Navy possibly going with a six man duty watch
- Thread starter S McPhee
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
The rumour has been floating around for years, I think its bull puckey myself.
- Reaction score
- 3,459
- Points
- 1,120
Believe it when it happens.
Until then, well, it's a nice idea.
NS
Until then, well, it's a nice idea.
NS
- Reaction score
- 318
- Points
- 930
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
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
- Reaction score
- 3,459
- Points
- 1,120
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
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
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
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.
Recipe for disaster.
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 .
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
STONEY said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Ex-Dragoon 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?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
N. McKay said:
Depends on the ship, depends on how long it takes for the crew to be recalled, depends on the situation.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
STONEY said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 280
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!
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!
- Reaction score
- 3,459
- Points
- 1,120
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Pat in Halifax said:
Thanks!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
NavyShooter said:
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...
