Well, I did it! The deck log is back up and running. I upgraded my server, and a change in PHP config for security tripped me up. And, in the upgrade, I lost the old entries I had so carefully backed up: purely my own carelessness.
Oh, well: we will just have to generate some new ones, won't we: so get cracking!
And, I could use some new content, too: seastories and articles are welcome: not only reminiscences on How It Used To Be, but some articles on how it is now would be appreciated.
I was reading some of the sea stories describing navigation in such great detail, and all I could think is only a true QM would write such things. I have been out since '95, but I sure can remember the greatest moment being when I moved from secondary plot to primary plot. I guess only true QM's can appreciate this.
P.S. don't forget to do the posit report on time. I was 5 minutes late once because of a drill, and did I ever get in trouble.
Hello to all, Just ran across this web site and thought it was pretty cool. I'm actually a BM/QM convert, they made us merge awhile back in the Coast Guard. Yes I'm a shallow water sailor. LOL. but I'll be honest I'm MUCH happier being on the bridge then chipping and painting and re-painting. Im a second class and its becoming alot more challenging. Well take care and be safe out there
2005-05-02 17:16:50 Groveton, TX USCGC DIONE, SALVIA
Just found your site. Although I'm not Navy I am an old coastie (61-65)QM. That was long before they merged rates and before GPS. We used LORAN and RDF when way off shore. We also took amplitudes and used celestial navigation, but only to keep up our skills and to check new officers out of the academy. I hope you keep this site up for a long time. I'd hate to see the QM forgotten.
BZ Steve, I see that I trained you well! It's nice to connect with other QM's. Steve and I served together on KAMEHAMEHA and our wakes crossed many times over the years after that. I started out as a submarine QM, became an ANAV as a QM and one day woke up and was an ANAV ET. I have opinions about the Submarine Rating Merger effectively eliminating QM's, but don't we all? In a nutshell, all of us submarine QMs sat through the CSL/CSP Grounding Presentation many times. We were reviewing the reasons submarines ran aground 20 years ago, and we all remember that groundings back then were at least as frequent as they are now. Although I'm no longer privy to the updated presentation, I bet the root causes of recent groundings haven't changed: They are either not following approved procedures, or changing the plan without proper planning. With proper training and supervision, there is no reason that todays enlisted submarine navigation specialists (whatever the USN wishes to designate them), can safely and effectively carry out the duties of the old QMOW. Hey Steve, how's it hanging dude? it's been a few years since I've seen you!
Cool site. Glad to see other QM's out there. Got out in '97 and used what I learned for a while in the civilian world (Rel. Capt. on Inland Towboat). What I learned being a QM3 on subs exceeded what the instructor knew in the civilian world, so I moved up really fast. Got boring after a while though. Anyway, good to find a sight where I can discuss experiences and people actually know what I'm talking about! Like finding a bunch of brother's I never knew!
2005-08-01 00:46:06 Azusa/Covina, California 627(B), 717, 621, 612, 752, 759
I am extremely proud of the site. I went through QM A School with Steve. We jammed 6 weeks into 4 (I think class was 0700-1700 everyday), but we made it home for Christmas.
I am one to never admit to ever having been designated an ET. My current automobile licence plate reads "QM1SS" with a retired submariner frame around it. The only time I ever used ET was in official documents (the Nav had to threaten me before I finally used it in the deck log). As soon as the rate change was official, I said that we would lose a sub in 5-10 years. Unfortunately, I was almost right.
I went from sleeping in a hanging rack in the lower level missle compartment as an E-2 non-qual to being an Assistant Navigator on a fast attack on a Westpac in 8 years. If not for the back-stabbing politics brought on by downsizing, I would probably still be proudly "telling the captain where to go" :-)
Fair Winds and Following Seas to all current and future submarine navigators (be they officer, former QM, or ET).
