[QUOTE=rbc;143656]I can understand that. I think the US Sub bias toward engineering was largely a product of Rickover’s influence. Many other nations sub forces have separate tracks for engineers and deck officers.[/QUOTE]
I hope I didn’t come across like a jerk- it’s just that the Navy and NOAA are like apples and oranges. The corps officers generally serve on a ship for two (or is it three?) years, then they rotate to a shore job. Most of them have some kind of science or liberal arts degree. They have a 90 day prep school at the Coast Guard academy. That’s it. To send them to the engine room in any function above a wiper would not only be unsafe, it wouldn’t even be practical, because you’d be teaching a new one the difference between a pipe wrench and a screwdriver every few months or so. It would be a waste for us, and a waste for them, too.
They do a lot of the administrative work, they run programs, projects etc. Being a snipe is a full time job so the two are exclusive activities.
Plus, these ships are inspected vessels now and require licensed engineers to operate (you may have noticed some discussion of a shortage of same) so honestly, there’s no room for these guys anyway.
To expound on what Cat is saying, the Navy wants it’s officers to be more well rounded. In the Merchant Service we don’t have a whole department of enlisted to rely on. A merchant officer is strictly Deck or Engine, if you’re particularly smart or motivated maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about the other side. But primarily you’re expected to be an expert in you’re field. As a Deckie though don’t expect me to be an expert on how electricity works. I don’t expect my 3AE counterparts to be able to know the difference between IALA-A and IALA-B.
Edit: Of course when it comes to NOAA I don’t exactly know how much of an “Expert” their Deck officers are.
Edit: Of course when it comes to NOAA I don’t exactly know how much of an “Expert” their Deck officers are.[/QUOTE]
Like with anything, expertise is a combination of ability, training, and experience, and the amount of experience these noaa corps guys get is limited by the very nature of the job. That’s why certain NOAA ships have or had a civilian Master or Chief Mate. Evidently, it was decided at some point by some body that more experience was needed for certain kinds of operations.
[QUOTE=rbc;143659]Understood. I was just curious about the difference. I’m not trying to suggest that they’re directly comparable.[/QUOTE]
I was an officer on a sub and now I’m a deck officer. I think the biggest reason that COs in the U.S. Nuclear Navy have to have some sort of engineering sense is due to the goofy way reactors operate. For officers, the Navy Nuke pipeline consists of some sort of commissioning program (Naval Academy, ROTC, or OCS), followed by 6 months of power school that teaches reactor theory, metallurgy, physics, heat transfer theory, and effects of ionizing radiation. Then it is 6 months of prototype where officers must qualify on a land based reactor. Finally there’s 4 months of sub school where we get a glimpse of what goes on in the rest of the boat. Once on the boat, we become a division officer (DivO) in one of 3 different departments which are engineering, operations and weapons. I only did a DivO tour but remember that to make command one should be as well rounded as possible through the different departments. The surface fleet does things different and I was generally not in contact with any of them so I may be wrong here. The CO of a carrier, from what I understand, is a former pilot who must complete power school and possibly prototype. Again this is so the CO understands the goofy way reactors operate. I think the nuke officers in the surface fleet are limited to being the engineer, the C/E equivalent in the civilian world. You are right in assuming that this was Rickover’s doing. He was one hell of a bastard but his lasting legacy can be seen by ensuring that even 28 years after his death, Navy Nukes still have a solid reputation.
So to answer your question: yes, the Navy wants its sub officers to know everything about the boat. Its my guess that this is to better mitigate casualties and to compromise for a smaller crew. I don’t see the need for any crossover in the civilian world. I think it’s better we are a master of our craft because of jack of all trades is a master of none.
Friday I received a tentative job offer from NOAA (AB day worker) and was told to accept or decline by today. This morning I thanked them for the offer but declined.
My main reason is that I am chasing a job I’d much rather have, and am awaiting a yes or no. A year ago NOAA was high on my list. I’d applied thru usajobs and the last note was my info had been forwarded to the hiring authority. After that, nothing.
I don’t like burning a bridge, unless it goes somewhere I don’t want to be, but I didn’t want to start their 90-day hiring process, which includes a gov’t-paid trip to Norfolk for the physical, and then drop out if something better came along.
Any thoughts, shipmates?
edit: Your thoughts and opinions are welcome, of course. I am hoping for input from anyone who has gone thru the NOAA mill and come out the other side wiser for the experience.
noaa’s retention problems have alot to do with…and ill come right out and say it, a total disregard of the ships crew.a good example is the design of all the new fisheries vessels and the hassler. no single rooms, no lounges just messdecks with maybe a tv, but what can one expect from an agency run by the navy, scientists, and politicians, most of which havent a day of seatime