Grounding Mishap Question

[AMTCM John Long]

Greetings Again,

Somebody please educate me on this. It seems in the last few years we (the CG) have started doing mishap messages for any type/level of boat grounding. Some of the groundings seem minor. Many of the messages indicate the boat crew was not doing anything flagarant when the grounding happened and the damage, if any, was minimal yet a mishap message was sent.

IMO operating in shallow water environments is a normal thing and from time-to-time hitting the bottom comes with job. Unless the crew was operating in a careless/wreckless manor or there was some other unusual factor, I don't see the value of doing a message for some of these minor groundings?

Again, if it happened during the course of doing the mission, it's part of doing business!! It seems like overkill on some of these grounding messages. I don't remember seeing this many messages in years past. What has happened?

Am I missing something???

Thanks.....John

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...The question is whether a message needs to be sent. I don't see the value in the message for those type of mishaps either. In the mishap reporting system, it gives you the option of drafting a message...or NOT.

I like to read the mishaps if there are lessons that I can pass along to the station, but (your right) the majority of the ones on the board don't need to be sent.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think that it's the fear factor thing creeping back in. Some people may think that if they don't send a message it's like they're hiding something. If there isn't a real lesson to be learned, why waste the time ?

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Well, it would appear to me that in this day and age it is more of a CYOA thing. No one wants to jeopardize their job or risk coming under fire for not reporting it. So, they report everything.

:confused:

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Reporting the grounding is not an option. A MISREP report is not the same as a MISHAP msg. You can do the report completely internally and no msg is generated. Or, you can have the MISHAP reporting software generate the msg so that people at other units can "share" the experience and learn from it.

Personally, I won't send a msg. If it's not required, I won't be airing my dirty laundry in public.

The real question is, should all of these MISHAP reports be required?

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

There are some groups/sectors who automatically require a coxswain's certification to be rescinded following any type of grounding. The coxswain's certs are pulled until an investigation is completed and the group/sector commander approves reinstalling the certification. The thinking is we need to give the coxswain "a clean bill of health" after a mishap.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I would say yes, the report should be required. Without it too many people would actually be able to cover up for inappropriate acts. There has to be some sort of accountability because too many of us are human. Too many of us push the envelope already. I also wouldn't send a message unless it were something someone else could learn from. And if the report weren't required, I wouldn't send one either, unless I needed the documentation to take other actions. In the case of an actual accident I wouldn't. If the mishap occurred because people were doing things that they shouldn't have been doing...?.....I might need the report. It would still be one of those CYOA situations.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The reports should be required, it keeps people honest and keeps track of potential trends. The report is your CYOA, it can be forwarded to your boss for review. The messages clog the system and seem to show up multiple times. I agree that those messages that we can learn from should be sent, the others should not.

[AMTCM John Long]

Informative discussion.

From what I'm reading it seems like two things can take place. A report and a message. Is that correct???? Does that mean you can do a report and not do a message for the same incident?

I was refering to the messages. If both are required it seems the message is redundant.

We know the 5100.47 discusses mishaps. How do you determine when to do a message for these minor groundings? If no damage noted do you still do one? Maybe a judgement call by the CO/OINC??? What is the litmus test??

I don't want to beat a dead horse, just seems over the last few years I've seen many grounding messages. When the non-educated mind reads the text of some of these messages you wonder why was this was even on the board. I can see the e-report for documentation purposes and capturing the details, not the message though.

Just my 2 cents.

Have a great July 4th weekend!!!

John

[BMC Matthew James]

The GRU/SECTOR policy of automatically rescinding a coxswain's certification following a mishap makes me nervous. I would hope that when I become an OIC, my superiors trust my judgement enough to decide if the letter needs to be pulled. Can you imagine having to run a good coxwain back through the recert process (PT, AOR Run, board and checkride) just because he bumped bottom without causing any damage?

Obviously the situation would be different if the coxswain in question was operating outside the established Navigation standard, Policy, etc.

Have a great weekend and a safe holiday.