2005-08-04 10:41:47 TROY, NH USS CLAMAGORE SS343 & USS JALLAO SS368
Being a Quartermaster on board submarine was one of the best jobs I had in my life. In 1965 I went right from boot camp to Sub School in New London COnn. and then right on to submarine Quartermaster school at New London. This was a new school and my class was the 6th to graduate. From there I went on to the Clamagore SS343 for a year and then on to the Jallao SS368 for my last three years. My travels and the friends I made during this time will live with me forever. To this day I still say I was proud to be a submarine Quartermaster. DAVID LaGRENADE QM2(SS)
Use to think that being a QM in the fleet, was fun, until I got involved in the Small Boats. Inshore Boat Unit 14. Now that's fun. navigating at 40+ knots, on a jet boat, while manning a ]crew serve weapon and engineer spot to boot. NCW IBU is the way to go! God Country and FAST BOATS
2005-08-22 20:14:32 Austin Tx USS Ohio SSBN 726, ComSubGru Seven Yokosuka Japan
Now that all the stuff is out I can say something. The navy submarine fleet has definatly loss the art of navigation. My division in CSG7 was the author of the subnote that the SFO ran aground on (the only reason my name was not on it was because I was on leave, but I had to do the investigation.) The boat nav team seriously screwed it up. From the top down. The scary part is alot of the boats are seperating the division. Some guys bearly get to the plot and then the navy expects them to become ANAV's (just so every body knows, the navy has made it manditory for ALL submarine NavET's to qualify) Scary knowing that the ANAV could have less time on the plot than his senior watchstander. So far the navy is not going to spit the rate back up. I am sorry to say I think another SFO is in the shadows waiting......
2005-08-24 16:13:09 USS Paul F. Foster, USS Roark, USS Enhance, USS Implicit, USS Enterprise, USS LaSalle
I'm a Quartermaster who was taught the ropes by great Quartermasters. We have an awesome rate and a proud heritage. I'm glad to have this forum to say hello to all my QM siblings, SS and SW alike. Well, like many of you have already done, I'm on my twilight tour preparing to retire after a very long season. I joined the Navy in 1976, learned marlinspike seamanship as a deck seaman in 1977 and became a QM in 1978; I managed to survive a career that led to QMCM in 1995... but now I've come to face my time to walk the plank like many of you. It's been a great voyage for me, and a great rate to belong to! I'm ready to join you on the other side before long. Sadly, however, I must also report to you that the Navy is about to announce that we will officially be eliminated as a rating: the QM rate will soon become a paragraph in the history books. As it stands now, QMs will merge with, and share in the duties of Operation Specialists in 2006; yes, you heard me right: our rate is to become OS. I guess progress means that the Navy no longer needs dedicated Master Mariners on the bridge because whiz-bang technology has the capability to accurately and instantly provide the ship's position on a display screen. Great technology, to be sure; but what about having focused Master Mariners on the bridge? I guess we'll find out in short order how this decision will impact navigation safety. At best we'll see a sharp loss of seamanlike behavior and competence. No doubt, QMs can learn the duties of our OS cousins because we already have the foundation of maritime thinking behind us. It will be quite interesting, however, to see how the Navy copes without sailors who can think like salty mariners in a pinch. I can just imagine all those OSs emerging from the darkness of CIC/CDC and their functions to face the fact that they will have to quickly learn the many non-technical skills of the QM rate. To name just a few: sextants, alidades, stadimeters, weather, rules of the road, reading the seas, compass adjustment, storm evasion, ship handling, piloting, voyage planning, anchoring and taking azimuths... not to mention learning how the symbiotic relationship between officers and navigation team members works. What about the green flash? False horizon? Red-right-returning? Pilot pickup? Dew point? Tangent bearings? Quadrantal spheres and Flinders bars? The list will go on a while. Granted, plotting a position on a chart and writing in a log can be taught to a monkey; in fact, OSs do that already... oops, did I write that out loud? Anyway, to really master what it is to be a true mariner on the high seas one must experience every scenario imaginable from the bridge of a ship, one event at a time, under the watchful eye of seasoned Quartermaster mentor. I believe, like many of you, that the QM rate is at the top of the Navy's nautical food chain of enlisted ratings... and I'm going to miss being called a Quartermaster. We've been around since the late 1700s honing our trade... but I guess Navy bean counters think we've outlived our usefulness. Perhaps I'm wrong... maybe it's true... with the advent of GPS, anyone CAN do it successfully. Farewell, Wheels! Salutes and bells forever, Harry
2005-08-26 16:49:01 Tampa, Florida USS Dewey, DLG-14
The last few log entries concerning the phasing out of the QM rate and replacing that professional function with what are essentially machine operators (not that there's anything wrong with that!), reminds me of an incident that occured to me a few years ago. I am an ex-Quartermaster, but my civilian job is a Geographic Information Systems analyst. That really means computer mapping technician. On a trip to take a course in my field, I noticed several maps hanging on the wall of the company offering the training; examples of the firm's work and it's software's capabilities.
