Troubleshooting..or lack thereof

[ETC (FT type) Ed Shank]

I posted this on Fred's Place because I was looking for input from all ranks, however I figured I would put it here and see what I got back from the senior side of things.

I have noticed recently a severe lack of actual troubleshooting being performed at the junior level onboard our cutters. Originally I thought it was only on the tactical side of the rate since that is the part I deal with regularly. Unfortunately after speaking to ET1's and ETC's at ESU's and ESD's it apparently is rate wide. Why are we not fixing things or at least trying to fix them? It seems the motto is, it's broken call someone else. As technician's don't we still have pride in fixing things ourselves? Where is the work ethic? If this is rate wide does it reflect an issue with A school? Where is the training deficiency?

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Interesting post. Troubleshooting is not the issue I generally seem to have. The IT's and ET's at my shop are pretty good troubleshooters. I have a really good pair of firsts that sometimes need to tweak the though processes but for the most part they are pretty good. I have more an issue with following up on some of the admin side but that is comming along as well.

[ETC (FT type) Ed Shank]

Pat,

At an ESD you support the stations and the small boats right (still adjusting to the ET support network, which is why I ask)? Do any have ET's assigned? My point about troubleshooting was directed more towards the units we support. I think the ESD's, ESU's and WAT's are doing a great job, but are we getting more routine calls that should/could be handled at the unit level?

[MKC Brandon Andrews]

Having been at a small boat station earlier in my career as the AEPO I can honestly say that when it came down to the electronics on the standard boats we were pretty much told to be hands off. If there was an issue we would do the basic checks i.e. breaker energized the infamous on/off switch ;) ect. But really anything beyond that the ET's would get a little torqued if we did anything. After I had been there for awhile and got to know some of the support guys we received a little more in-depth training/troubleshooting and some of the more routine things were taken care of by station personnel. Just my experiences and 2 cents.
Drew

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Having been at a small boat station earlier in my career as the AEPO I can honestly say that when it came down to the electronics on the standard boats we were pretty much told to be hands off. If there was an issue we would do the basic checks i.e. breaker energized the infamous on/off switch ;) ect. But really anything beyond that the ET's would get a little torqued if we did anything. After I had been there for awhile and got to know some of the support guys we received a little more in-depth training/troubleshooting and some of the more routine things were taken care of by station personnel. Just my experiences and 2 cents.
Drew

Andy
You are correct. I don't think you should be troubleshooting electronic equipment. It's not that I don't think that there are many MK's that could troubleshoot the gear but it's not your job. MK's at stations have enough on their hands and that is what ESD's are for

Ed
I guess it depends on the type of calls. One of the difficulties this ST turned ET had when ST's went away was that I didn't operate what I repaired. It took some time and effort for me to learn to interpret what it was the operators were telling me when the gear wasn't functioning.
Now there is nothing that would tourqe me more than when I was told "widgett A" wasn't working and after troubleshooting I found out it was a completely different piece of gear. A little patching around the gear can narrow it down. When I was on the Mellon, 94-97 the RM's would troubleshoot for hours before calling the ET's. Probably one of the best radio shacks I ever worked with. Sometimes the RM's would actuall troubleshoot past the point they needed to but they definately knew their systems. Sometimes I get reports from stations saying that "widgett A" isn't working and other times I get a full detailed report of what went wrong and what they did to prove that the system was broke.
Depends on the operator and how much they care about the job, the gear they are using, and if they honestly feel like an ET will listen to what they did and that the ET's are going to be there to fix the gear.

[ETC John D Zidek]

Hello guys,
When I first got to my last ship it seemed like there was a lot of "Call the Tech Rep" After I got the Dust knocked off my Duty ET memories I explained to them that we would not be calling Any Tech Rep until after we have exhausted all of our options. I never claimed to be a RADAR or SCCS Tech but I was right there beside them trying to fix the gear, if for no other reason but to be a sounding board and throw alot of "Could it be this? Why Not?" After explaining to me the Why Nots we were usually able to figure the problems out on our own. When I left the only time we called a tech in was after we tried everything and still hit a dead end or the piece of crap 73 Manual said call C2Cen (gotta love version 10).
I think that the direction the rate is going is even more towards the box swapping technique, but it is up to Us (The supervisors) to make them go that extra mile to figure out the why's and make sure we are calling the right parts bad. Nothing sucks more then getting that pri 2 999 part in and it doesnt fix the problem.

