I just attended the AWO Joint Midwest and Ohio Valley Regions annual meeting in Nashville, TN. I know that it wasn't just me, but the CG "Leadership" in attendance for the morning portion of the meeting preached all kinds of "Teamwork", "Honor the Mariner", and all of those other "key" words that were meant to build that partnership between industry and the Coast Guard. The closed portion of the meeting discussed their perception of this phenomenon. It appears as if the leadership has taken notice of the Oberstar Committee’s interest in current Coast Guard Marine Safety affairs. And all of the Officers were on the same page. Things that make you go…. Hmmm??

I had the opportunity to discuss the MSSE/MSSD debacle with a couple of the Dist/Sector CID’s about what they thought of ADM Allens CWO deck accessions. This one just keeps tearing at me. For curiosities sake, how much money and time does it take to train an enlisted aviator? Once trained and having gained experience, knowing that the promotion process is slow for this rating; does anyone seriously believe that a trained avionics or air frame/engine mechanic can’t make more bucks working in their field on the outside? In stead of hanging around to place high enough on the E-7 list to compete for Warrant and then have the opportunity to work out of their field, yeah; I can see that.

Well, that leaves the MST’s. We all know that they have a wealth of deck experience in that one or two years of non-rated experience, lots of “Rules of the Road” training, boat drills, towing, marlin spike seamanship and on and on. I’ll admit, the folk’s in the MST rating are certainly well versed in the regulations, pollution response, waterways management, you know the traditional Port Operations missions.

Don’t get me wrong, these things can be taught. But one of the key reasons in the Warrant Officers reason for being is to be an, “Expert in their field”. But eliminating two of the most experienced deck rating feeders from the Marine Safety Warrant Officer promotion process is ludicrous. The shortage of qualified Inspector/Investigators will only worsen through the up coming self imposed attrition. And with the shortage of qualified inspectors, will exacerbate the slowing response time of inspectors or investigators because of workload.

Another issue created by the “D” and “E” Warrants is the option to become “double ended”. The goal of being a double ended inspector has always been a lofty one. I see this policy skewing the lack of opportunity to attain both qualifications, especially when you add MTSA, pollution response missions and collateral duties to the equation.

That leaves those BM’s and GM’s stuck in pointless “M” billets operating boats, doing boarding’s, explosive load-outs and such; but no other option to advance in the “M” field even if they wanted to.

I’m not sure who fed the Commandant his information, but the industry “has” noticed the lack of experience already. These are professional mariners, well except for some of “their” senior management, and they can sling the BS as well as any qualified Coastie. which also means that they can read a BS inspector/investigator like a book. It just doesn’t bode well.

You are right. This only weakens our already abysmal credibility in the MI field.

You can't regulate what you don't understand and you can't begin to understand what you're not given the time and resources to learn properly.

Not just anyone can do MI and IO work. The CG needs to stop treating it that way. We need specialists dedicated to this craft who are given time to grow and become proficient at it...not ticket punchers and minimally qualified personnel. We need leadership who will promote this as a career track and we need to get away from these ridiculous 3 year field tours.

The CG needs to get this right or give it up to another agency that will.

Interesting that you assume ADM Allen did this in some kind of vacuum. The people that get paid to look out for the MSS(D&E), MST, BM, GM and other ratings & specialties were the ones that instututed this.

That doesn't mean they're right. ADM Allen didn't do this--a guy with a personal agenda did along with a group of force mgrs who really didn't have the greatest impetus to think about M. It did happen in a vacuum--if you look at the occupational studies that went into forming MSS over years involving everyone's input via surveys and studies and you look at the split that put it back to the past it's amazing that a 2 page memo citing a meaningless historical assumption about the proper ratio of D v. E folks in the MI field that was never realized undoing years of occupational studies involving task analysis and surveys. It literally was an uninformed flip-flop and a sign that in these topsy turvy times--any memo can get thru HQ that advocates 'change' of some kind.

But that skirts the real issue--the problem with the M field gets confused with this D v. E thing and that is but a piece of what's wrong. The problem is not so much in the field, as much as it is in the brain. How can we train anyone to be a good MI when our policies are split over several sources that contradict, are mostly out of date, our 840s old, and the offices don't have the latest IMO resolutions? How do we train these inspectors when the task is not defined and procedures not maintained? Meanwhile thanks to our partnerships with industry, we're enforcing more regulations than ever before on vsls larger than ever before in less time than was ever allowed before.

When you read the IMO resolution on what constitutes a Recognized Organization and the features it should have in dealing with vessel inspection it lists Quality as a necessary feature, certification such as ISO might provide, a process whereby procedures are fully documented, personnel train to the task, and there is an ongoing audit system that is layered and redundant. We lack on that and that is why we are not cutting the grade, and why the field will not be put in order no matter if D v. E, civilian, or even MARGRAD.

Onvioulsy you and LS have issues. He will be up for transfer at some time, and if you are qualified, you can put in for his job. If you are not qualified, or never had and never will put in for his job, live with his decisions.

