# Navy possibly going with a six man duty watch



## S McPhee (2 Dec 2008)

So I've heard the Navy is possibly going to switch to a six man duty watch.  Any thoughts?


----------



## MARS (2 Dec 2008)

Is there a written reference for this?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Dec 2008)

The rumour has been floating around for years, I think its bull puckey myself.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Dec 2008)

Believe it when it happens.

Until then, well, it's a nice idea.

NS


----------



## S McPhee (2 Dec 2008)

Sorry, no written references.  I was just informed by a winger that it was brought up in HODS and CHODs that a home port duty watch review is underway and that there would be more to come.


----------



## MARS (2 Dec 2008)

I guess there is this:

http://esquimalt.mil.ca/CFP/CFP_Exec/FEWG/FEWG%20solution%20matrix%20Sept.xls

It is, unfortunately, a DIN link to a document from the latest FEWG which appears to have been held mid-Sep 08. For those that cannot access the link, the text, sparse as it is, is included here:

Issue
Reduced Duty Watch

Discussion
Six person trial from 2003 being conduct by VAN.

Way ahead, Milestones, Action req'd
This will be reviewed again by Sea Training as it may apply to other ships.  A long term review will required to determine risk and impact
---------------end of text------------------------

I didn't realize that VAN was conducting these trials - perhaps someone who was in VAN in '03 would have an idea of the results. Since the FEWG, as near as I can tell, was held a couple of months ago and the trails were undertaken 5 years ago, I don't think this issue is keeping people up at night.


_Edit:  I may have read this incorrectly.  On second read, it sounds like perhaps the trials were first initiated in '03 and are now being conducted by VAN.  Perhaps someone knows if VAN is doing these trials at the moment_


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Dec 2008)

I was on the Gatineau when we trialed a 5 person duty-watch. (I think)

2 roundsmen, 2 brow watchkeepers, 1 MSOD.

OOD and POOD on pagers.

Worked well, but the last rumor I heard was that the ship's didn't like it because it meant that they had to give those guys the next day off since they were 1 in 2.  

NS


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Dec 2008)

I have been hearing that since I joined in 96, and I am willing to bet it will still be a good rumor long after I retire.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Dec 2008)

Maybe they might try it.  Nice idea in principle until something really happens, and given time it will.  Once the dust settles, the punishment of the innocent and escape of the guilty things will return to the present status quo.  
Recipe for disaster.


----------



## STONEY (4 Dec 2008)

I shudder to think what would have happened at Pearl Harbour if they had the measely duty watches we have today. Remember many of the ships there managed to get underway and escape destruction even though they weren't expecting an attack . Our readyness today is a joke , I remember when the duty watch would have been able to flash up the ship and after recall proceedures the ship would have been able to get underway within a few hours .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2008)

STONEY said:
			
		

> I shudder to think what would have happened at Pearl Harbour if they had the measely duty watches we have today. Remember many of the ships there managed to get underway and escape destruction even though they weren't expecting an attack . Our readyness today is a joke , I remember when the duty watch would have been able to flash up the ship and after recall proceedures the ship would have been able to get underway within a few hours .



How is that different then an army unit or an air force unit that have duty personnel on only during the silent hours. These measely duty watches as you call them are a pain in the ass as they stand now. Onboard these days if we had more people on with more frequent watches, I can pretty much guarantee the Navy would have even a bigger personnel shortage. What you propose would be akin to making a ship's company 1 in 5 to have the bodies needed. Duty for 24 hours, get hit by sea training and/or respond to another ships exercise, do your own exercise plus work the next day if you have an ass for a boss. I can't really say I am surprised we have so many people that loathe duty watches.

That being said, maybe if we placed the Ready Duty Ship on a 1 in 5 system it may soothe your alarmist concerns.


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Dec 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> That being said, maybe if we placed the Ready Duty Ship on a 1 in 5 system it may soothe your alarmist concerns.



Without saying anything that oughtn't to be said in public, roughly how long does it take the Ready Duty ship to get underway?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Without saying anything that oughtn't to be said in public, roughly how long does it take the Ready Duty ship to get underway?



Depends on the ship, depends on how long it takes for the crew to be recalled, depends on the situation.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (5 Dec 2008)

STONEY said:
			
		

> I shudder to think what would have happened at Pearl Harbour if they had the measely duty watches we have today. Remember many of the ships there managed to get underway and escape destruction even though they weren't expecting an attack . Our readyness today is a joke , I remember when the duty watch would have been able to flash up the ship and after recall proceedures the ship would have been able to get underway within a few hours .