Pat,
I couldnt agree more. Good in good out, bad in bad out. If the tech gets a good discription of the problem from the operators then they will be able to do a better job. The Operators are suppose to be the front line troubleshooters.

[ETC (FT type) Ed Shank]

John,

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's broke call C2CEN, WAT, ESU, ESD etc. seems to be the mantra in the rate. Then one of the support unit goes over and replaces the light bulb (no bs I have done that) or turn the switch to the proper posistion (again I have done this). This takes me away from that boat that really has a HUGE problem but since one is getting u/w before the other they move down the list. Then when the HUGE problem is the next in line to sail, we are putting in some serious hours that we could have been putting in earlier.

[ITC Matthew Altieri]

I've also seen a downward turn in the area of troubleshooting. I've seen this
across several rates, so I'm not going to point to any specific rate. I kind of
think that this is due to our culture - CG culture. Years ago, we had to teach
troubleshooting techniques because our equipment demanded it. We didn't
have new (relatively new) state of the art systems. I remember that ET
school taught things down to components. When I went through RM school,
we were taught the inner workings of transimitters and receivers. How many
out there have ever heard the term "Superheterodyne"? (or remember what
it means).

In the 90's, we moved to the era of "if it don't work, then find out what
board is bad and send it back". Now were to the point that we buy these big
expensive systems that come with tech support built in to the contract.
Deepwater anyone? Does Rescue-21 ring any bells? Plus, there's the
economic factor. Is it cost-effective to troubleshoot a $200.00 VHF radio? If
it's under warranty, just call the mfgr and have them replace it. If it's a
standard radio, there's a spare somewhere. In the ET and IT world, the very
technology we support is killing off our troubleshooting abilities. Take a look
at TV's. Have you tried to get a TV repaired lately? Most shops have a
$140 - $150 cut-off. After that, it's not worth their time to fix it. Just go to
Wally-world and buy that new 26" plasma you've had your eye on.
In the IT world, since we've moved to the latest software version, a lot of
our job was removed from the field, how can I troubleshoot someone's email
problem if I'm not allowed to? Addmittedly, it's a lot easier to just rebuild a
workstation than try and figure out why the sound doesn't work.
The reason troubleshooting is becoming a lost art isnt' because it's not being
taught anymore, it's because in some cases it's no longer necessary. That,
and we've somehow lost our common sense - if we turn the radio on and
nothing happens, is it plugged in? That ins't just techs, that seems to be a
lot of people nowadays.

Am I wrong? Am I right?

Matt

[ETC (FT type) Ed Shank]

Matt,

I spent a week learning about "hets and superhets" up in great lakes. First time I have ever seen it in writing since I left A school in 93. Not exactly a pleasant memory to bring back. That stuff was hard.

Anyway, I don't know if it is so much a disappearance of common sense as it is work ethic and laziness. I realize that things are cheaper to replace then repair sometimes but operator error does not fall into that category. Personally I think they have gotten lazy, and have no pride in their work anymore. I hate (and always have) calling a tech rep, you better believe when the tech rep was onboard I was in his back pocket learing everything I could and trying to figure out where I went wrong in my troubleshooting because I didn't want to have to call him again. Now when I go to a ship, I am lucky if I have an ET in combat (instead of the duty OS who has to be up there) let alone actually working with me.

[ITC Matthew Altieri]

Ed,

I think you are mostly correct on the laziness issue. I'd have to say I've seen
some pretty lazy techs & operators over the years. However, I wouldn't say
it's all laziness. I really think that some of it is burnout. We've become this
culture of "do more with less", and every year it seems that the mantra
becomes "do more with less than you had last year". Plus, part of it is the
training issue. When the optempo increases, the dollars decrease. What's
usually the first thing to go? Training. In the end, do we even have the time
to spend teaching troubleshooting, or since we've got 10 other things on our
plate what's easier - figure it out or call tech support?