One of the maps was a nautical chart, produced entirely by computer, from data compiled in a marine database. It was a gorgeous piece of work, but I took a closer look at it with a QM's critical eye. The first thing I noticed was that the bathymetric data was well presented, but that there was no indication as to whether the numbers were feet, meters or fathoms. Precisely surveyed points on shore (for taking bearings) were carefully marked with the appropriate symbol, but they had no explanatory text! For example, the tiny circles were not labeled "penthouse" or "steeple", or "northernmost of three stacks". It was up to the navigator to figure out which feature on shore was represented by the map symbol. Finally, I noted the extensive use of pale red inks on the map, which would, of course, be invisible under a red safelight used to preserve night vision on a darkened bridge.
I realized that whoever was responsible for this map (I refuse to use the term "chart") had probably never been on a boat in his life, much less navigated one.
We can't let this happen! Let the greatest rate in the Navy go away, so that we can become, Obvious Stupid (OS). You can't get lOSt without the OS. We've heard them all. I will be the first to say, I will not become an OS. Even if I have to get out and finih my twenty with another branch.
2005-09-12 15:14:24 Pensacola, FL USS Saratoga, CV-60
This is a long-shot request for information.
I'm looking for information on a QM who served aboard the USS Darter (SS 227) during World War II. I'm looking for information related to a member of the commissioning crew, Thomas J. Bates, QM3. I'm not sure, but this may be my late grandfather.
I can't locate any information on the crew (except for two pictures of the crew - one of the crew, and one with wives and girlfriends) and would like to find out more information if possible.
If you can offer information, or direct me to someplace with more info, I'd be greatly appreciative.
2005-09-16 11:14:22 Youngstown OH USS Pensacola (LSD-50)/ USS Carter Hall (LSD-50)
I have been a QM for over 7 years and I can tell you there is no better job to have. There is nothing better then being on the watch and noing that the Captain and the OOD is trusting you and your guys to get the ship to where it has to go safely. I love the Job and I have Mixed fillings about the direction that the navy is going with Navigating a ship while I do not disagree with going to Electronic Charts I do not think that that they should get rid of Paper Charts and Celestrial Navigation both have proven them selfs to be effectant for Generations and I belive that they should find a way to use both. And as far as the QM/OS Merger is concerend I belive it was bad enough that we had to become Sig's but to have to be an OS is a fate greater then Death itself. We all no how bad OS are at Navigating a ship I can only hope that the Navy see's the danger in this and puts a stop to it. So to all the wheels out there keep on keeping the ship safe from harm way.
2005-09-28 02:16:08 Denver, Colorado USS RUSHMORE(LSD-47)
Hello fellow, QM's and former SM's out there. I know I'm still writing my title as SM2, but it was my first rating so I thought that I would hold on to it for just a little longer. Although, I did enjoy being a QM and never had the chance to qual as ANAV, and only did primary plot once or twice during sea/anchor details but that was mainly due to the fact of my abundant SM knowledge and my chief thought it would be better for me to be on the signal bridge during sea/anchor detail. I got out of the Navy after four years on 30 JUL 05 and am currently assigned to the USS Frank Cable (AS-40) in the Reserves. Sadly, you can't get away from all these stupid mergers even in the reserve fleet. My unit was "phased out" for the QM rating, they only want engineering ratings for that unit, I was moved to USS Emory S. Land (AS-39) and that's where I stand at this moment in time. I really liked the Navy and miss being active fleet a lot, and being a QM/SM. While I was upset about the phasing out of the SM rating, it made sence after awhile to merge them with QM, that one I agree with, but this s*** about merging us with OS is a double stab in the back for me. The (Obviously Stupid) rating, couldn't navigate a ship anywhere, while we did have a few good OS's, they were still really frustrating to work with. They didn't train me on CELNAV but would have liked to learn it, it's interesting. I want to return back to the ACTIVE FLEET, but when talking with my friends who are still in the fleet, they are merging QM with BM/OS??? What a fate for the oldest rating in the Navy, since the late 1700's and now they want to do away with them?? Ridiculous. Any advice from my fellow QM's former SM's out there??? I submitted my DD-368 to return back to active duty, but if they make me an OS and a BM forget it. I started out an undesignated SA, and I'm not going through the crap they put you through in deck all over again. I hated being in deck department, and I'll be d***** if they put me back in it again. I can proudly say that I made SM2 in two 1/2 years, and earned my SW pin as a third class. I miss the Navy, but I really don't think it's a good idea and I know alot of QM's will vouch for me on this, to get rid of QM, just to merge them with OS/BM. It's bad enough on both the former SM's and the current QM's to do two ratings at once, but four??? (QM/BM/OS/SM), I think that's overkill for even the hardest most dedicated sailors out in the fleet, namely myself and my fellow shipmates. Am I the only one who thinks the Navy is making a mistake by taking us off the bridge??? What are the brass thinking???