[BMCS Eric Guerette]

If the cert. is automaticaly pulled after a mishap, it can be reinstated after an investigation without going through the whole break in process.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Shawn, I think I know you well enough thru different forums to say this. Would agree that pulling somebodies Qualification or Certification after any grounding is another example of how we as a service seem to be fixated on, "eating our young", correct?

Anyway, my unit suffered a "soft grounding" about a week ago. I followed all the proper steps and did an informal investigation. It showed that a shoal had developed in an area not normally know for shoaling. So what happened to the Coxswain...nothing, except a good stern talking to from yours truely.
I remember being told as a young BM3, there are two types of BM's, those who have run aground and those who have never run a boat.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I remember grounding a 41UTB years ago after a storm. Shoaling shifted the channel and I found it about halfway through the ebb.

I can remember the Master Chief showing up on the RHI, pointing and laughing, and getting a picture of me with my legs dangling off the bow waiting on the tide.

Also pictured were a red and green buoy (which I was clearly between and both were on station) leaning at an odd angle due to the proximity of the bottom. I beleive there were also a few long legged wading birds walking in the channel as well.

I filled out a report of grounding, got a talking to about being aware of shoaling after storms, and was the subject of a few punch lines and cartoons until the next guy did something... and there always was a next guy.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Matt: It not only makes every OIC nervous, but also every coxswain. No matter how it is presented to the crew (we're doing this to protect you!), they are going to be especially cautious. Even to the point of being too cautious.

Eric: Are you sure about that?? Policy is kinda vague. It would probably depend on how you documented pulling the certification.

Nick: You know why certain organizations "eat their young" don't you? It's the easiest way to CYA. Another phrase is "There are 2 types of sailors: those who have been aground and those who are going to go aground." Unfortunately, the Coast Guard's management is made up of very few sailors who understand this.

Ken: Your story is the way it should be. The local CO/OIC should make the determination if the coxswain did something wrong or not, and the same person should be the one who decides when the coxn gets their keys back.

In five years as a Sta OIC my crews have ran aground 4 times (twice in one week, and one which was a Class B mishap). In every case, within an hour of me arriving at the Station I knew enough of the circumstances to make appropriate decisions on what to do with the Coxswain.

First one was during a SAR case when a 41 was slowly nosing up to an island and hit an uncharted rock. Coxn was justified approaching the shoal water (trying to recover a stranded guy on island), and there was an honest-to-goodness uncharted rock. Biggest problem was when Coxn hit the rock he bounced over it. Then he tried to back down to get away from the island...and backed back over the same rock he just hit.

Second one was also during SAR case where a 47 was in dense fog nosing in to a boat screaming they were getting slammed onto rocks. 47 wound up on the same rocks (you all have probably seen the pictures of the 47 up on the rocks). Coxswain made some significant mistakes on that case, but learned from them and is doing well today.

3rd one: Non-urgent SAR case, UTL-T took a shortcut between two islands that he shouldn't have...especially at that speed! Coxswain made some significant mistakes, but learned from them and is doing well today.

4th one was a week after the 3rd one, and within 3 weeks after I got here: RBHS was aggressively training by finding a way to get up a narrow river. This is important to do in this AOR because it's so damn shallow everywhere, and people constantly get lost in the swamps. Unfortunately, coxswain was doing this during an ebb tide! He ran out of water and had to sit there for a while.

Bottom line: We give young and inexperienced people an incredible amount of responsibility. They are GOING to make mistakes. We need to encourage them to be carefully aggressive (like the 4th grounding above), not make them scared to make mistakes.

[BMCS Don Zoll]

Bottom line: We give young and inexperienced people an incredible amount of responsibility. They are GOING to make mistakes. We need to encourage them to be carefully aggressive (like the 4th grounding above), not make them scared to make mistakes.

AMEN BROTHER! I guess "the cost of doing business" doesn't apply anymore.
Someone high up in the O arena needs to figure out what that phrase means.

