PDFORRA report "Life at Sea"

[Buddy]

Navy going to sea

I was chatting to a petty officer at the base yesterday, and he told me that while patrols may be at sea for three weeks, when they come back they should get a week off, but usually only get about three or fours days, dosen't bother me I've no children and im not into relationships

[Goldie fish]

Circumstances Change. Cobh is funny that way...

[hptmurphy]

Very Inflamatory Dogwatch....There have been as many officers and senor NCOs who have been not seagoing for many years but yet still serve in jobs ashore.

Just because some one is non seagoing dosen't mean you can take their livelyhood away.

Yeah there are probably a few lead swingers...but you can't just cut the numbers ashore and still to have an effective support structure for those at sea.

I had intended not to add comment but find the attitute of if they don't sail sack them to be totally out of line. There are other ways..contractual ways..legal ways of ensuring everyone does mandatory sea time on an equal basis..but none of the bright lights of the NS have every seemed to latch on to these oppertunities.

[Dogwatch]

Very Inflamatory Dogwatch....There have been as many officers and senor NCOs who have been not seagoing for many years but yet still serve in jobs ashore.

Just because some one is non seagoing dosen't mean you can take their livelyhood away.

Yeah there are probably a few lead swingers...but you can't just cut the numbers ashore and still to have an effective support structure for those at sea.

I had intended not to add comment but find the attitute of if they don't sail sack them to be totally out of line. There are other ways..contractual ways..legal ways of ensuring everyone does mandatory sea time on an equal basis..but none of the bright lights of the NS have every seemed to latch on to these oppertunities.

A few lead swingers?? Get real! There are plenty & with the likes of the writers branch now gone, all the writers still don't go to sea, but hold down seaman's appointments. For example, there are a no. of CPO/Seaman appointments ashore on a higher tech pay scale, 99% are held by writers that never rotate to sea, fair? I don't think so.

Navy needs to seriously look at these problems.

[Marius]

I had intended not to add comment but find the attitute of if they don't sail sack them to be totally out of line. There are other ways..contractual ways..legal ways of ensuring everyone does mandatory sea time on an equal basis..but none of the bright lights of the NS have every seemed to latch on to these oppertunities.

It is not "out of line" to require a basic minimum availability for sea from all persons in the NS regardless of rank. Talking of 'contractual ways' and 'legal ways' and 'other means' to ensure it is phoney. The contract is "you joined the Navy, you will go to sea when required" and a sailor either fulfills it or doesn't... why should there be a further 'contract' spelling out in greater complexity what is really a very simple affair?

The Navy has a problem with personnel who are willing to watch others sail out the harbour instead of them. They often have, by their own subjective standard, fulfilled what they perceive as their 'contract' and now feel the Navy owes them a living.

The result is healthy people pretending to be sick or pleading emotional difficulties and family problems which render them incapable of performing the service for which they were employed. They then get used to their new, easy life and sit back, watching others going to sea instead. And they get comfortable. And if an inkling of shame or guilt at all enters their mind they rationalise it as being a management problem and absolve themselves of their part in the overall problem.

There will always be hard cases and the navy used to be able to carry these, as is only right...but the abuse of the system makes it harder and harder to have this flexibility.

If they don't sail, sack them.
Here endeth the lesson! (sorry, couldn't resist )

[hptmurphy]

not the case..there are plenty of oppertunities for non sea going personnel..look at other navies..some people don't ever get to see ships. any way when did the NS become a bleeding heart association..in the past the just tosssed those with any inkling of a problem out.

Please don't talk about the all caring and loving service..or the service that spends all its time at sea...ships maybe defined as being at sea..but more often than not..it means they are on sailing notice..and not actaually at sea..

[Dogwatch]

Please don't talk about the all caring and loving service..or the service that spends all its time at sea...ships maybe defined as being at sea..but more often than not..it means they are on sailing notice..and not actaually at sea..

Ships are doing 220 days a year now, in your day they only did 160, so don't even take the high moral ground about time at sea. Where are you getting your facts (more often than not....etc) thats a load of bull, get your facts straight, put together a relevent argument & then you can pontificate. People are spending more time away from home now on NS ships, fact. The navy still has a very large percentage of personnel who do NOT go to sea because of the job spec, fact. There are a large number of non seagoing personnel in seagoing appointments, who are causing a large number of people to rotate to sea sooner, fact.

[hptmurphy]

I would like to say that in one particular year we were logged as having put in 203 days at sea.....but know it never came any where near that..given that there were up to six weeks repair and refit and leave obligations..are you trying to tell me two years ago Eithne put in 220 days at sea given that she spent all of two months in dry dock..after leave commitments ?. Look at all the time Aoife gave in waterford alongside for the the Tall ships etc..is this time at sea?..I'm dealing in days at sea..as in..out doing the job..not nestled up in Dunlaoighre ...bantry ..or killybegs... who is kidding who? At least in my time we performed to our annual commitment..not just hid behind a figure and worked around it.