SM2/QM2(SW)TRIPP USS RUSHMORE (LSD-47) "America's Gator"
2005-10-23 06:01:37 Nashua, NH USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)
Hey cool site, its good to see a website about QMs and all the history is very interesting. Keep it up!!!!! And remember... "trust your keel to those who wear the wheel"
2005-10-26 13:35:19 Grand Rapids,Mi USS Boston CAG1 --1961-1963
I just found this site as I was beginning to think that QM's were getting shy and disappearing. The site is VERY informative and I enjoy the reading the new entries from guys on the ships at this time.I'm kinda an old salt,but we had stars back in my Navy too! (no satellites though).Please keep up the great work.
2005-10-27 11:25:19 Washington, DC USS McCampbell (DDG-85), CGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), CGC Monomoy (WPB-1326)
Hello fellow QMs and SMs. I was very happy to find this site and be able to chat with other QM/SMs. I've read through a lot of the entries and can understand many of the gripes concerning rate mergers and such. My situation is a bit unique though. I originally joined the Coast Guard in 1988 when the QM and SM rates had already been merged for several years. QM "A" school for me was in Yorktown, VA and consisted of QM and SM school combined- 6 weeks of navigation and 6 weeks of signalling. Before that school had been established Coastie QMs went to Navy QM "A" school in Orlando and then after graduation went right into SM "A" school. This was back when you still actually graphed tides and currents by hand, plotted LORAN, and other skills that have now been computerized. Unfortunately we never did anything with the SM rate so I forgot most of what I learned. When I came into the Navy and went to DDG-85 we still had SMs but we merged with them my last year on board (2004). I got to get some good practice in and relearn flaghoist and flashing light. I'm up for QMC this year and am currently studying the SM rate manual as part of my Bib. I really don't care to be merged with the OSs or BMs and I hope I make QMC before it happens. A QMs primary job is safety of navigation and I really don't think that's a priority for either rates.
2005-02-24 22:01:36
ReplyDeleteGroton, CT
SSBN 642, SSBN 631, SSN 761
Well, I did it! The deck log is back up and running. I upgraded my server, and a change in PHP config for security tripped me up. And, in the upgrade, I lost the old entries I had so carefully backed up: purely my own carelessness.
Oh, well: we will just have to generate some new ones, won't we: so get cracking!
And, I could use some new content, too: seastories and articles are welcome: not only reminiscences on How It Used To Be, but some articles on how it is now would be appreciated.
2005-02-27 09:34:35
ReplyDeleteTampa, FL
USS Dewey, DLG-14
It's good to see the deck log back on line. A "well-done" for Steve for providing a voice and a face for the best rate in the Navy.
2005-02-28 22:58:48
ReplyDeleteBend, Oregon
SSN-665, SSN-662, SSBN-729
I was reading some of the sea stories describing navigation in such great detail, and all I could think is only a true QM would write such things. I have been out since '95, but I sure can remember the greatest moment being when I moved from secondary plot to primary plot. I guess only true QM's can appreciate this.
P.S. don't forget to do the posit report on time. I was 5 minutes late once because of a drill, and did I ever get in trouble.
2005-03-10 19:46:45
ReplyDeleteCedar Bluff, Alabama
USS Brumby (FF-1044)
A site that makes sense and seems to have a reason other than just blowin' off.
2005-03-22 16:29:03
ReplyDeleteFranklin, LA
719, 694, 681, 760, 757
I was an original QM. Now the ANAV at CSG8 in Naples, IT. Glad to see a QMSS site, makes me proud.