[BMCS Mike Ellis]

I honestly can say we have a "grounding" about once a month. Now what you define as a "grounding" may be a subject for another thread. Example: Coxn clearly mistakes a swim buoy for an aid at night, and ends up on a shoal. That's a grounding. They were on an urgent SAR case, and that surely contributed to the situation. No damage to the boat, mainly because he didn't act like a jack##$ and tear up the boat trying to back off. He put out anchor, took a fix, and waited for help. He took an area fam checkride with the CO in that same pass, pointed out all the aids and shoals, and had his quals reinstated.
Now just yesterday an RB-S was alongside a PRA doing a boarding in a fairly narrow channel. Concentrating on the boarding, they didn't notice that they drifted out of the channel and came to rest in the shallows. Sand bottom, wouldn't have been any damage, but he tried his best to get back off, and ruined two water pumps by sucking up a bunch of sand and mud. Not sure about that one yet.
These things happen all the time. Perhaps more than your crews tell you about. Each situation is totally independent from another, and must be treated as such. But I think a blanket policy rescinding a coxn's quals before a thorough review is often more irresponsible than the grounding itself.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, Dennis has it right, the report is required, the message is not.
Matthew, I'm not entirely sure the GRU/Sector has the authority to pull the letter of someone I certified. They can recommend it.....but if I signed the letter....? People need to remember that charts only show recorded depths, not actual depth. Things change. I know Cutters that have run aground and nothing happened. If GRU/Sectors are making these policies, why have OinCs ? Why not just make the senior person present the supervisor ? If this went down in my neck of the woods I'd fight it. I went through two Change of Command ceremonies in seven days and "ultimately responsible for everything that happens at the unit" keeps ringing in my ears. I don't want to live and fear, and won't have my coxswains living that way either. If they were following my policies and procedures, and something went wrong, I'll have their back. If they were doing something wrong, I'LL take the appropriate action. If the GRU/Sector doesn't agree with MY decisions, they can take actions against me. But before they look at doing a Relief for Cause, they might want to run in by the District Office. You know, for the authority.

We can't have people afraid to do their jobs. Always be cautious, but fear is going to get someone hurt.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stuart,

I would then say unless there were unique circumstances surrounding the grounding (ie, as Diane said, "lessons learned").........dump the messages. If anyone wants to know more then read the report. Make sense????

How do you like BSJ? I had 2 tours at BQN

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And that is the way the system is designed. The problem is, not enough people are willing to forego the message. Too many people think that they have to let everyone know.
This is my second time down here and I'm under the "happy wife, happy life" umbrella. I'd stay until I'm too feable to function, but we'll need to hear what the detailer has to say about that.

I'm curious to know which GRU/Sectors have pulled a coxswain's letter over a grounding ?

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

I brought up something similar to this, as well as all mishaps in the blackshoe community, when I went to MRM Facilitator school. There should be a system like MRM, to report certain mishaps without reprocussion. They'd be discussed by peers and ONLY used to prevent the mishap from happening again. The MRM system in aviation is a great thing and for those units that stay on top of it and use it properly, it saves a lot of maintinence costs as well as injuries.

Just a thought.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Bill: The aviation community is managed by senior officers who are pilots. These are people who (hopefully) have significant flying experience. They have been there and done that.

The small boat community is managed by senior officers. Virtually none have small boat experience, and few have much operational experience at all.

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

Actually in the maintinence arena, it's managed by Chiefs. Engineering officers do have the final say for the most part but they almost allways go with what the Chiefs feel is best. The Maintinence officers are all Warrants.
Out in the field we use a lot of CRM where even the most newly qualified aircrew has a say and an impact on what happens next. When an accident or mistake is made, it's discussed reviewed and procedures looked at to prevent it, and others like it, again. I spent time on a cutter before aviation and it was stressed to me that the BMC was god and heaven help you if you screwed up. It's been a real turn around in the last 10-15 years where more emphasis has been placed on the WHYs rather than the WHOs.

It's a very rare thing to see a pilot young or senior that gets into a disiplinary situation over a mistake at the controls. Of corse there will allways be the personality conflicts and I've had to step in and get some "counselling" for a couple of LTs that didn't play well together in the cockpit. A talking to by the Ops Boss and that's all it took.