You'll note I have a profile that can be seen. What you might not know is that LS sits about 5 feet from me. Most of the other folks involved sit within 25 ft of me. I have heard many of the conversations and have a good understanding what happened.

The Office of Marine Safety considered ISO 9000 as an approach to quality in the 1990s. It is very rigorous and there is no guarantee of success.

There are tenets that the folks in Marine Safety attempt to follow but overriding resource based decisions sometimes preclude consistency.

Remember Quality is the ability to recreate a process.

Say what you do, do what you say and document it.

I only chose the "M" Warrant topic for this thread, though SSIS ties the whole problem together well, some more of the full picture can be viewed in other threads in Marine Safety, I wanted this thread for the current E/D warrant selections.

Hey Masterchief,

One can assume anything from afar. And sometimes, one can't see the forest from the trees! Being in industry now, and being a retired Coastie, former MI/IO and also a former Gunnersmate with time on a 205', 180', 210' and a pre-fram 378' (that had then LT Thad Allen as MPA onboard!) I can tell you with absolute CERTAINTY that the only ones happy with this decision are the MST's. I went dragging my nails and screaming from my GM operational duties. But with only 12 GMC afloat billets, six shore GMCS billets and three GMCM billets the choice for advancements were slim getting slimmer. For the FT's, "M" offered a chance to stay ashore for a while. But I learned, like the rest of my deck trained bretheren that the challenges of the "M" program were rewarding and challenging. Sure, some don't like it but most thrive at it.

Being out for a little over two years now, I'm not familiar with you. So I can't tell if you were a RM/TC or ET type. That being said, can "you" tell me how much money it takes to train and qualify a avionics tech, or an airframe tech through first class? Gain the operational and training time to be proficient enough to "attempt" to move on in a rating that traditionally promotes at a snails pace because of the VALUE of their duties and certifications on the "outside" just keeps the rating packed tight. And you want to tell me "HOW THAT ADDS VALUE TO A COAST GUARD MISSION THAT IS ALREADY BEING SCRUTINIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PERFORMANCE SHORTFALLS???"

Many of the mid-level managers in M are LT's that only skimmed through their first unit, gaining a qualification or two and proficiency in NONE. Most have no desire to “carry a bag” anymore because it makes you dirty or something. You add into the equation an MST warrant who can quote you chapter and verse, the applicable regulations about "why" there are 100 lifejackets. Some may know the theory of righting moment, stability principals or how to conduct a deadweight survey or an incline stability test, but I'd venture not. And the poor airedale, come on. That is only one, one thing.

Masterchief, I can guaran-fricken-tee that not one of the department heads up there considered checking with the field personnel? If they did, they were those hand picked, head bobbing who risk serious neck injury because of the lack of turn signals to consult.

Nah, this one smells of an HQ screwed pooch, why the COMDT approved it I'll never know. But believe me, there are some on the outside that are watching too. And since THEY are the reason for the existence of OUR service, they ARE NOT impressed.

quote:

That being said, can "you" tell me how much money it takes to train and qualify a avionics tech, or an airframe tech through first class? Gain the operational and training time to be proficient enough to "attempt" to move on in a rating that traditionally promotes at a snails pace because of the VALUE of their duties and certifications on the "outside" just keeps the rating packed tight. And you want to tell me "HOW THAT ADDS VALUE TO A COAST GUARD MISSION THAT IS ALREADY BEING SCRUTINIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE FOR PERFORMANCE SHORTFALLS???"

Sir,

AMT's and AET's (mechs and avionics types) are not fed into the MSSD specialty. Only the AST from the aviation rates competes for MSSD. They represent about 5% of MSSDs.

/r ASTC V

The AMT and AET question was answered. As far as my background, wrong on all three acounts. I was a QMCS before the new ratings stood up, but that doesn't really matter. Then again, it does give me a look into the matter. From those days, I could have been tossed in to the M world, as a BOSUN if I went CWO, which between that and the card table on a 378 - kind of kept me on this path!

You did kind of bring up a point though when talking about bringing people up. The purpose in life for a BM for instance is to aspire and work towards Command by becoming the essence of a ship and boat driver.

I don't believe they had 'SFMs', or Specialty Force Managers when you were around. They are the CWO equivelant of a RFMC. The main focus of this was run by the SFM and RFMCs. Although their focus is their rating or specialties, they (we) always act in the overall best interest of the CG, even when it may not benifit their rating/specialty or individuals.

In your day, there were more GMs in the M field for one reason, and one reason only and that was for sea/shore ratios. That is not needed anymore, so those are almost all gone.

Nuff said. Aye, aye Master Chief!

You guy's are the ones at the helm. I'm only there at heart and in soul. I don't agree with the policy, but... it really doesn't matter, because if I WAS still in I'd give it my best.

Now that I'm on the receiving end of the sharp stick, I guess that I'll just feel the pain that the industry has been talking about, magnified.

It's ashame, but I think this road will ultimately lead to a split and the loss of this mission responsibility back to a DOT agency.

been great chating Guns