2005-03-29 12:59:20
ReplyDeleteHoulton Maine
USS Enterprise(cvn-65), ACU-1 LCU1648
Glad to see a site about QM's
2005-04-05 23:56:20
ReplyDeleteS.F. CA
USS CURTIS WILBUR (DDG 54)
just wanted to say hi to my fellow navigators, im still out here in the fleet.
2005-04-06 16:23:15
ReplyDeleteSummerville, SC
SSBN-626(G), SS-566, SSN-668, SSN-691
Calling a QM an ET might be OK, but calling an ET a QM don't necessarily make it so.
2005-04-25 11:08:04
ReplyDeletechicago
U.S.C.G.C. MOBILE BAY
Hello to all,
Just ran across this web site and thought it was pretty cool. I'm actually a BM/QM convert, they made us merge awhile back in the Coast Guard. Yes I'm a shallow water sailor. LOL. but I'll be honest I'm MUCH happier being on the bridge then chipping and painting and re-painting. Im a second class and its becoming alot more challenging. Well take care and be safe out there
Corey
2005-05-02 17:16:50
ReplyDeleteGroveton, TX
USCGC DIONE, SALVIA
Just found your site. Although I'm not Navy I am an old coastie (61-65)QM. That was long before they merged rates and before GPS. We used LORAN and RDF when way off shore. We also took amplitudes and used celestial navigation, but only to keep up our skills and to check new officers out of the academy. I hope you keep this site up for a long time. I'd hate to see the QM forgotten.
2005-05-10 13:43:00
ReplyDeleteOakdale, CT
SSBN 642(B), SSN 638, SSN 710
BZ Steve, I see that I trained you well! It's nice to connect with other QM's. Steve and I served together on KAMEHAMEHA and our wakes crossed many times over the years after that. I started out as a submarine QM, became an ANAV as a QM and one day woke up and was an ANAV ET. I have opinions about the Submarine Rating Merger effectively eliminating QM's, but don't we all? In a nutshell, all of us submarine QMs sat through the CSL/CSP Grounding Presentation many times. We were reviewing the reasons submarines ran aground 20 years ago, and we all remember that groundings back then were at least as frequent as they are now. Although I'm no longer privy to the updated presentation, I bet the root causes of recent groundings haven't changed: They are either not following approved procedures, or changing the plan without proper planning. With proper training and supervision, there is no reason that todays enlisted submarine navigation specialists (whatever the USN wishes to designate them), can safely and effectively carry out the duties of the old QMOW. Hey Steve, how's it hanging dude? it's been a few years since I've seen you!
2005-05-21 15:11:39
ReplyDeleteJennings, Louisiana
SSN 762
Cool site. Glad to see other QM's out there. Got out in '97 and used what I learned for a while in the civilian world (Rel. Capt. on Inland Towboat). What I learned being a QM3 on subs exceeded what the instructor knew in the civilian world, so I moved up really fast. Got boring after a while though. Anyway, good to find a sight where I can discuss experiences and people actually know what I'm talking about! Like finding a bunch of brother's I never knew!
2005-07-05 11:16:50
ReplyDeleteBirmingham AL
OAK HILL
Hello I am thinking of going the rate QM is there any way that I can use this rate in the civilian world? holla back @ tamara.bonds@navy.mil
2005-07-27 14:31:07
ReplyDeleteArlington, TX
USS Trumpetfish (SS-425)
1969-73, the best years of my youth. Beats the hell out of being a EN or TM!
2005-08-01 00:46:06
ReplyDeleteAzusa/Covina, California
627(B), 717, 621, 612, 752, 759
I am extremely proud of the site. I went through QM A School with Steve. We jammed 6 weeks into 4 (I think class was 0700-1700 everyday), but we made it home for Christmas.
I am one to never admit to ever having been designated an ET. My current automobile licence plate reads "QM1SS" with a retired submariner frame around it. The only time I ever used ET was in official documents (the Nav had to threaten me before I finally used it in the deck log). As soon as the rate change was official, I said that we would lose a sub in 5-10 years. Unfortunately, I was almost right.
I went from sleeping in a hanging rack in the lower level missle compartment as an E-2 non-qual to being an Assistant Navigator on a fast attack on a Westpac in 8 years. If not for the back-stabbing politics brought on by downsizing, I would probably still be proudly "telling the captain where to go" :-)
Fair Winds and Following Seas to all current and future submarine navigators (be they officer, former QM, or ET).
