"Why I preferred the Navy, from a culture POV."

[SeaKingTacco]

Not either / or.

I am not really sure what your point is.

Either we treat people like adults, or we treat them like children.

Alot of people making decisions about QoL onboard warships, have never been on a warship…

 

[Grimey]

I dunno, launching and recovering the whaler was a very dangerous operation. There was a plethora of points in the evolution that EVERYTHING could go south and people would die.
But yes, the booze was an issue, in Fraser we had a CC that couldn’t function until he put down a mickey of whiskey. The poor clerks in his office were likely alcoholics just from booze emanating from his pores!
Some ship’s Department’s were run by killicks and Master Killicks because the PO’s were hammered in 3 Mess.

But banning booze at sea hasn’t solved the alcohol/ drug abuse ashore.

Exactly. Thirty plus years ago, finding someone sober alongside in 3 mess after 10 o’clock stand easy was a rarity. But you know what? It didn’t matter. The MS ran the show. Those same C&POs would go to sea and a few would carry on as above, but most wouldn’t and were consummate professionals who managed the ones who weren’t.

On October 14th 2002, you and I came back from an almost 7 month deployment with the ship in better material condition than when we left. That’s all on the maintainers, who had two beers per day perhaps at sea. Morale was just as high when we left and personally I have never experienced a better ships company from Gary down to Shrek.

One thing may be missing now from 2002. We were treated as adults and behaved as such.

 

[dimsum]

One thing may be missing now from 2002.

Another thing, potentially: You folks came from OP APOLLO (presumably), the closest thing to a wartime deployment that the RCN had been in since...Korea?

There's a bit of prestige in that, which could play a part in the heightened morale.

 

[Grimey]

Another thing, potentially: You folks came from OP APOLLO (presumably), the closest thing to a wartime deployment that the RCN had been in since...Korea?

There's a bit of prestige in that, which could play a part in the heightened morale.

You’re not wrong. I felt we were earning our pay rather than sponging off the tax payer .
Being on the NBP and fixing stoker stuff, the time flew by.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I have no prblem with you blaming PROTECTEUR's situation on the way we do things these days.

But KOOTENAY's explosion had nothing to do with the way we do things today. At that time the maintenance of ships was taken seriously and properly done, not to mention we had stable crews and knowledgeable engineers. The explosion was caused by a refit where parts inside one of the gear boxes had been put back in improper order by the civilians carrying out the refit. Nothing could be blamed on the way the NAVY operated or its priorities.

It was really just an example of a major incident that lead to loss of life, injuries and loss of a ship, not a comment on the causes. But large sprays of oil in the machinery space isn't uncommon (and was just looking at something like that last week).

If you want a more recent example, FRE likely would have run aground (in the fjords, in winter, at night, in terrible weather) if they didn't have a PDE, which is most CPFs. That was a bullet dodged with zero lessons learned, and most CPFs don't even have the same working fire suppression as FRE, so fire damage would have been worse as well.

 

[Underway]

and was just looking at something like that last week

CRPP? Asking for a friend....

 

[btrudy]

Its not rose coloured glasses, I understand there is potential issues with it. I also understand that the Navy is a miserable element and it was one of the few benefits available to it.

I really don't think that "accommodates functional alcoholics" is really all that much of a benefit. Certainly doesn't benefit the Navy, and I'd argue it also very much so didn't benefit the members either, what with the whole manner in which it led to alcoholism getting worse not better.

I do think people don't quite understand the camaraderie that can be developed from a team that parties and works hard together.

The problem is, often in big groups there are individuals who are liabilities.

My understanding too is that CJOC rules around deployments and alcohol had a lot to do with our drinking restrictions.

Camaraderie doesn't require alcohol to develop though. And the inevitable presence of those who take it way to far do more to destroy any esprit de corps developed than the boozing helped build.

If you can’t trust the people your expected to go into battle with enough to have a few drinks with them, we have clearly failed to create the work environment required to survive in a warzone.

These are the actions of risk adverse bureaucrats, not a warfighting force.

You're so close to getting the point. You can't trust people to go into battle with a few drink in them because you both can't trust people to operate effectively with a few drinks in them, and you also can't trust people to stick to only a few drinks. The common problem here is the alcohol.

 

[daftandbarmy]

 

[Furniture]

Camaraderie doesn't require alcohol to develop though. And the inevitable presence of those who take it way to far do more to destroy any esprit de corps developed than the boozing helped build.

Alcohol often helps, if used correctly. There is some truth to the joke that no great story ever began with a glass of milk.

You're so close to getting the point. You can't trust people to go into battle with a few drink in them because you both can't trust people to operate effectively with a few drinks in them, and you also can't trust people to stick to only a few drinks. The common problem here is the alcohol.