Pearl Harbor was under a war warning at the time. Somehow I doubt MARCOM would keep small duty watches if we were under a similar war warning.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Dec 2008)

To respond to N. McKay:
It should take no more than 4 hours for the ready duty ship to get underway. Having said that, once departments are at minimal manning for the mission req't, the ship will sail at CO's discretion. I have seen it in a little over 2 hours. Bare in mind, most recalls for RDS are SARs and do not go much beyond 72 hours so departments can 'safely' sail a few personnel short as long as key players, again dependent on the requirement, are present. 
Back to the Duty watch thing, I was on GATINEAU as well for that trial (I wonder who you are??). It was actually 6 people with the senior supervisor (PO2s and PO1s) being on board and the OOD on a recall list. I think the reason it did not really work was because of the fact that it was a steamer with fewer automated systems. The senior supervisor pretty well set up shop in the Cafeteria or 3 mess as there was no use going to a bunk - you wouldn't be there more than 45 minutes! It was actually written that you did have the day off the next day and it was pretty much a necessity all things considered. What I did see after Haiti ('93, I think) was GATINEAU nested with FRASER and a common duty watch with 2 extras (12 vice 10) made up of people from both ships. That did seem to work out well though my Duty Tech rounds took 6 freekin' hours!!!!!
One must remember, we are an 'Armed' force and if readiness requirements mean we are duty 1 in 3/4 because of a condition based threat then, lets face it people, that is why we are paid the big bucks!


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Dec 2008)

Pat,

I was an OD at the time.  Got onboard the week the females were posted off, sailed WUPS about 10 days later (it was fall of '94) and did the various trips onboard through the following year, including the Strong Resolve trip.  I was a CSE guy hiding in the Stoker mess, (no space in our mess) so that was kinda different.

I stand corrected on the manning for the trial.

The idea of a Nested pair of ships with reduced watches makes sense....don't the MCDV's do that already?  I wonder if it'd be do-able for a CPF?

NS


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Dec 2008)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> To respond to N. McKay:
> It should take no more than 4 hours for the ready duty ship to get underway. Having said that, once departments are at minimal manning for the mission req't, the ship will sail at CO's discretion. I have seen it in a little over 2 hours. Bare in mind, most recalls for RDS are SARs and do not go much beyond 72 hours so departments can 'safely' sail a few personnel short as long as key players, again dependent on the requirement, are present.



Thanks!


----------



## DONT_PANIC (8 Dec 2008)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The idea of a Nested pair of ships with reduced watches makes sense....don't the MCDV's do that already?  I wonder if it'd be do-able for a CPF?



THe MCDVs do indeed do this, and it seems to work pretty well.  Though you do get a weird sense of deja-vu when doing rounds...


----------



## Sattech66 (18 Dec 2008)

From what I heard while out to the West Coast, this trial may happen real soon again.
If properly managed this could be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Stoker (18 Dec 2008)

As long as there is enough personnel to fight a Fire or Flood it seems to be a good idea to me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Dec 2008)

So what would the break up of personnel be? 1 MSOD, 1 Duty Cox/Tech, 2 MCR Watchkeepers and 2 Quartermasters? Or would it be something different?


----------



## HalfmyLife (19 Dec 2008)

Van is currently under a reduced duty watch, due to her manning issues. As far as I hear it (not part of van myself) a commissioner. Set's up shop for the night.... anybody have more info?


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Dec 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> As long as there is enough personnel to fight a Fire or Flood it seems to be a good idea to me.



There's the rub.  What is a sufficient amount of personnel.  If you are talking about 4-5 people per ship.  The butter is spread pretty thin and response times with an adequate emergency response team cobbled together from here and there may just add to the damage done by a real fire/flood.  I bet a real no duff would be, in hind sight be a Three Stooges comedy if you weren't crying instead.  I fear it is a recipe for disaster.  But then I'm a pessimist by nature.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There's the rub.  What is a sufficient amount of personnel.  If you are talking about 4-5 people per ship.  The butter is spread pretty thin and response times with an adequate emergency response team cobbled together from here and there may just add to the damage done by a real fire/flood.  I bet a real no duff would be, in hind sight be a Three Stooges comedy if you weren't crying instead.  I fear it is a recipe for disaster.  But then I'm a pessimist by nature.



Good point, several months ago when the Kingston had her major fire, response time for the fire was well over 10 minutes by the dockyard fire department. If they had a dutywatch onboard instead of locking the ship up and wiring it into the fire department a lot of damage would of probally been prevented.