Moral high ground my arse..I don't give a toss..you are the one getting uppity in what time you spend at sea..you are getting paid enough from it ..get on with it..its what you signed up for!

Can't see how ships are doing 220 days at sea if they keep getting bounced off walls....

It only leaves 145 days for leave periods and maintanence...truth is there are not enough people to facilitate this type of time at sea.Which do you want to lose first..crews or ships?

I think the management would want to have a look from the top down before criticizing the lower rates for not going to sea..

Accidents are happening because of sloppy practises because people are getting pissed off and it will take a loss of life to high light how negligent the management have been toward their charges.

I think the career management need to get out into the real world and have a look at how other industries cope with the problems that the NS have buried for years and see how to improve the lot of disgruntled employees.After all it is the people on the ground that make a thing work...they will only follow leaders..

Its worth less to have report published when the attitude of management is ..do it or else..the root problems have to be adressed.

There is no point in a member of this hierarchy coming to a forum..and trying to justify the attitude of his peers in order to try gloss over the facts that the loss of man days...loss of personnel.....and negativity towards future service has been caused by failure from the top down..and not from the bottom up.

If the management listened to their co workers...they might even find solutions to their problems.Sometimes things are better sorted with two sides working hand in hand rather than seeing each other as opposing forces....but obviously you have become entrenched in the older attitude....so whats the point in trying to preach to the predefined rather than the converted?

Where did i get my attitude from?..its reaction to how I see real people being treated as cogs in a machine to elevate the careers of their leaders...

where do I get my information from..I just listen..try it some time....!

relevant arguement..get out from behind your tag ..state your case....and stand up and be seen to have an opinion of your own and not hide your need for a worthy career behind an internet I.D.


the large proportion of seagoing personel who have decreed themselves to be imune from future seagoing..are acreditble to a negative situation enforced on them by failures in the command structure to adress the needs and situations of their charges....

ok you want to have people who go to sea...its a part of the job etc....identify this within the recruitment and training process...not try dump shitty solutions on those who are weary of problems that have been caused by their peers offering solutions to problems that were out of their control...itsa bit lik ethe aeroplane soloution..if you need to have one in the air at all times then you need three to have it there...ships and people are no different!

[Marius]

[QUOTE=hptmurphy;133702] Are you trying to tell me two years ago Eithne put in 220 days at sea given that she spent all of two months in dry dock..after leave commitments ?.

Yes, Mr Murphy, that is what Dogwatch is telling you. In the time since you were last at sea (I make an assumption here as I don't know who you are) there has been a major change. Days alongside the Base or Cobh on Sailing Order are no longer considered 'sea days' are not factored into the annual 'sea days' performed by that ship. "Leave committments" (whatever they are?) do not hinder the days at sea performed by the ship. It is a more professional and more service delivery driven approach than the Naval Service had in the past. And it is certainly much, much harder on the personnel. All ranks.

At least in my time we performed to our annual commitment..not just hid behind a figure and worked around it.

It is the discrepency between the figures you mention that is being addressed by the current (evil) management, precisely so that we do exactly what we say we do...unlike perhaps, the returns that were ,ade in the past, as you pointed out.

Moral high ground my arse..I don't give a toss..you are the one getting uppity in what time you spend at sea..you are getting paid enough from it ..get on with it..its what you signed up for!

Precisely.

Can't see how ships are doing 220 days at sea if they keep getting bounced off walls....
An argument that, based on the high calibre of your other contributions to this site, is beneath you. It is a cheap shot. However, if I were to tackle it, I would suggest that more time out at sea and less time alongside perhaps means less practice at harbour manouevres and thus...more "bouncing off walls" as you so lubberly put it.

It only leaves 145 days for leave periods and maintanence...

Yes. But leave periods for personnel are never permitted to affect the patrol plan of the ship. Reliefs are detailed or the ship sails understrength or your leave is binned. So this is a non-argument.

truth is there are not enough people to facilitate this type of time at sea.Which do you want to lose first..crews or ships?
The truth? Non seagoing 'crews'.

I think the management would want to have a look from the top down before criticizing the lower rates for not going to sea.

Agreed. There are also officers in the same comfort zone. They should be sacked.

Accidents are happening because of sloppy practises because people are getting pissed off and it will take a loss of life to high light how negligent the management have been toward their charges.

Most service personnel I know are highly conscious of safety. I don't know what sloppy practices you refer to but you mustn't generalise. Requiring sea time of sailors is not 'sloppy practice' in itself, no matter how much the authors of that recent report wish it otherwise. If you are aware of specifics bring them to the attention of serving personnel. It is not good enough to make sweeping statements of this nature and then sit back waiting for the accident in order to be able to say 'I told them so'.