Actually you can, if you punish those who break the rules. Alert has quite successfully changed it's booze culture, by strictly applying a two drink limit, and hammering anyone who get's caught drinking more. The navy could have taken a similar approach, but instead decided to go nuclear. The problem wasn't/isn't booze, the problem was/is the culture of ignoring the already existing rules.

Someone has three drinks, automatic 1 month ban from the mess except to eat at scheduled meal times. Second offence, increase the ban length, and start applying appropriate service offence/offences. Escalate from there as required... We always had the means to deal with the issue.

 

[dapaterson]

So you're saying the RCN has a leadership problem?

 

[Furniture]

So you're saying the RCN has a leadership problem?

It has had, just as all of the various elements/branches have.

 

[dapaterson]

It has had, just as all of the various elements/branches have.

Exactly.

 

[btrudy]

Yes, the Navy had a culture of ignoring rules regarding alcohol consumption.

But, well, I really do think that everyone here should be very cognizant of the fact that changing culture is at best, a very difficult task, one which requires buy in from all levels. Lord knows that we've seen this is the case in basically every other aspect of the CAF's culture change initiatives, why should alcohol consumption in the RCN be any different?

The culture of "drinking to excess at sea is ok" isn't really something that could be easily remedied with small corrections or simply enforcing existing rules because the very people who would need to be enforcing it are the same ones who were consistently breaking it. And I think you're really downplaying the addictions aspect here. If you allow an alcoholic two drinks, are they doing to be satisfied and want to stop at that? No, they're going to use every trick in their book to keep at it.

There's no soft approach that could have been taken to it. If you didn't go the "ban drinking at sea approach", the only real way to allow drinking at sea but also reduce the actual drunkenness would be a massive and labour intensive enforcement effort. And who's got time for that? Just "hammer people who get caught" wouldn't suffice because you would also need to put adequate mechanisms in place to ensure that people did get caught.

The RCN's leadership problem was tolerating the rampant alcohol misconduct (well, at least with regards to that topic, lord knows there's other issues). An approach that actually fixed that problem, while perhaps causing a bit of grumbling along the way, is a far better solution that half measures which would have just caused people to hide their drinking better.

The Alert example is an apples to oranges comparison; there is no Alert culture. No one's spending years there learning how things work. No one's taking their example for how the military as a whole works based upon their formative years at Alert. It's a series of people who are there on a very temporary basis, coming from all other areas of the CAF. Whatever culture is there is flexible because no one sticks around long enough.

 

[Furniture]

Yes, the Navy had a culture of ignoring rules regarding alcohol consumption.

But, well, I really do think that everyone here should be very cognizant of the fact that changing culture is at best, a very difficult task, one which requires buy in from all levels. Lord knows that we've seen this is the case in basically every other aspect of the CAF's culture change initiatives, why should alcohol consumption in the RCN be any different?

The culture of "drinking to excess at sea is ok" isn't really something that could be easily remedied with small corrections or simply enforcing existing rules because the very people who would need to be enforcing it are the same ones who were consistently breaking it. And I think you're really downplaying the addictions aspect here. If you allow an alcoholic two drinks, are they doing to be satisfied and want to stop at that? No, they're going to use every trick in their book to keep at it.

You have a very dim view of your fellow CAF members... Alert manages to enforce it without it being a staffing intensive, the RCN could have done the same. They didn't because it was determined that a grand gesture was needed.

The RCN's leadership problem was tolerating the rampant alcohol misconduct (well, at least with regards to that topic, lord knows there's other issues). An approach that actually fixed that problem, while perhaps causing a bit of grumbling along the way, is a far better solution that half measures which would have just caused people to hide their drinking better.

You think the current system has stopped people from drinking at sea? It has caused people to do exactly what you fear people having a couple in the mess would do.

I agree that the problem was a leadership one, I just happen to think that leadership rather than the "easy button" might have been a better option. It might have cost a few "rising stars" in the Officer and NCM worlds their careers, but it would have been a better solution than the current one. Any time you treat people like children, they will act like children, treat people like adults and 95% will act like adults.

The Alert example is an apples to oranges comparison; there is no Alert culture. No one's spending years there learning how things work. No one's taking their example for how the military as a whole works based upon their formative years at Alert. It's a series of people who are there on a very temporary basis, coming from all other areas of the CAF. Whatever culture is there is flexible because no one sticks around long enough.

Spent much time in Alert? That's quite an assumption if you haven't.

A large portion of the staff there are civilians, who are required to follow the military rules WRT personal relationships and drinking. They spend years in and out of Alert, putting most sailors to shame when it comes to time away at sea... There is a culture, and it's 100% different from the one that had existed previously, because the RCAF decided leadership was better than treating everyone like children.