.  Scotland is always a good go.



In Scotland, I stayed in an actual trailer park once.  It was amusing more than anything else (even the CO laughed and took pictures), but those things aren't very soundproof against the Scottish wind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> In Scotland, I stayed in an actual trailer park once.  It was amusing more than anything else (even the CO laughed and took pictures), but those things aren't very soundproof against the Scottish wind.



Was that recently?


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Aug 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> In Scotland, I stayed in an actual trailer park once.  It was amusing more than anything else (even the CO laughed and took pictures), but those things aren't very soundproof against the Scottish wind.



.... or mating rituals


----------



## stoker dave (29 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The XO felt that only Naval Ops officers should be OOD in foreign ports (ostensibly because of the "force protection" requirement).



Maybe I was the basis for that decision?

I was the Assistant Marine Systems Engineering Officer (A/MSEO) and was OOD while alongside in the Gulf during Gulf War I.  While I had a very well qualified duty watch to work with, I was probably not the best choice for that job.  My knowledge of naval operations and force protection was probably close to zero.  

I figured when I was OOD that if no one got hurt and the boat didn't float away from the dock, sink or burn to the waterline, my watch was successful.  If the lights and air conditioning stayed on for the full 24 hours, that was cause for celebration.


----------



## MARS (29 Aug 2018)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I figured when I was OOD that if no one got hurt and the boat didn't float away from the dock, sink or burn to the waterline, my watch was successful.  If the lights and air conditioning stayed on for the full 24 hours, that was cause for celebration.



Broadly speaking, this is still the barometer for success even today.  Sounds like you had it about right, priority-wise.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2018)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I figured when I was OOD that if no one got hurt and the boat didn't float away from the dock, sink or burn to the waterline, my watch was successful.  If the lights and air conditioning stayed on for the full 24 hours, that was cause for celebration.




I echo MARS' comment. As a CO that's about all I expected from my orderly officer, who is, was anyway circa 1980, roughly the same as the Navy's OOD: if by morning there had been no riots, not many soldiers (not many more than usual) were in cells or hospital and none of my building had burned down then I reckoned the OO had not failed ... not any more than i expected any subaltern to fail at any task, anyway.


----------

