OT: Update on Collision

[Canoerebel]

Yup.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

warspite1

What about beaver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Well, I am on the verge on changing my opinion. [:D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

warspite1

What about beaver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg

What? Where? Did I miss something? [&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

warspite1

What about beaver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg

What? Where? Did I miss something? [&:]

warspite1

I don't know old boy, whasssup?

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

You are never too old to chase tail, the problem is remembering what to do with it if you catch it. [:)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: LST Express

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

You are never too old to chase tail, the problem is remembering what to do with it if you catch it. [:)]

It seems I have derailed this thread .... success! [:D]

[ericv]

Despite all this being said.

I would like just to add the following;

Name one sports, be it chess, checkers or go, where women outperform men. These are the types of sport where superior strategical, operational or tactical knowledge comes in to play. (yes, I had a dominant mother)

Whether people like it or not: women are just like men, only with a modified body to bear a child. This physiological chance sadly incurs a penalty in all performances related to other things than bearing a child or social contacts.

Ignoring this does put society at risk. (entire separate debate)


Don't misunderstand me. There are the occasional Judith Polgars and they should never be excluded from positions for which they qualify.
The same processes through which men can qualify for authoritive positions, should be held for women. Very few wll come through. Look at any sports. 1 in a 1000 will be a woman

[ericv]

Now where is that tail...

[Jaroen]

Eric, you seem to imply that because women don't perform like men in sports they cannot put in positions where such qualities matter. And I believe you already know the civil answer to that as well. But I'll put it on the board anyway.

Simple, you just put the women in position who can perform on the level required. Problem solved.
Does this mean that some (many?) women cannot be put in positions where high physical strength is required? Yes.
Be aware, this also means some (many?) men will also be refused because of high physical requirements.
But it all certainly doesn't mean that women cannot be put into the same positions as men in general.

Now you also mention mind games. Well, you name any mind game where just as many women as men participate and we discuss it further. So what I'm saying, just because you're right about the numbers it doesn't automatically mean it's because women can't do it. And I again believe you very much understand that already. Hopefully.

Are you trolling Eric??? [:-]

What remains is the very hard question what levels of performance we require and how we establish and maintain them?
Do we "rush" introducing an under-represented demographic group or not? If it's been done you do run the risk of under-performing people. And this is what the NAVY is implicitly accused of regarding women in that linked article. And you seem to be somewhat supportive of this suggestion with your statement.

Without that particular article as source material it might have been an interesting question. Is the US NAVY rushing women into service? This question doesn't demean women as regular service (wo)men. It's just about proper procedure to have qualified naval personnel. And as you may now know from research into these two accidents, it's been clarified that all over the board the level of new naval personnel (officers) are lacking. Rushing in women may be an issue, or not, but that question isn't answered with the cases of these two collisions.

Cheers!

[rustysi]

Not me! I'm too old to chase tail!

When I'm dead.[:D]

You are never too old to chase tail, the problem is remembering what to do with it if you catch it.

Oh, I remember. Not that that means anything.[:D]

It seems I have derailed this thread .... success!

[:D]

[AFBTD]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

What about beaver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyCL-ELRxg

What? Where? Did I miss something? [&:]

warspite1

I don't know old boy, whasssup?

whassup you mean; Thats is the last¡¡

whassupp in spanish mean GUASA...the same of the english word LAUGH but the funny thing is that the famous WhatsApp is also GUASAP thats mean "reírse de alguien"

thats if for THE THREAD; thanks buddys¡¡

hai hitle¡

[JohnDillworth]

I wasn't going to post the report because I thought nobody would be interested. Then it occurred to me who stupid that though was. This group would LOVE to read a report like this. Anyway, this is 72 pages but the real meat is in the FINDINGS section. Page 20-22. I think the findings are honest and sober. The Navy does not cut itself any slack. Most damning is this line :

" The command leadership did not foster a culture of critical self-assessment. Following a near-collision in mid-May, leadership made no effort to determine the root causes and take corrective actions in order to improve the ship’s performance."

Lots of mistakes were made that day and long before. This is what happened. This is why it happened. The United States Navy did and excellent self assessment and did not find that gender played a role. This is the report the original poster, and the author of the original article failed to read.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf

[Bullwinkle58]

I plan to read the report. Thanks for posting.

I think it's also worthwhile to point out something else vis a vis women in the Navy. There has been a lot of talk here about "rushing" and "too fast." I'm going to be 60 in a few months. When I was 18 and just out of high school the first class of women were admitted to the Academy. They graduated in 1980. In 1983 I knew a female LT., SWO qualified, who was standing OOD watches. She's been retired for nearly two decades. Women have been standing OOD watches for nearly the span of two normal Navy careers. This is hardly new news.

The probable first female CO of a CVN, from what I read, is in her deep-draft command tour. She is a naval aviator, a graduate of Nuclear Power School, and has served as XO of a Nimitz-class. The deep-draft command, and PCO School, are her last tickets. I expect heads here wil explode when she takes over, but it's just normal in the 2018 Navy.

My dad, who served from 1949 to 1973 through the draft era and two wars, thinks officers and sailors were far superior in olden times. A lot of the comments in this thread I've heard from him. But the truth is his Navy was full of alcoholics, wife-beaters, illiterates (he once told me about training he got as a petty officer about how to help a man make a "legal X" on the pay ledger), and racists. Discipline then was based more on fear and strict punishment than leadership. It was a bigger Navy and it was a different Navy. It was not a better Navy.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I plan to read the report. Thanks for posting.