I know a lot of Radiomen who's troubleshooting abilities were a source of
pride. These were people that we junior operators looked up to. We followed
them like shadows hoping to glean as much info as possible. Then came the
rate mergers. A wholly unfair process. Take a Petty Officer who's never
worked on that gear before, change his rate and now he's expected to know
every thing there is to know about it. Unfair. If he can't troubleshoot a
piece of gear and refers to 3rd party support - is he lazy? I don't believe
so. Probably more a case of overload, which leads to burnout.

Which led me to my original conclusion - CG Culture. It's the way we've done
business, do business now, and will continue to do business in the future.
How many times have we been handed a new piece of gear and a manual and
then get "there's no money for training - read the manual and figure it out".?
The highly motivated type will read & figure out. But what about the rest?
The PO3 with a wife & two kids at home, 6 hrs of quarterdeck watch, fix the
a/v system in the wardroom, etc...... I don't think he's lazy. He's burnt. I
really feel we use our people up, not use our people correctly.

Please, to anyone reading this, I'm not bashing the CG or any of our people.
I love the CG, it's been the greatest job I've ever had/will ever have, and
the people I've met have been the greatest. If I didn't like it so much, I
wouldn't have stayed in for 24 and look to retire at 30. I like to think of
myself as a realist. I tend to see things for the way the are, rather than the
way they ought to be. So, if I've offended anyone - I apologize. Not my
intent.

Sorry to bring up your painful past Ed. Yeah, the Het & Superhet stuff was
painful. So was antennae theory - I thought a Yagi was bigfoot's cousin.

Matt

[ETC Aaron Cordell]

;) Greetings everyone.

Having been an instructor at Petaluma not to long ago, I think that I have an answer for most of the questions that I have seen in the fleet and the class room. For the first two years of instructing we taught the class the same way that we had in the past and it was chock full of trouble shooting. Basic troubleshooting techniques were fostered and encouraged through trial and error with simple circuits. When a student had proved their worth they moved on to more complex and challenging problems leading up to the pinnacle of a living, breathing, maniacal, ghost in the machine situation. Like Qui Chang Kane, they lift the brassier and mark themselves which culminates their graduation from the A school.
Queue the sinister music... The Guard needs bodies in the field. Quicker methods of instruction are created to increase the supply for more bodies in the field. NIDA is borne. To the scholar it is a wonderful source of information. To the technician it's a bane for trouble shooting techniques. Couple that with the new equipment that needs little or no actual troubleshooting according to the book. That's when the real problem comes in. A couple days to a week of familiarity training for the operators and technicians on the wonders of operation and the BIT test that is 95% accurate. BLAM!!! The real world likes to operate in that 5% area. What is a technician to do??? The BIT test says replace these and once it is done the gear is still broken. Even if they had the expertise to troubleshoot down to component they, for the most part, aren't allowed. What a hateful cycle.
I would like to go back to the days when C schools lasted 5 months instead of 5 days. I think that we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. Quick is good in the short term but we suffer in the long run as the costs sky rocket out of control with bad boards being supplied to the field and the cyclic returns of perfectly working hardware because of lack of troubleshooting know how. Let’s set the time clock back to when we gave a crap about education and increase the knowledge base of our people.
;) ;)

[ETC Mark Henry]

Sorry but I had to dig up this old thread. As the new Course Chief for our newest "confident, competent technicians," I want to be personally responsible for reversing current trends seen in the rating. I take our mission statement seriously and I certainly appreciate feedback like what I am seeing here.

First of all, I'll throw out the fact that I am the product of an 11-month ET "A" school at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Il. I don't think one week of my training has gone to waste, which is exactly the opposite of what I am hearing from our graduates and first-tour techs. So in my unique position I am able to compare and contrast the arduous knowledge-intensive Navy ET "A" School with the one I am working in now, and I think I see the problem.