----------



## NCRCrow (20 Dec 2008)

lets leave the DCOXN out of this!


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Good point, several months ago when the Kingston had her major fire, response time for the fire was well over 10 minutes by the dockyard fire department. If they had a dutywatch onboard instead of locking the ship up and wiring it into the fire department a lot of damage would of probally been prevented.



10 minutes for a full and proper response is not too bad really.  Afterall even with a duty watch right there Johnny on the spot it still is at least that if not more before the wet stuff is on the red stuff.  Now if you take a dockyard full of reduced duty watches, from different locations all over the bloody place and throw in that they might not be conversant with the platform they are responding to.  It is to my mind a disaster in the waiting.  Tons of Murphy's Law can and may happen.  But hey, it saves a dollar and is possibly good for morale, right.


----------



## Mike2505 (11 Jan 2009)

I attended a brief by the new Commodore in November just prior to the TGEX/Wups and he mentioned this very subject. It sounds like a fine idea which will probably not get off the ground. We in the navy are too entrenched in our belief in the value of a duty watch to want to see it reduced to what basically would amount to a fire picket detail. Lets remember that now our duty watch is currently a, finely tuned fire/flood and whatever other emergency may arise, response team. If we reduce it to 6 men including a duty tech then fire fighting would be left to the dockyard fire department. It is a nice thought but probably not practical.


----------



## norris (11 Jan 2009)

For us landlubbers, what is the watch at present?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2009)

Ideally at present its:
1x Officer of the Day 
1x Duty Coxn
1x Duty Tech
1x Master Seaman of the Day
3x Quartermasters
3x MCR Watchkeepers
Through the work day there is a bosun mate making pipes and a Duty cook. Bosun mate and duty cook don't stay for the full 24 hour period.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (11 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ideally at present its:
> 1x Officer of the Day
> 1x Duty Coxn
> 1x Duty Tech
> ...



To that you can add extra bodies that have been double banked to learn those roles.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2009)

Nope never forgot them because at the end of the day its only the qualified personnel you can use in the event of an emergency whether actual or Sea Training.


----------



## NCRCrow (11 Jan 2009)

Your double banks are your best boundaries!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2009)

Not my call...


----------



## Springroll (12 Jan 2009)

When I have been the DB'd QM, and we go to bong-bongs, I am usually told to head up to the brow to do the plotting or whatever the on duty QM needs help with.
That is the experience I need, not being a supernumerary pers like some seem to assume.


----------



## Sub Standard (12 Jan 2009)

I was part of the original trial in 2002-2003 on the Regina during her Docking work period.  At the time it called for 2 brow 2 mcrs a Duty watch supervisor and an OOD.  Anytime there was high risk work after hours (ie burning and welding etc) we had to augment with an extra brow and mcr.  With this trial all the Duty techs and Duty coxns became the DWS, The duty cooks and Stewards joined the Brow rotation and the MCR got nobody added to their rotation.  Since the majority of the trail took place during a DWP we almost always had to augment the duty watch so it didn't seem to make a difference to the rotation and as I stated above everyone accept the MCR got people added to their rotations.  This might have worked better for a ship not in a major work period and ramping up for the gulf.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ideally at present its:
> 1x Officer of the Day
> 1x Duty Coxn
> 1x Duty Tech
> ...



Can`t speak for other platforms but on the Tanker we also had 1 x Senior Hand of the Watch as well.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jan 2009)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Can`t speak for other platforms but on the Tanker we also had 1 x Senior Hand of the Watch as well.



What's his/her function?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jan 2009)

The SHOW mans HQ1 during a  fire after bringing the Diesel Fire Pumps on line and monitors the firemain to ensure supply is not interrupted as well as keeping the OOD current on the systems status. 

In the event of a power blackout, they bring up the DGs and reset all the manual systems fore and aft.  Once shore power is returned they bring that back on line. 

Do checks of the logs to ensure the engineering roundsmen are doing their rounds and assist them with problems as they arise.

Turn on/off ship's lighting at sunset/sunrise. 

Other duties as necessary/directed in the NOB.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2009)

So basically they act as a Duty Tech/MCR watchkeeper?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So basically they act as a Duty Tech/MCR watchkeeper?



There still is a Duty Tech.  Some of the same ground is covered by both. 

Unlike the 280s, CPFs the MCR is not manned except when flashed up.  Same with HQ1.  This is late 60s Tech here no bells Or whistles. 

SH is usually a MS or with Stokers at least a  very senior LS.  Stepping stone to DT.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2009)

Kewl...thanks for the info.


----------