In the small boat community I feel and have allways felt that the "O"s don't belong or at least are there to learn or observe only. Has this been a normal thing for JOs to be in charge of small boats? I allways thought the OINC was a Chief or above?
In any case, the Chief's should be running the show and the JO's learning and earning their place and not trying to frag everyone for every little thing that goes wrong.

[BMC Chris Gempp]

Bill,
Here at my Sta, I have an LT as CO and LTjg as XO. I run the show and pretty much all things go thru me unless I tell someone to send it up. To answer your question, O's are taking over in someplaces but Chiefs still run the show. My CO lets me do whatever, whenever I want, as it should be.
We have a good working realtionship and get along fine. I still razz him on a daily basis so his head won't get to big.

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

LOL.......As the way it should be. Sounds like you've got it all well in hand and a great crew to boot!!
We allways take the opportunity to get a good shot in on a JO....a Commander or two has suffered the wrath as well ;)

[BMC Chris Gempp]

Bill,
Thanks,
I do have an awesome crew, not one problem since reporting aboard 1 year ago. We are too busy to to get anyone in trouble and everyone hangs out together so that shows high morale.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Bill: I wasn't talking about unit level management. I was talking about the next several steps above.

Who does your CO answer to? District OSR is often run by pilots. District Chief of Ops and Chief of Staff might or might not be a pilot, but I'll bet they have a few on their staff. What about your headquarters project managers? Probably full of pilots.

Sure I run my unit, just like your CO runs yours (but on a smaller level of course). But few Gru/Sector's have much in the way of small boat or sea-going experience. Then District OSR, Ops, and COS? Almost guarantee they don't have small boat experience, and their sea-going experience is typically dwindling. HQ project managers? Their small boat experience is better than in the past, but (in my opinion) it could be better.

This means your CO's bosses have a perspective about what it's like to be that junior pilot who lands with his wheels up. Station bosses (above the OIC) typically don't have much of a perspective about what it takes to be a 20 years old BM3 coxswain who makes such a mistake.

[AETC Joseph (Bill) Adams]

Shawn,
It sounds like they need some educating and we're the ones that make it happen. With newer crews, we're going through the same thing in aviation, they need to understand that. I'm hoping they'd listen to a Chief being on the same experience level.
A program like MRM would realy be helpful.

[BMC Paul Wells]

Small boat stations OINC's and Sectors must understand that 90% of our business is "Outside" the normal navigable channels..... This is not rocket science, if everyone stayed in the channels we wouldnt have half the cases we have. I have seen young coxswains refuse to go outside the channel for fear of running aground or bumping bottom thinking they will lose their certs. In todays CG the people in the leadership roles are becoming gun-shy fearing reprisals which is being filtered down to the coxswains and crew.

At the MSST we travel all the time going to AOR's we dont know. We have two days to get to know the area and then run our operations. I am amazed that the MSST community doesnt have more mishaps than we do!! Our coxswains have been told by this command not to worry about groundings, as long as they werent being stupid or hot dogging. And the command has backed up what they have said. We will do an investigation, but rarely do a message on it.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Paul; I think most station OIC's do understand that some of our business is outside the marked channel, not most or 90%, as you mention. I also think you're painting all OIC's/CO's with a broad brush, with the statement "In todays CG the people in the leadership roles are becoming gun-shy fearing reprisals which is being filtered down to the coxswains and crew". I have to disagree with that.

[BMC Paul Wells]

Senoir Chief,

I guess I am only speaking from the units I have been at and what I have seen as the Guard changes through the years. I have seen young coxswains fear reprisal when they are running cases thinking that they may get into trouble if they dent the UTB or MLB. This is due to their letters being pulled right away until an investigation i s completed. I understand we need to investigate these things to ensure some of these kids are doing the right thing, but there has to be a happy medium for all....I dont know what it is, but there has to be a better way so we dont have these coxswains thinking "I sure hope I dont lose my letter on this case!!", everytime they run a rescue.