Our techs are supposed to perform preventative and corrective maintenance - in that order - on various specific systems. They are to do so in accordance with COMDINST 10550.25B, the EIMB, and a tech manual. Fundamentally, what we are leaving out is the "in accordance with..." portion of our training, and just producing bench techs who "given a defective (name system here), return it to factory operating conditions."

That last statement is a direct quote from the TPOs we use to create our curriculum. Unfortunately, that statement also only covers steps 2 through 5 of the six-step logical troubleshooting procedure we are supposed to be using "in accordance with COMDINST 10550.25B," completely neglecting the Symptom Recognition step and Failure Analysis step. It's as if somewhere along the line, someone asked, "What does an ET produce?", and someone else incorrectly answered, "repaired electronic equipment," and this transaction became the cornerstone of our training.

What an ET really produces are efficient solutions to problems encountered with electronic systems under our cognizance. At least, that's what generally get's the highest Technical Proficiency marks on an EER. So even though the radio shack needs to be able to operate and even diagnose their equipment, that doesn't alleviate our techs from having the same proficiency requirement - the 10550 does not put the burden of "symptom recognition" on the operators.

Sadly, even here at the school I hear the "ignorance creep" spreading through our corridors as proficient techs misrepresent what it is we do. "Why do we spend so much time in NIDA on theory when all we do is fix stuff?" said one critique. The answer is, of course, because all we do is fix stuff, and not troubleshoot. Symptom Recognition is based on a complete knowledge and understanding of equipment operating characteristics. This is what we are giving them in NIDA. But when we "troubleshoot," we jump straight to Symptom Elaboration by having them start with a functional on a known bad unit. Needless to say, when you get to step 3, Listing Probable Faulty Function, the logical choices - the "thoeries" they are to produce - have already been narrowed down to the unit for them. We never employ the skills we spend 4 months developing in NIDA, and consequently, all our techs are best suited to a job on the bench at ELC.

And finaly, Failure Analysis is never tested. Once the student finds the broken part, is he/she ever challenged to determine if the fault was the cause or the consequence of the trouble? No, they are not. Now there are a few proactive instructors out here who like to throw these "ringers" out at them as a bonus, but as a practice we never grade them on Failure Analysis.

Attached you will find the 6-step logical troubleshooting procedure, with definitions some of you may notice from the old ET3/ET2 course. This will be the model I use for all future modifications to the ET "A" School, because this is "in accordance with" the 10550.25, and it appears to have been forgotten.

So I guess the daunting task ahead of me is to squeeze an equivalent of the 48-week training I had - Even without tubes, waveguides, and klystrons - into our 28-week school. Wish me luck.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Here's a lecture I wrote a while back illustrating the six-step troubleshooting proceedure.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Which NIDA products are they using for training?

http://www.nida.com/Products/Programs/basicelectronics.html

Are they using the NIDA objectives or did the CG "design their own"?

The problem in the past with symptom recognition and failure analysis is they are not taught the equpment is part of a system. A simple superheterdyne is a system.

Years ago, when I taught and when I wa section Chief in the Loran School, the final practicals were always 10 problems in the system to be repaired within one hour. Of course the Control Station Operator had their own drill to go through ... to test their skills.

Once the CPOs hold them accountable for what the school taught and their PQS [or whatever you call them today], you will see the kind of ET you've dreamed about.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "They didn't teach that in school" only to have them retract that when shown what they were taught.

Why isn't the curriculum outlines published for all to see? I know the curriculum outlines are based on the PQS, but those would certainly assist the CPOs in ensuring their charges don't forget things.

I would love to see the CG go back to the longer "A" school, but that's wishful thinking. As long as they can maximize their Return on Investment by using things like the mandatory turn-in process, they will continue to do so.

I did love it when a Tech Manual's troubleshooting guide stated "This is an unlikely event." It made people rethink what they were doing while troubleshooting.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Well as someone that went to ST school and then taught there I have to say Petaluma is obviously doing something right. I had two new ET's less than three months out of school respond to a trouble call on Friday. It was our first time sending themout to troubleshoot on their own to see how they would do. The problem wasn't that challenging after the fact but I'm sure they were a bit nervous on their way to the station. After about 45 minutes of testing and troubleshooting they fixed not one but two problems they found with the new XTL 5000 VHF radios. There are a couple of areas I'd like to see techs stronger in coming out of school but the folks I have received from Petaluma, both IT's and ET's are doing more than expected of them. Maybe it's this shops break-in process, maybe it's Petaluma or maybe I have been very lucky and received good people. Good luck with the new job.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Pat,

Sounds good to me. There always are those who apply themselves.

