5 ms·

It makes some sense to me. Conning officer instructs helmsman which direction to go. Helmsman then executes that and monitors/adjusts to stay on that heading wi

It makes some sense to me. Conning officer instructs helmsman which direction to go. Helmsman then executes that and monitors/adjusts to stay on that heading without further attention. Same for speed. The officer is then free of the tasks of monitoring and adjusting speed and direction and can focus on what's happening outside of that.

brians 9y ago
Looking for good models for ops team improvement, I was just handed the Watch Officer's Handbook. It encourages new watch officers to give rudder orders, not desired headings.
- diggernet 9y ago
  Depends on the context. When maneuvering, you are watching obstacles and can see how much you need to turn to avoid them. So you give rudder orders. Your actual heading is only a secondary concern. When navigating, you simply order the desired heading (for minutes, hours, or days). Then you focus on other things while the helmsman sweats the details.
diggernet 9y ago
Thank you. That's precisely why things are this way. Source: me, Navy veteran
- Bromskloss 9y ago
  What about the question regarding having one guy doing direction, and another guy doing speed? Is that called for?
  - diggernet 9y ago
    Absolutely. Maintaining a ship's heading is a full time job. If you get distracted, you get off course pretty quickly. Speed isn't even really handled on the bridge. The engine order (ahead full, back half, emergency stop, etc) goes to the engine room where multiple people do the work. Note: This is in the context of oil and nuclear steam-powered ships. Gas turbine ships may well have an actual throttle on the bridge. Whether the bridge has a throttle or just an engine order telegraph, the helmsman can often have their hands too full to deal with it. But someone else can do it along with their other duties, as speed control is not so intensive.
    - tga 9y ago
      Especially if it's so easy to get off course, and since the responsibility lies with another officer anyway, steering sounds like a job better suited for a computer, rather than a person. As far as I know, airline pilots already dial in most navigational course changes to the autopilot, I would have imagined ships to work similarly.
      - 0xffff2 9y ago
        That seems obvious today, but the McCain was laid down in 1991. Computers were much less sophisticated back then. I wonder if there is enough information publicly available to compare the workflows on the McCain to the same workflows on the Zumwalt.
    - jabl 9y ago
      As an outsider (well, I have plenty of experience with pleasure boats/yachts, but none with large ships) it seems really extraordinary that just maintaining a heading would be a full time job. Somehow in airplanes a single pilot manages to control not only the rudder, but throttles, ailerons, elevators, flaps and whatnot while also yakking on the radio. And airplanes zip along at 500 knots rather than 20 like a ship.
      - pas 9y ago
        Fewer obstacles maybe? Also, with a fast plane you either land or take off, or do stuff in practically free space.
        vlehto 9y ago
        Also there is the example of infantry tank. There is the driver who has speed and direction. Then there is the commander who gives orders but apparently has backup system to drive if the driver is incapacitated. A ship just can't have as much obstacles as tank negotiating battlefield.
        9y ago
gambiting 9y ago
What I don't get is that obviously on a military vessel the chance of someone getting injured or incapacitated are rather high - so why would you want critical things like speed to be controlled by a separate person from the one steering? If they get knocked out and the controls for speed/direction/depth are in a physically different location, doesn't that result in a complete loss of control?
- themaninthedark 9y ago
  On the flip side, if there is an event that incapacitates one person it might not affect all 3 so you still have some control during and right after the event instead of waiting for someone to make their way to the control station
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    You could have 3 sets of full controls and personnel, that's more redundancy; you need lockout and takeover abilities. That's how Star Trek do it!

brians 9y ago

Looking for good models for ops team improvement, I was just handed the Watch Officer's Handbook. It encourages new watch officers to give rudder orders, not desired headings.

diggernet 9y ago
Depends on the context. When maneuvering, you are watching obstacles and can see how much you need to turn to avoid them. So you give rudder orders. Your actual heading is only a secondary concern. When navigating, you simply order the desired heading (for minutes, hours, or days). Then you focus on other things while the helmsman sweats the details.

diggernet 9y ago

Thank you. That's precisely why things are this way. Source: me, Navy veteran

Bromskloss 9y ago
What about the question regarding having one guy doing direction, and another guy doing speed? Is that called for?
- diggernet 9y ago
  Absolutely. Maintaining a ship's heading is a full time job. If you get distracted, you get off course pretty quickly. Speed isn't even really handled on the bridge. The engine order (ahead full, back half, emergency stop, etc) goes to the engine room where multiple people do the work. Note: This is in the context of oil and nuclear steam-powered ships. Gas turbine ships may well have an actual throttle on the bridge. Whether the bridge has a throttle or just an engine order telegraph, the helmsman can often have their hands too full to deal with it. But someone else can do it along with their other duties, as speed control is not so intensive.
  - tga 9y ago
    Especially if it's so easy to get off course, and since the responsibility lies with another officer anyway, steering sounds like a job better suited for a computer, rather than a person. As far as I know, airline pilots already dial in most navigational course changes to the autopilot, I would have imagined ships to work similarly.
    - 0xffff2 9y ago
      That seems obvious today, but the McCain was laid down in 1991. Computers were much less sophisticated back then. I wonder if there is enough information publicly available to compare the workflows on the McCain to the same workflows on the Zumwalt.
  - jabl 9y ago
    As an outsider (well, I have plenty of experience with pleasure boats/yachts, but none with large ships) it seems really extraordinary that just maintaining a heading would be a full time job. Somehow in airplanes a single pilot manages to control not only the rudder, but throttles, ailerons, elevators, flaps and whatnot while also yakking on the radio. And airplanes zip along at 500 knots rather than 20 like a ship.
    - pas 9y ago
      Fewer obstacles maybe? Also, with a fast plane you either land or take off, or do stuff in practically free space.
      - vlehto 9y ago
        Also there is the example of infantry tank. There is the driver who has speed and direction. Then there is the commander who gives orders but apparently has backup system to drive if the driver is incapacitated. A ship just can't have as much obstacles as tank negotiating battlefield.
        9y ago

gambiting 9y ago

What I don't get is that obviously on a military vessel the chance of someone getting injured or incapacitated are rather high - so why would you want critical things like speed to be controlled by a separate person from the one steering? If they get knocked out and the controls for speed/direction/depth are in a physically different location, doesn't that result in a complete loss of control?

themaninthedark 9y ago
On the flip side, if there is an event that incapacitates one person it might not affect all 3 so you still have some control during and right after the event instead of waiting for someone to make their way to the control station
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  You could have 3 sets of full controls and personnel, that's more redundancy; you need lockout and takeover abilities. That's how Star Trek do it!