I sure dont want to paint a broad stroke with my brush saying "All" OINC's are like this, but from were I have been and what I have seen it seems to be heading it that direction.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think the pulling the letter PRIOR to investigating the incident is BAD unless you have proof of fault. If you know the cox'n did something stupid, then the investigation is just a formality anyway.

The innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't necessarily apply since we're military, but if we have the confidence in these people to give them a letter in the first place maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

Are some letters being handed out with reservations?
Are our people driving our boats while we worry if we made the right call by giving them the keys?
Has OPTEMPO and qualified personnel shortages had an effect?

I don't know any of those answers, but they're really good questions.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

If I can not sleep at night, wondering how the cox'n is doing on a mission. That cox'n does not get a letter, no matter what.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have told people that I would rather certify someone as an underway OOD than as a coxswain. I think that I will always have some apprehension that something could go wrong when I'm not there. And I'm not saying that I could fix it if I were there, but at least I wouldn't have to second the outcome without having all the facts.
I wouldn't give someone a letter to stand "up" if I didn't think that they could handle it. But humans are always going to make mistakes. One of the biggest mistakes we can make as a leader is not sticking up for our people and the decision we made to certify them in the first place. I have never certified someone who didn't deserve it. I've also never certified a robot. What they do once they take the horse out of the barn depends a lot on the person at the reins. We still need to remember that we gave them the reins.
As for the people who would let the OPTEMPO dictate the need for ensuring the safety of their people...SHAME ON YOU. Step down before someone gets hurt on your watch. Let someone else in there to make the decisions that you are unwilling to do. Let someone else in there that will say NO. Enough is enough. We can't do that. I am not willing to do that.
I've never seen or heard of anyone getting Relieved for Cause for turning down Operational Tasking that they felt they weren't ready to meet. I've never seen or heard of anyone getting relieved for refusing to exceed operational parameters. I've never seen or heard of anyone getting relieved for refusing to take undue risks. If it's not safe enough, don't do it.
I for one would rather be relieved, than do something that I felt was wrong, to appease my boss. I sleep like a baby.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Here's the main problem with qualifying new coxswains- you don't have a pool to choose from. You have specific bodies in specific billets and if they don't fit the bill, your unit is screwed.

Some OICs will qualify an indivdual as soon as he/she completes the PQS/oral board/checkride. They forgo the gut check on which the OIC final approval is based.

Other OICs will not qualify an individual until they observe something definable that gives them that warm and fuzzy feeling (the gut check in its finest form).

I believe that I was always the latter. However, there is always pressure to qualify people as fast as possible, and it's effecting our judgement whether we realize it or not.

I agree that we should always stand up for our people, but disagree that we should always defend our decision to qualify them in the first place. It's quite possible that the best OIC will unintentionally overlook a problem with the individual, that will be the cause of an eventual mishap. We have to be able to look objectively at the situation and say "I didn't prepare him/her properly."

I don't believe that anyone knowingly takes undue risks. That's a judgement that is made after the fact by other people. Our decisions are based on our perception of the probability of success. No one ever says "I know that this will probably get one of the crew killed, but I'm going to do it anyway." More likely, they say "I've got the tools to accomplish this. This is what I get paid for." Acceptable risk is always defined after-the-fact.

Risk is about working outside of established policy. I know my position as OIC is safe as long as I adhere to COMDT policy. But, I worry about the mariner that will die if I don't take my RHIB into the surf. I worry about that nuclear weapon that will arrive in NYC, if I don't board that freighter with too small a boarding team.

The Chief's Corps has got into the mindset that it is courageous to say "no" to questionable tasking. Sometimes, it's more courageous to say "yes."

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

You could still defend your decision to qualify someone and admit that you were wrong in doing so. My problem was with the people that would say, "You've qualified, I absolve myself of any responsibilities for your future actions."
I agree that it is sometimes more courageous to say "Yes, I'll do it." But it also sometimes cowardly to say " Yes, They'll do it."
I might take the RHIB into the surf. I might board that freighter. But I would never send someone else to do either. I've done things that I would never allow other people to do. And I've never told anybody to do anything that I hadn't done myself, or wouldn't do again.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We were on the same page until those last couple of lines.