We all wanted those "seasoned" people, but I've never found the secret NSN to order them. They are still developed, one at a time.

Is the lack of troubleshooting a 1% problem or more widespread?

One of the thing's I've noticed over the years is the MTBF increasing. Typically that is the result of better pms or more reliability. Most of the increases over the last three decades comes from the increased reliability. Reliablility is a dual edge sword. Increased reliability means less PMS, which in turn means less training [I believe the inverse is true ... less PMS means more training] and less positions to do the work. Thirty years ago, a month long break-in would experience two - four failures, today, they are lucky to see a failure during a tour isolated.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Joe
I think the PMS concept is still extremely valuable. When I took over this shop the scheduled PM's were getting done however only about 60% of the equipment was being scheduled for PM's. My ET1 jumped all over this and after about 6-8 months we noticed a drop in the CMA's in Cmplus which also accounted for fewer duty calls. Not having to deal with a three hour round trip drive at 22:00 is a nice motivating tool for the junior techs.
I also agree that modern equipment is somewhat more reliable. As long as the right piece of equipment is selected for the right application. A non waterproof radio on a RIB is a bad idea for example. The new SINS nav system for the small boats is an example of a reliable systems that actually had operator input prior to it's slection from what I understand. A great project.
Now if the new guys just knew what flux was for......:rolleyes:

[ETC John D Zidek]

Pat send your new guys my way I will teach them all about flux at 2M School [Evil Grin]

ETC "Z"
2M School Chief
TraCen Yorktown

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Get an old 10 uF, 20,000 volt cap ... charge it up to 20k ... then short it out with a grounding wand. You'll have them wondering. ..... what the flux just happened. :D

Pat, I've been a strong believer in PMS since my high school days when I worked at a radio station. That was my evening job ... doing the PMs on all the equipment and engineered two talks shows.

I'm also a belivever in outbriefs ... where you brief people on the problem, the solution, and any pitfalls you ran into during a CM. It was the technician's story to tell. Worked good during the morning coffee. A little OJT to get the brain cells in motion.

I hear there is a data collection on just that, these days. I know of it only because a certain CDR (ret) mentioned it as referencing the email outbrief program I started and encouraged at my Loran Stations. TRACEN PET was on the list so they could see what was failing.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Pat send your new guys my way I will teach them all about flux at 2M School [Evil Grin]


ETC "Z"
2M School Chief
TraCen Yorktown

..........................................
That would be sweet but the sad fact is, other than one or two systems the majority of the soldering we do these days is making RF connectors. Still soldering skill is an underated skill. I had to demonstrate how to solder a resistor after observing some frustration a few weeks back. It was interesting they were trying to zip through the process and they kept getting big lumps of solder. I sat down and showed them the whole process and though it took longer than they though it should (you can't do a good complete job in 30 seconds) I have to say I still got it. They didn't even know what that little black plastic tool was for measuring the lead bends. They thought is was a cheap micrometer or something. I had to laugh. Back in the ST school days soldering was a solid week, 8 hrs a day. I swear my eyes still suffer from staring through a magnifying glass.

Joe
That's funny but sometimes you just have to say what the flux. Ok now were are starting to roam a little too far into the ET geek world when we are making jokes about soldering. I'm going to go play with my Hilti-gun for a while...........................

[ETC John D Zidek]

..........................................
I swear my eyes still suffer from staring through a magnifying glass.


No more magnifing glass. We have stereo microscopes or the vintage 1950's glasses with the different magnifiers that flip up and down as needed.

I almost always have empty seats in Mini and Micro, have your guys submit an E-STTR....Please :) The schedule is on TQC's website or I can email you my spreadsheet.

ETC "Z"