|
Why the heck is the navy having the same people stand OOW/OOD and EOW? In the commercial world, those are two completely different career tracks, with two (almost) completely different four year teaching curriculum and certification requirements. Also the engineering folks stop sailing after four years and make fat stacks ashore 
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
The Valley Stared posted:But, we kept the ship afloat and we got back under our own power. Hey I'm just a merchant marine officer turned office puke but I just wanted to let you know that was one of the most impressive feat of seamanship of the modern age, and most seafarers can only hope they'd rise anywhere close to the level you did that day. Let me know if you're ever in Québec, it'd be an honour to get you drunk on the good stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:Is there no way to simulate a busy straight? It's not like you're tracking a swarm of bees, I thought ships moved plenty slow to know when you're going to crash. There's just so much stuff going on, you basically go into information overload. I'd bet a sandwich that the OOW (Or whoever does the actual conning on a navy boat) was concentrating on another radar target. In theory you could track every ship, but at some point even the collision alarm is useless - it goes off every other minute. You need a really good watch team and good BRM; the bottleneck is in the officer's brain, and it's not easily-automated decision making.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I have to imagine the target tracker on a P-3 being roughly the same power as a TI-86 calculator. E-2's had a similar problem until they upgraded the mission computer in the mid-90's (they make RAM in megabytes now? Amazing!). Lots of commercial ship radars will lock the gently caress up at 32 or 64 tracks. ...I sailed on some old-rear end ships.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Two years is overkill especially since all naval officers are supposed to be doing that kind of stuff their last few years as a MIDN via NROTC or at the academy. Six months or so is about where I think people would need and then time on station to qualify under the supervision of their captain. I went through six semesters of specialized training (Well ok, there were some common core type classes and a lot of cargo related stuff that wouldn't apply to the navy) and 12 months of supervised on the job training before I was even allowed to take a half dozen government certification exams which finally earned me the right to conn a thirty year old bulk carrier that can do all of 12 knots on a good day by myself. Some of my classmates are getting promoted to command ships now, ten years out of school, with about five years of that actually spent underway, and quite frankly that's a bit early. I'm not saying the commercial world is perfect, but the difference in training for what amounts to the same job (When you're navigating anyway) is just staggering. You'd need at least 16 months of classroom and simulator time and six or eight months of time at sea to train a competent watchstander, in my opinion, and that would be a really aggressive condensed program with a ridiculous attrition rate (and the average civilian nautical school curriculum already has something like a 50% drop-out rate). How similar is the Navy's aviation pipeline to what a civilian-trained pilot would be expected to go through?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:OCS condenses six semesters of naval science classes that NROTC and academy midshipment take. Off the top of my head, and excluding stuff like math and physics, I got: 205 hours of seamanship, engineering and basic poo poo 120 hours of naval architecture Roughly 260 hours of pilotage, ship handling and navigation 110 hours of colreg and practical collision avoidance (soooo much time in the fog in the simulator) 120 hours of celestial navigation 120 hours of intact and damaged stability (which might not be all that relevant to naval operations) 60 hours of radio communications Let's round it up to a thousand hours, and I'm excluding stuff like electricity, management, regulations and cargo handling because I'm assuming those would be replaced by their military equivalent, for another 700-800 hours. I don't see how that can be condensed in 12 weeks, and leave enough time for studying.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
It is extremely  to me that their AIS wasn't broadcasting, especially at the entrance to a TSS.TSS entrances are loving nightmares.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:I find it really hard to believe they don't have a battery backup for steering and possibly a manual way of doing it. If the 24v backup doesn't work though, manual steering takes time to work. The only civilian ships I've seen with battery back ups on the steering were cruise ships. Everything else was on the emergency gen but that only helps in a black out. If a steering pump ate it, or the servo cooked, welp. By the time you go local, you're hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Going through the strait of Malacca with the AIS not broadcasting is some insane poo poo. Edit: I mean if you're concerned about getting Cole'd, just make up an MMSI that starts with 538 and put in the name as MV STINGRAY GLORY or something
FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Assuming for the sake of argument that it is some kind of mechanical/electrical/electronic/out of cheese failure, that something went dramatically wrong in the worst possible place for it, will a human being still be punished for that, because said human being should have foreseen that that particular thing would break? Does every catastrophe always have to have a culprit? Is there such a thing as an unavoidable accident?