You may not be in a position to engage the mission directly, but may have control over resources that can. To forgo it because you can't be behind the wheel is just as wrong as forgoing it because it doesn't fall within established parameters.

General Colin Powell put a lot of people in harm's way without being there himself. I know a wartime analogy is a little different than LE or SAR, but the principal is the same.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

You need to be careful when it comes to going outside of established parameters. Of course rely on the discrecion of your coxswains. I would not "send" anyone into the surf in an RHI, but I may defend someones decision to do so. If a coxswain is on scene and decides, or tells me, that this is the only course of action to save a life, and I believe that this course of action will likely succeed, then I may roger up on it. Of course you can "what if" these things to death. As far as quals go... And this is something that I am currently dealing with, I will qualify someone when they are ready. Not great, or outstanding, becuase that takes time and experience, but they must be "ready". Lots of people can drive a boat, but a Coxswain must think, and lead at the same time.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

It may be just a matter of semantics, but if you "roger up" on his request, you are sending him in there- if for no other reason than you had the opportunity to say "no."

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It may be semantics, but I wouldn't send people to do something that I might allow them to do once they are on scene. And its not that I have to be behind the wheel.....I want my people to be better than I am. I want them to do the right thing, and, do what's right. I certify people based on their understanding of my standing orders, and their willingness to carry them out. I've let U/W OODs do an evolution their way while standing by shaking my head. I would have jumped in before any real damage was done....but sometimes people learn more from making their own mistakes. I've done things that I deemed safe at the time, that I wouldn't want people to attempt to repeat in my absence.
Example: I've towed an $400,000+ boat three feet off of my stern through ice in about eight feet of water to take it to a Marina for haul-out. There is no way I would ever had let my XPO do that in my absence. And I'm not saying that they couldn't have done just as good as me or better. I wouldn't have given them the chance to try. Too many things could have gone wrong.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

We certify people based on thier ability to do what we would call the "ordinary". Those are the things outlined in the PQS and under the conditions outlined in the PQS. Now we certainly can't train for every eventuality and circumstance, so we must rely on our training and ability to think on our feet to accomplish some tasks. That is where command consultation comes in. If someone gets on scene and the ordinary becomes the extraordinary, then you, as a member of the command would probobly like to have some input. It is all about risk management. For instance, why would Stu not let his XPO tow that boat to the haulout? Why did he do it? Was is something that really needed to be done or was is a "challange" that was worth the potential risk for the feeling of accomplishment? I know if I am going to "put my neck out", I want my fate in my hands. If I am not on scene and the decision to "do something" is the right one, and I think that it is within the person's ablity to do so, and I can articulate that in the event that things go south, then that may be a decision that I can live with.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Wow Stu, why qualify him to an XPO run in your absence then? If I was XPO and you were on leave, I would not even ask if I cold that $400,000 dollar boat if it was part of my OPS. I would have done it anyway. If you would not let me, or admonished me after the fact, I would then question weather you were comforable in my running the boat with you not there. Once I question that, doubt would haunt during future missions without you on board. We must trust the XPO unconditionally to run our ship in the same manner we would, as long as he/she his comfortable. In the same breath, we must have the gut feeling that our coxswains will too. If niether do, then we as OINCs may not be spending enough time training.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

As far as qualifying personnel, every OINC has a different comfort level. When I qualify a coxswain, I'm completely comfortable with their ability to complete the mission (and sleep just fine at night). Other OINC's may not be comfortable at the same point as me, but that's their comfort level. You have to do what's best at your unit, you're the one that has to answer the tough questions if something happens.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I gave both of my XPOs letters to take the cutter out in my absence. I also had letters of succession to command for both of them. I trusted them completely......to carry out my standing orders. They should have towed that boat to the nearest safe port. I took the boat where they wanted to go. I got permission to do that from my operational command. My command would never have directed me to do it. They were shocked that I was willing to do it. Both of my XPOs would have called me before they tried something like that. I know, I trained them, and we had that understanding prior to them getting their letter. Burt you can check through your record.......you won't find a letter from me in there because you're going to do what you want to do as opposed to what I want you to do. On leave or not, it was still my boat, and no one had the authority to change my standing orders.
Whereas we can't train for every possible situation, we can still direct people to contact us anytime something occurs outside of our written instructions.