I think the career management need to get out into the real world and have a look at how other industries cope with the problems that the NS have buried for years and see how to improve the lot of disgruntled employees.After all it is the people on the ground that make a thing work...they will only follow leaders..

Who? Arklow Shipping? Fishermen? Bigger, richer navies? The Air Corp?

Its worth less to have report published when the attitude of management is ..do it or else..the root problems have to be adressed.

There is no point in a member of this hierarchy coming to a forum..and trying to justify the attitude of his peers in order to try gloss over the facts that the loss of man days...loss of personnel.....and negativity towards future service has been caused by failure from the top down..and not from the bottom up.

Again, given the quality of your submissions on this board in general, I find it disturbing that you are reduced to shouting Dogwatch down and suggesting that he should even come to the forum!

If the management listened to their co workers...they might even find solutions to their problems.Sometimes things are better sorted with two sides working hand in hand rather than seeing each other as opposing forces....but obviously you have become entrenched in the older attitude....so whats the point in trying to preach to the predefined rather than the converted?

If he didn't care he wouldn't be here. This is just more of the shouting that you tend to intersperse your points with.

Where did i get my attitude from?..its reaction to how I see real people being treated as cogs in a machine to elevate the careers of their leaders...

Wowee! Another wild swing at all officers.

where do I get my information from..I just listen..try it some time....!

relevant arguement..get out from behind your tag ..state your case....and stand up and be seen to have an opinion of your own and not hide your need for a worthy career behind an internet I.D.

Nonsense. If you knew the military as well as you profess (and I don't doubt it) then you would know there are solid reasons other than the cowardice you insinuate, for remaining incognito on such a site. And so do most of the other subscribers I can see. Unless mutter nutter is his real name.

[Marius]

Sorry...need more practice at the multi quote.

[Farel']

I was talking to somone from either Ethna or Emer recently and they told me that their ship did over 220 days on sailing order last year but that the ship used to give its sailors time off so that they only spent about 160 days away from base. The crew voted it to be a great place to work and that when they were benchmarked against all the other top few hundred companies they were voted by independant survey to be one of the Top 50 places to work in Ireland. Is the crew of that ship in the same navy that the PFFORA report refers too. Does it not show that the personel practices in the Navy maybe not as bad as they are made out to be.

[Goldie fish]

From what I understand, Eithne's result in the top 50 Places has a lot to do with the individual officers at command level,who have since returned shoreside, replaced by less popular or "People friendly" officers.

It must be said though that prolongued seatime can cause fatigue, and fatigue can lead to accidents.

[yooklid]

Sorry...need more practice at the multi quote.

Damn straight! You better get editing, I want to read it and I got lost half way through.

[tqon]

I wish i could explain to you what its like. Up until a few years ago, a sailor (be it officer, NCO, rating) said goodbye to his kids on a Monday morning before they went to school, and told their children they would be back Friday fortnight and sometimes Friday 3 weeks. That’s fine. It worked. That’s the navy life, a life at sea… …


Now its different. Now you don’t say goodbye, because the young children get upset, the little lad doesn’t understand why you keep missing his football matches, how your never around. So you slip away. Its no longer a Monday that patrols start but perhaps a Saturday, when the children are home from school. So no you have missed the first weekend.


Now a days its a 3 week patrol at least. Perhaps you do get in but alongside. But im not from Dublin, or Galway, or Waterford, Killybegs it doesn’t matter where I am today , im not at home, I may as well be at sea. Its a Saturday, that you get alongside, you have been at sea since the previous Saturday - thats 7 continuous days of work. But that’s a part of seagoing. Although your alongside its still a patrol, its still a working day but the powers that be are kind, they decide to make it a half day and by the way your back out to sea on Sunday evening with the tide. This is referred to by some as a weekend alongside!!!

This pattern continues for 3 weeks so you have missed 3 full weekends. By the way the ship is only in for a week after the patrol. But your not off the moment the ship arrives. she is waiting to be re-fuelled then you have to wait for another ship to come out of the basin before you can go into it and so its 5 in the evening before you can leave but you have been up since 6. The next day your back in work but there for 24 hours on a duty.

If your lucky your back in for 2 weeks. But within the two weeks in your are doing a duty one weekend so that only leaves on weekend free and you try to get the complimentary 2 days off if your lucky.

I know many of you can talk about sea days, but remember figures can be twisted to suit peoples requirements. Thank you to those that stood up for the report findings. You understand, you listened. Thank you for listening.

[DeV]

Has the target of 1.3 crews per vessel been reached? (Personnally I doubt it, but it is policy) What are the third of the crew supposed to be doing when their vessel is at sea, even though they are holding a sea going appointment?

Also, would there be enough shore based jobs & duties to keep the amount of personnel we are talking about busy for 2 years (effectively we are talking about the crews of the 8 vessels - 389 at full complement)?

Does the report take account of personnel in specialist roles at NSHQ that are in short supply and require specialist training?