I think it's also worthwhile to point out something else vis a vis women in the Navy. There has been a lot of talk here about "rushing" and "too fast." I'm going to be 60 in a few months. When I was 18 and just out of high school the first class of women were admitted to the Academy. They graduated in 1980. In 1983 I knew a female LT., SWO qualified, who was standing OOD watches. She's been retired for nearly two decades. Women have been standing OOD watches for nearly the span of two normal Navy careers. This is hardly new news.

The probable first female CO of a CVN, from what I read, is in her deep-draft command tour. She is a naval aviator, a graduate of Nuclear Power School, and has served as XO of a Nimitz-class. The deep-draft command, and PCO School, are her last tickets. I expect heads here wil explode when she takes over, but it's just normal in the 2018 Navy.

My dad, who served from 1949 to 1973 through the draft era and two wars, thinks officers and sailors were far superior in olden times. A lot of the comments in this thread I've heard from him. But the truth is his Navy was full of alcoholics, wife-beaters, illiterates (he once told me about training he got as a petty officer about how to help a man make a "legal X" on the pay ledger), and racists. Discipline then was based more on fear and strict punishment than leadership. It was a bigger Navy and it was a different Navy. It was not a better Navy.

When I came in in 1977 there were still a lot of draftees (who stayed). And drug users and a lot of undesirables. Today's sailor is a quantum step up in quality. Today's Navy is very good at selection of personal. It doesn't currently have a lot of the "bootstrap for political purposes" that it did in the 1980's. It DOES still have the "gundeck" mentality on lot of training and inspections. That will happen when things are "rushed", be it for political reasons or money.

BTW , I expect that the New CVN skipper will do just fine. And if heads "explode" they'll be civilians or perhaps retirees. She's done her prerequisites and you can't rush a CVN CO qualification. [:D]

[RangerJoe]

I have had women supervisors but never in the military. They weren't allowed in the units that I was in - they were in the support units like the maintenance and MPs. The probable that I see and have seen in other places is when standards are lowered for any members of a group to the point where some of them are not qualified. I remember working at a US National Park headquarters facility where the person in charge of the fire protection was from the US Forest Service. He left the Forest Service because some women who were unqualified were promoted to be fire team leaders and other positions. I saw on television one time that the people most upset about this were the women who were qualified because the perception being that they got their job simply because of their gender and not their qualifications.

That said, if I need surgery or any medical care, I want the most qualified person and not someone who filled a quota. The same thing goes for legal representation, law enforcement, emergency responders, etc.

[Bullwinkle58]

Last night I read the first half of the report John Dillworth linked. It describes the collision of the USS Fitzgerald in detail, but in a "de-nauticalized" fashion. It has extensive photos, drawings, and track diagrams. I would encourage all here to read it. The half took me less than an hour, with frequent rewinds.

The Aegis system, I assume, allowed the investigators to reconstruct the contact picture in ways that would have not been possible on my boat. It was an INTENSE operating environment, at 0130 in the morning, after a long, difficult day of inshore evolutions including an ammo on-load. The ship was handled beyond recklessly, missing contacts (reconstructed) in crossing situations by mere hundreds of yards while moving at 20 kts. No bridge-to-bridge was attempted with any of them. CIC let the OOD down in every way. There was only one lookout stationed, on the wrong bridge wing. The CO was never called, in violation of Standing Orders as well as Navy Regs. The JOOD, when the Fitzgerald was in extremis and minutes from disaster, made prudent recommendations to the OOD, which were rejected. The last order to the helm was not executed, requiring the BMOW, seconds before contact, to assume the helm from the helmsman, but to no avail. And finally, and most egregiously, the CO left the bridge in that traffic environment, as did the Navigator.

Reading the report was difficult. I was heartened, however, choked up, by the descriptions of the actions of the crew in the seconds and minutes after a 17 x 13 foot hole was punched in a major berthing compartment two decks below the waterline. I won't attempt to describe the heroism; read it for yourself. But I was reminded of a famous line from "The Bridges of Toko-Ri": "Where do we find such men?" To that I would add ". . . and women."

[RangerJoe]

I just read both of the reports. I also saved it to go over later. As I was taught, you have to be smarter than what you are working with. In the Fitzgerald situation, it appears that the equipment was not properly working and it was not getting fixed. The lack of training in both situations is apparent. But after both collisions, the junior enlisted personnel did what they had to do and did not seem to panic.

I wonder if the budget cuts, the decreased number of the Navy ships, the increased tempo of the Navy ships among other things appear to be the real problems. With more training to include more diverse situations and a lower tempo of operations, would these collisions have even occurred? If the Navy were to undergo another rapid expansion, will the lack of training due to the decrease in overall experience make things worse?

[witpqs]

Read the report last night.

RangerJoe: Those pressures were cited in earlier articles and I was referring to those in my earlier posts on this. Certainly the bringing of those pressures was a problem (and one that will occur again and again in the future, pretty well forever as it's part of human nature). The decisions made in response to those pressures are what higher Navy leadership had control of and I'm sure have identified as such. I am certain they thought they were walking the tightrope but events proved the compromises in priorities could not be sustained.