Just so you people understand where I'm coming from, I explain something simply to everyone who gets a letter from me. I have told people seeking inport watchstander qualifications that the only reason I was qualifying them is so that I could go home at night. I qualified them to safeguard my unit and the people that stayed on board in my absence. They were my direct representatives, and I expected them to act accordingly. They were to call me or the XPO anytime something happened outside the scope of my standing orders. And I trusted them completely before giving them that letter.
I had people who later broke that trust, and I removed them from my unit.
There are two members of this board that can attest to all of this.

And to clear up another point, I couldn't stomach watching the cutter get underway without me as a BM2. I never liked thinking about what people were doing without me there. Believe me, if I thought I could have gotten away with it, I would have lifted my leg and marked my territory.
I will always wonder what people are doing when they take out my most valuable assets, my people and my boats. Thats why I have to be able to trust my people prior to giving them that letter.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu, you are right. Guess thats why I short toured as XPO after 14 months. But I did follow all standing orders. What I do know is I am sure my view will change when I have to give that letter to an XPO. Then I will be hunting advice!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Burt...did you get to take the Cutter out by yourself?

One of the best things that ever happened to me was when my OINC let me take the Cutter out for a 2 week ATON run that covered 900 miles (round-trip). He didn't tell me to call him or ask permission to do things, he told me to go out and do what we do. Obviously, I kept him informed of pertinent issues that happened while u/w. I learned a lot during that trip...the most important being that my OINC had the utmost confidence in me. That goes along way.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Yes I did Deane on several occasions. The longest being when the BMCM lost both hos parents in 7 days. He was on leave for alost 6 weeks. Made 4 patrols and did relief for two differnt cutters. That was when i too learned the most. It is alos the reason I made the statements above, i knew there was nothing I could not do with that boat.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, I would be willing to bet that you stayed inwith his Nav Standards and Standing Orders the entire time that you had the Cutter. I would be willing to bet that the one thing that you couldn't do, was change those orders or issue new ones. That's the point I'm trying to make. When we, or more to the point, I, give someone a letter, I expect them to hold true to the standard by which I certified them. My entire career, I've heard coxswains telling break-ins, "You do it my way until you're qualified, then you can do it your way." I don't want those coxswains working for me. I want people who are always going to do things my way. I'm giving them the letter. I'm still responsible for their actions. If they want to be soley responsible for their own actions, advance, certify OinC, and get their own unit.
Once they are solely responsible for everything and everyone, I'd also bet that they start thinking more like me.
When I was a BM3 I couldn't wait to get my own unit. We were going to have swim calls all the time, the slackers were going to tow the line and the workers would be given all the benefits. Then I got there and reality set in. People sometimes do stupid things. I couldn't really enjoy those swim calls, because I was always watching and waiting to see if someone got hurt. The things I would have wanted to do as that BM3 now seemed dangerous and not all that well thought out. I used to only see the fun, now I'm more apt to see where that fun could take us.
I now look for people to be more responsibile than I ever was. I want to hold them to a higher standard than I was held to. I want them to learn from my mistakes. I want them to gain from my experiences without having to go through the painful way of learning it. I want them to be better than me.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Right you are Stu. I was looking at it more as if I was aksed to tow that same boat you mentioned and you were on leave and not an "exceptional operation" if you will. If it was way out of the norm, I would have called you!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And as long as we had that understanding, I'd give you a letter for anything I had.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Well then Sr Chief, I offer my relief!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

See, I knew this job was too good to be true.