concerning a certain Navy video...

[Khan]

Navy Pulls YouTube Video From Carrier

The Navy has removed a video from YouTube shot aboard the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan because it shows sailors using safety equipment inappropriately, a Navy spokesman said.


(Didn't Nords mention something about this?)

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan The Navy has removed a video from YouTube shot aboard the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan because it shows sailors using safety equipment inappropriately, a Navy spokesman said. (Didn't Nords mention something about this?)

I can see the headlines now: "Frustrated by their failed attempts to obtain another $82B for important records maintenance and Reactor Plant Manual changes, Naval Reactors decided to vent their spleen on a more convenient target"...

Our taxpayer dollars at work, folks.

[Fireup2020]

OMG - I missed the video! I love to share videos of shipmates on liberty at sea. General Public thinks we (USN sailors) are ONDUTYALLTHETIME!!! There is some fun to be had "at sea" - and these Utube videos depict that! Notice the lack of liberty ports and civilian clothes, but, FUN can be had! The phrases, "those who serve" and "politics" are not interchangeable! Sucks to see someone showed something requiring clearance. Shame on the videotapers! More fun and goodwill of our servicemembers should be shown to the public! Too much bad press!

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fireup2025 OMG - I missed the video! I love to share videos of shipmates on liberty at sea. General Public thinks we (USN sailors) are ONDUTYALLTHETIME!!! There is some fun to be had "at sea" - and these Utube videos depict that! Notice the lack of liberty ports and civilian clothes, but, FUN can be had! The phrases, "those who serve" and "politics" are not interchangeable! Sucks to see someone showed something requiring clearance. Shame on the videotapers! More fun and goodwill of our servicemembers should be shown to the public! Too much bad press!

I'm shocked, I say shocked, that you'd contemplate allowing our nation's taxpayers to see such expensive high-quality anti-contamination clothing, the very bulwark of our bastion of nuclear maintenance, treated with such a cavalier attitude by former, I mean no longer promotable such blissfully ignorant professionals.

I think that the only plausible corrective action to address this serious root cause is a new OPNAV instruction requiring all sea-duty personnel to be indoctrinated into the proper recognition, understanding, care of, and respect for the vital equipment with which our nuclear reactors have been able to achieve decades of accident-free public service and vital defense of our country and our citizens' way of life. The instruction will include mandatory monthly one-hour lectures with written exams and perhaps unscheduled inspections. Commanding officers will, of course, review such training in their annual letters to the Director of Naval Reactors.

I could go on for another dozen paragraphs. Hopefully we can get The Muppets' "Sam the Eagle" to read Naval Reactors' statetment on public television to show how NR really feels about this important topic. Gosh do I miss this stuff.

I'm sure that this illicit (and thus highly popular) video will be popping up on other websites for years to come...

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I think that the only plausible corrective action to address this serious root cause is a new OPNAV instruction requiring all sea-duty personnel to be indoctrinated into the proper recognition, understanding, care of, and respect for the vital equipment with which our nuclear reactors have been able to achieve decades of accident-free public service and vital defense of our country and our citizens' way of life. The instruction will include mandatory monthly one-hour lectures with written exams and perhaps unscheduled inspections. Commanding officers will, of course, review such training in their annual letters to the Director of Naval Reactors.

I see the Navy follows that time honored tradition of "if someone screwed up, we need a new rule, a new procedure, and lots of training followed by vigorous supervision."

Amongst the legion of the many reasons why I was never going to be anything more important than a division commander, I once uttered the phrase "rubber hammer rule" in a meeting with the mighty ones with all the stars on their shoulders.

Lieutenant, what do you mean by "rubber hammer rule"?

Well, this is typical of how we make everyone's job more difficult for the wrong reason. One or two people do something not-so-bright and instead of smacking them for exercising poor judgment, and kidney punching their supervisor and shift commander for not keeping a better eye on their shop; we create a more restrictive policy, implement costly training and burden supervisors with yet another report they have to write. (the unspoken words in my tone were "all so you bunch of nutless weenies, who probably did the same stuff when you were in the lower ranks, can insulate yourself from future liability because you created a new policy.")

And historians cite the rise of the bureaucracy as one of the reasons the Europeans were able to conquer most of the world.

[FinallyRetired]

The USAF would never do that. But if they did it, they would deny it ever happened.

[REWahoo]

"Nothing in the video — which was posted May 23 — compromised operational security, but officials were worried about the "lack of propriety" involving the safety equipment, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, a spokesman for the San Diego-based Naval Air Forces command.
Navy commanders have counseled the airman who produced it, said Brown.

Set to a tune by country singer Shania Twain, the theme is that women serving aboard the Reagan can do the same jobs as men."

Charlie Brown and Lucy are still at it, I see. She should never have yanked that football on him...

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas Lieutenant, what do you mean by "rubber hammer rule"?

Don't forget that it'll now take three people to do the task (instead of one), they have to be assigned by name on the watchbill and initial the assignment to acknowledge their understanding of its requirements, it now requires a work authorization form, and it has to be included on the Plan of the Day with a pre-evolution brief...

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Navy commanders have counseled the airman who produced it, said Brown.

Oh, sure, blame it on the enlisted guys. And how many Navy commanders (plus at least two O-6s) saw that video at the VIP screening?!?

OTOH my shipmate the F-4 RIO Vietnam vet says that these videos have been in production for at least four decades (they called them "movies" back then), if they included women it wasn't in a complimentary role, and they certainly weren't distributed for public viewing...

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas Well, this is typical of how we make everyone's job more difficult for the wrong reason. One or two people do something not-so-bright and instead of smacking them for exercising poor judgment, and kidney punching their supervisor and shift commander for not keeping a better eye on their shop; we create a more restrictive policy, implement costly training and burden supervisors with yet another report they have to write. (the unspoken words in my tone were "all so you bunch of nutless weenies, who probably did the same stuff when you were in the lower ranks, can insulate yourself from future liability because you created a new policy.")

The one I always liked was accountability paperwork inspections. I found it humorous when things would turn up missing. As a result more accountability checks were implemented. The people who would come up with the new procedures would not stop to think that the current procedures already had checks in place. The reason the accountability was screwed up was because people were not actually following the procedures, they were pencil-whipping the paperwork. I wonder if it ever occurred to those in charge that if the people weren't doing the shorter procedures properly they sure as heck wouldn't do the new and improved longer version.