Rank and Responsibility

[daftandbarmy]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

There is a weight/authority assigned to rank, whether we want to acknowledge it officially on not. Down ranking NCM positions while continuing to push more senior officer bloat devalues NCM ranks. 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 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 ass.  Sometimes people make mistakes. But I completely understand your frustration .

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

...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

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]

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 .



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

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

Regards,
G2G


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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)