If the QM’s have had already all that time the ability to do celnav then I don’t understand why back in 2016 the navy made all that fuzz about officers being trained on the same.
Steve Callahan, lost at sea for 76 days in a raft and finding his course with a sextant made out of a pencils. I have not yet found how he did that. Rubber bands were involved and he probably used a plumb line. I suppose he looked along the pencil to the (pole) star and had made on a piece of paper a protractor. Something like David Bruch describes in his book Emergency Navigation.
The same principle but with different material!
Have you noticed that when you read a news article in an area of your expertise it’s got it all wrong? It’s the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. What we forget is when we turn the page and read an article outside our area of expertise we assume it’s correct.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
— Michael Crichton
I went through Navy “A” QM (and signalman) school, worked for Chief QM and have run into a few over the years. So I don’t know for sure but I think they got the story wrong.
With all the criticism the Navy had two choices. Either restore celestial nav training (maybe by cutting down on COLREGS training?) or admit what every enlisted person knows, that the chiefs run the Navy.
1 Like
I had heard a number of years ago that they were phasing out quartermasters (though I can’t find any mention of that and it’s still an existing rate).
The same is the case ashore in companies. Management thinks they run the company but in reality it is run on a day to day basis by department heads and personnel who when they see a glass falling of the table catch it, so to speak, and prevent damage.
The quote is spot on, exactly as I experience it. The buzz word these days is Fake News which, without intimate knowledge on the subject, is hard to detect sometimes, you always must be on the alert and do research if necessary.
I don’t know, but there was an article in the Navy Times that the Navy wanted more flexibility with regards to promoting the ratings: There was a thread here: US Navy Abolishing Ratings!
Everyone was screaming that it was PC gone mad. The Navy dropped the idea and everyone went back to criticizing the Navy for relying too much on specialists.
It wasn’t that recent. I’m thinking of something I heard 10 or 12 years ago.
Was on CGC Glacier on Deep Freeze 80. We lost both gyros, and the sat nav was the size of a refrigerator and useless. Charts for most of the places we went were basically blank - looked more like plotting sheets than charts. Neat stuff like local apparent midnight - when i the Ice take lower limb of observed sun to upper limb reflected sun off the ice - half the sight - correct all vis bearings for Mercator distortion. Had to take an azimuth every hour to keep checking the always changing magnetic compass error. All kinds of fun nav stuff.
I was QM 2 - and the QM’s and the Nav Officer did almost all the celestial work. Junior officers did some here and there for practice.
On the Gallatin and the Sherman - my other two ships QM’s did most of the celestial work - but spent most of the time on the Gallatin in the Caribs in radar - visual range of islands and the Sherman was in the bearing sea - not sure I ever saw a star or the sun there.
1 Like
did away with them in the Coast Guard - blended into the Boatswain Mate rating. Not sure about the Navy.
Small world - me too left CG as QM1 in 81 and went to Ft. Schuyler. Then went to sea on tankers for a bit. Came ashore in late 90’s
I got off the Gallatin in '74. Seems like the QMs there were always back behind their curtain, don’t know what they were doing back there.
Went from there to QM school then to Alaska. Interesting place to navigate. Visual/radar and misc other but also a lot of LORAN A. Learned to use a sextant and sight reduction but not much due to weather.
Made a trip Kodiak to Seattle and back via the inside passage.
1 Like
“Not I, but ten thousand clerks rule Russia.” – Peter the Great
Cheers,
Earl
1 Like
We in the RAN had a different emphasis on navigation and every seaman officer was trained in normal coastwise navigation and in celestial navigation. The was no enlisted sailor branch specifically trained in navigation but some senior sailors would be trained to command support craft and as OOW in small ships (patrol boats and landing craft etc). This the case in other similar navies eg RN, RNZN etc.
Frigates and above generally carried a Meteorological Observer sailor who was cross trained as the Navigator’s Yeoman and he essentially worked directly for the Nav correcting charts, maintaining nav gear and doing his weather obs and plotting weather charts.
Navigation was a top level warfare skill and officers specifically streamed (after having first navigated a frigate and been recommended) as such becoming known as ‘long Ns’ with a final additional course which added a + sign after the N qual and thus known as ‘dagger Ns’. They would be posted to destroyer squadrons, the carrier (singular), deep draught ships etc.
I don’t see this level of deep specialist skill in the USN amongst the officer corps. I find it strange that such a critical element of ship safety is delegated to specialist sailors.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the present day requirement for celestial nav is in the RAN but it’s certainly not dead.
I navigated a frigate regularly in company with US battle groups which had the benefit of satnav whilst I was swinging the sextant. I never felt as if I didn’t know where I was. Quite the opposite. I wasn’t sure the battle group knew where it was.
Old war story alert ***.
My frigate was detached from the USS MIDWAY group about 80 miles distant. The admiral was invited over for lunch. He was due by helicopter at noon. Nothing happened. My captain was threatening me ‘Are you sure your position is good?’ I assured him but checked another fifty times.
About 1400 a helicopter flew in and dropped off the admiral, who I’m sure had a nice long lunch, and he later departed. The captain told me the admiral was not impressed, not with my ship but with his own ship’s plot. He’d been sent down the reciprocal bearing and obviously didn’t find us there. He returned after refuelling and showed up in the right spot. He assured us some bums were gonna get kicked when he got back starting at the top.
At least I looked squeaky clean.
3 Likes
There seems to be a clear distinction, as far as navigational responsibilities are concerned, between the modus operandi of the USN and our navies, which probably also includes the British Navy. The RAN has, as you describe it, the same philosophy as the Dutch navy. Navigation including celnav is also here considered as a top level skill, for officers only, it comes with the territory.
Btw, squeaky clean. I like that!
1 Like
I’m not sure if it’s a purely Australian expression but derives, I think, from the sand on our beaches. The whiter and cleaner the sand, the squeakier it gets when you walk on it.
I just received a mail from @dbeierl with the explanation of that expression:
US usage comes from [wet] hair that’s clean enough to squeak when you rub it between your fingers.
1 Like
Does anybody here have the 2nd mate check the compass with tables and sextant?
I used to have hair, but that was some time ago!
2 Likes
SOP, gyro compared to magnetic once every 4 hrs and after every course change. Azimuth to determine gyro error is done daily if possible.
1 Like
Probably to prevent mutineers from taking over the ship. U.S. navy has had Quartermaster since it inception.
The actual “Navigator” was a Lieutenant (varies by ship I assume). During special sea and anchor detail the Navigator would be doing the actual plotting. Bearing takers would be 3rd class or QM “strikers”
1 Like
A quartermaster (kwartiermeester) in the Dutch navy is of a totally different species and has nothing to do with the navigation of the ship.
Activity or operation:
Deals with or supervises painting and maintenance of the ship, mooring, towing and provisioning.