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Why is it crazy? AIS is cool and all but it isn't everything. No vessel is losing track of a warship just because they aren't broadcasting AIS. There are armed gunners to deal with suicide boats. Anyone driving a ship around them in the strait shouldn't be paying attention to AIS over looking at the ships on the water anyways. AIS turns you from "a blob on the radar" into "a triangle with a name and a vector". At no cost to you, and it doesn't matter how good the operator on the other ship is. Also, and this is a bit deplorable, merchant mariners assume that everyone has an AIS, especially in those kind of areas. Finally, yes, everyone should be looking out the window, but let's be realistic: one member of the bridge team was looking at the radar, one was looking at the ECDIS, one was standing by the helm and looking out the window and uh... that's it. Sailing into the strait of Malacca without AIS is like driving down the highway with your headlights off. poo poo, military aircrafts turn their transponders on around civilian airports, don't they?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Boon posted:Well, my second ship had it's rudder fall off. That was in 1996 though, well before I was there. Even with the best training in the world, that'd be pretty hard to overcome I think. Had the rudder and it's supporting arrangement been properly designed? Properly manufactured? Properly installed? Inspected? Maintained? Was the steering gear being operated according to the manufacturer's specifications? Were those correct? Was the rudder matched to the steering gear (granted that would be a design flaw...) Was the steering / helm being operated within specs? Etc etc. Parts don't just fall off million dollar machines, especially not essential parts like a rudder. You can't just go  "those things happen!"There's no such thing as an unavoidable accident in the civilian world, I'm not sure why their would be in the navy. I'm not saying someone should be sacked, but if the navy approaches things by the standard that "well some accidents will occur, NBD", there's your problem. Elendil004 posted:Interesting article on lack of sleep. That was definitely a think in the guard, I once stood 28 straight hours of watch and I basically told the Ops LT "Ok Ops, I am going to go to sleep because I just blinked and fell asleep on my feet for 15 minutes, either you take the watch or qualify my break-in he's good to go." And lo and behold my break-in got the sign of the cross. The STCW / MLC standard for merchant mariners is no more than 14 hours of work in any 24 hours, and at least 77 hours of rest a week, with no more than two periods of rest a day, one of which has to be more than six continuous hours. Emergencies excepted, but drills count. Back in my days (  ) we capped out at 16 hours a day.For some reason this standard which applies to cargo ships flagged in landlocked countries and manned by third world crews living in near slavery absolutely cannot be implemented aboard American ships with 10 times the crew complement
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
My personal opinion of moboard is that they're not a productive use of watchkeeping resources, and I can't recall using one outside a simulator. Maybe once for training. That being said I've been in situations where a paper plot would have been useful, so if you've got the manpower, awesome. As for protected sleep, could you have berthing based on watches?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Little changes in radar return can lead to wild changes in software determined CPA. Such as? ARPA has its limitations (If either the target or ownship turns or change speed, for example), but I've never seen it to have wild changes due to radar return issues. And I can't recall the last time I was on a ship whose magnetrons weren't hissing. Beside you should be trying for a CPA that's wide enough that radar inaccuracies shouldn't put you at risk. It's been my experience that ARPA's limitations are far, far outweighed by the reductions in workload.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I've seen a console suddenly show a contact changing course by over 180 degrees for a few seconds before returning to something like the original calculated course. If losing a plot in such a radical fashion for a few second poses a risk to your collision avoidance, you should already have the GA going and the watertight doors closing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:I always do. gently caress trusting my safety to you lot Shut the gently caress up and push.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:It's an irritation and if you have a paper plot it's easy to just put in the position and confirm that it matches the expected course and speed rather than wait for the machine to unfuck itself and update. I've never had it happen to me to the point where it was an irritant - and I'm easily irritable. I remain firmly of the opinion that the guy doing the paper plot would be way more useful as an extra lookout or radar observer. Especially nowadays, where pretty much all decent navigation radars have AIS overlay, "the ARPA's unreliable!" is a poor argument. AIS is unreliable in a way (you're relying on the other guy having his poo poo set up properly), ARPA is unreliable in another (changes in motion, radar artefacts), but if you have both on the same screen and the vectors overlay within a reasonable margin, you'll see right away if one of them is making GBS threads the bed. Add trails to the mix and you've got an extra layer of protection. The biggest bridge watch team I ever had as OOW / conn officer was like three people. An AB watching the S-band / autopilot, a cadet as a lookout / paper position plot (This was before the ECDIS days), and myself on the X-band / electronic chart. If I'd had additional people handy, I would have put them up as lookout, unless we had to go on hand steering. There's no replacement for a guy going "Hey there's a fishing boat over there!", because drat if that hasn't saved my career (And probably a couple of guy's life) a few times. I would have had to have a lot of qualified people* on hand before I put one on a paper plot, especially in crowded waters. *and chart table real-estate FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What happens to ARPA when you're in an environment where you're trying not to radiate? Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. If you're not radiating and you blunder into another ship, welp, you should have been radiating.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
While I understand your concern, we're talking about navigation radars here. I don't think the US Navy uses anything fancy for that; I think Furunos were mentioned up thread. If you're in a situation where you don't want to be tracked then yes, by all mean turn off the radar and the AIS. Doing that in the strait of Malacca is ill advised. Military planes landing at civilian airports turn on their transponders don't they? The area where the McCain and Alnic collided is the maritime equivalent of the airspace around O'Hare. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Oct 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that going by international rule, if you're involved in a collision and your radar was off, you broke the rules. Of course at that point you probably have a bigger problem than admiralty court but
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:Furono's are standard nav gear, at least on all the ship's I've been on. Funny, most of the ships I've been on had Sperry radars... including the ones built in Japan.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:All I'm saying is if the engineers ran ships you'd never have a crash Cause you'd never be able to leave port. "Something's wrong with the mooring lines, I keep heaving but they're not coming in!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Slavic Crime Yacht posted:I hate deckies regardless but that was some next level idiocy I think we've already established that SWOs =/= deckies, and btw we hate you too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Slavic Crime Yacht posted:Enjoy your cold showers for the next month t Imma wait through halfway through the unload, then have you rig for pumping out, then I'll start warping while the unloading rig and the pumps are going without telling you. Oh I'll pop a hatch open at the same time too. And you're gonna like it, you dirty dirty engineer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 01:46
|
|
t
|
Nuke is one of those things that on its face sounds cool and awesome... but then there's overwhelming evidence that it's actually shittastic. I'd rather go clean shitters on the MY SLAVIC CRIME under a goon chief engineer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It comes with a free book deal nowadays! The BUDS Method: How to Apply the Lessons Learned from the Author's Failure in Training to Middle Management.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Scientists have very little money, cut rate science boat money is not enough money to maintain a boat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
One of my old ships went Anchor Away once, years after I'd left. Brake failed on the open sea, lashing didn't hold (hadn't been put on in the first place), OOW noticed some sparks and by the time the watchman got up forward, there just wasn't a port anchor.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
The book picture above, though, was written by a guy who uses a stylized drawing of his balding forehead as a profile picture, and is affectionately known as "Hammer Licker" in the bitcoin-afficionado community.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
We just use red and white for marking shots though. Called them shackles too. The funny thing is that chain lockers are terrible rust pits, and always end up with mud and water all over. The big cloud is mostly rust and dried out mud. The markings on the last few shots usually turn illegible after a couple of month.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Slavic Crime Yacht posted:And they're 27 metres not 90 feet you loving heathens It's 15 fathoms, shut the gently caress up and go grease something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The rust problem in chain lockers is overblown as there is normally enough natural ventilation through the hauspipe that atmosphere isn't a problem in there. In my experience ballast tanks aren’t usually so much of a problem since the air gets replaced in them whenever you empty them. Much more ventilation on them than in a chain locker, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
You also don’t want to open it too wide so you can “choke” the chain so it doesn’t take up momentum and run away on you. The brake is a metal band that wraps around the drum, the wheel just tightens it up. It’s like an oversized hose clamp.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Part of how I learned not to gently caress off on the bridge wing for an entire watch as an OOW was having my rear end handed to me repeatedly in the simulator. I still have nightmare about a stupid fast ferry that came out of Calais at gently caress you knots while I was busy plotting the giant LNG carrier I was overtaking. I didn’t hit the fucker, and it just got me a stern talking to from the instructor, but man did I learn a lesson about tunnel vision that day. We spent like 45 hours on actual ship handling, everything else was coastal navigation and anti collision in the simulator. Ship handling was something we were expected to learn on the job, which makes sense. A lot of employers send their skippers and pilots to manned model courses, which look  as gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Parallel rulers or triangles?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Triangles. I expected better of you, MML. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Slavic Crime Yacht posted:That's a true story man I know a guy who knows a guy that was on the lighthouse I know a guy who met a dude who did his GMDSS with a guy who was nearby and heard the whole thing on 16. ManMythLegend posted:No way. Triangles are the best, and if you know how to use them people think you're some sort of sorcerer. They’re poo poo for long lines though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
For pilotage and plotting, sure. Coastal navigation and planning? Parallel all day erryday.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
They’re also compartmentalized five way to Sunday, have longitudinal strengthening, and are essentially gas-tight. It’s really hard to sink a tanker, compared to say, a bulk carrier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
lightpole posted:Colt Pielsticks As a deck officer, I... Nope can’t finish that. Someone actually bought Pielsticks on a new build in this day and age? loving lol. Pielstick: we sell the engine cheap and make it up on spare parts! Everybody... wins?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2017 06:37
|
|