QM1(SS), Retired (1981-1999)
2005-08-04 10:41:47
ReplyDeleteTROY, NH
USS CLAMAGORE SS343 & USS JALLAO SS368
Being a Quartermaster on board submarine was one of the best jobs I had in my life. In 1965 I went right from boot camp to Sub School in New London COnn. and then right on to submarine Quartermaster school at New London. This was a new school and my class was the 6th to graduate. From there I went on to the Clamagore SS343 for a year and then on to the Jallao SS368 for my last three years. My travels and the friends I made during this time will live with me forever. To this day I still say I was proud to be a submarine Quartermaster. DAVID LaGRENADE QM2(SS)
2005-08-18 14:27:05
ReplyDeleteCincinnati
CG-52/CG-53/BU-14
Use to think that being a QM in the fleet, was fun, until I got involved in the Small Boats. Inshore Boat Unit 14. Now that's fun. navigating at 40+ knots, on a jet boat, while manning a ]crew serve weapon and engineer spot to boot. NCW IBU is the way to go! God Country and FAST BOATS
2005-08-22 20:14:32
ReplyDeleteAustin Tx
USS Ohio SSBN 726, ComSubGru Seven Yokosuka Japan
Now that all the stuff is out I can say something. The navy submarine fleet has definatly loss the art of navigation. My division in CSG7 was the author of the subnote that the SFO ran aground on (the only reason my name was not on it was because I was on leave, but I had to do the investigation.) The boat nav team seriously screwed it up. From the top down.
The scary part is alot of the boats are seperating the division. Some guys bearly get to the plot and then the navy expects them to become ANAV's (just so every body knows, the navy has made it manditory for ALL submarine NavET's to qualify) Scary knowing that the ANAV could have less time on the plot than his senior watchstander.
So far the navy is not going to spit the rate back up. I am sorry to say I think another SFO is in the shadows waiting......
2005-08-24 16:13:09
ReplyDeleteUSS Paul F. Foster, USS Roark, USS Enhance, USS Implicit, USS Enterprise, USS LaSalle
I'm a Quartermaster who was taught the ropes by great Quartermasters. We have an awesome rate and a proud heritage. I'm glad to have this forum to say hello to all my QM siblings, SS and SW alike.
Well, like many of you have already done, I'm on my twilight tour preparing to retire after a very long season. I joined the Navy in 1976, learned marlinspike seamanship as a deck seaman in 1977 and became a QM in 1978; I managed to survive a career that led to QMCM in 1995... but now I've come to face my time to walk the plank like many of you. It's been a great voyage for me, and a great rate to belong to! I'm ready to join you on the other side before long.
Sadly, however, I must also report to you that the Navy is about to announce that we will officially be eliminated as a rating: the QM rate will soon become a paragraph in the history books. As it stands now, QMs will merge with, and share in the duties of Operation Specialists in 2006; yes, you heard me right: our rate is to become OS.
I guess progress means that the Navy no longer needs dedicated Master Mariners on the bridge because whiz-bang technology has the capability to accurately and instantly provide the ship's position on a display screen. Great technology, to be sure; but what about having focused Master Mariners on the bridge? I guess we'll find out in short order how this decision will impact navigation safety. At best we'll see a sharp loss of seamanlike behavior and competence.
No doubt, QMs can learn the duties of our OS cousins because we already have the foundation of maritime thinking behind us. It will be quite interesting, however, to see how the Navy copes without sailors who can think like salty mariners in a pinch. I can just imagine all those OSs emerging from the darkness of CIC/CDC and their functions to face the fact that they will have to quickly learn the many non-technical skills of the QM rate. To name just a few: sextants, alidades, stadimeters, weather, rules of the road, reading the seas, compass adjustment, storm evasion, ship handling, piloting, voyage planning, anchoring and taking azimuths... not to mention learning how the symbiotic relationship between officers and navigation team members works. What about the green flash? False horizon? Red-right-returning? Pilot pickup? Dew point? Tangent bearings? Quadrantal spheres and Flinders bars? The list will go on a while.
Granted, plotting a position on a chart and writing in a log can be taught to a monkey; in fact, OSs do that already... oops, did I write that out loud? Anyway, to really master what it is to be a true mariner on the high seas one must experience every scenario imaginable from the bridge of a ship, one event at a time, under the watchful eye of seasoned Quartermaster mentor.
I believe, like many of you, that the QM rate is at the top of the Navy's nautical food chain of enlisted ratings... and I'm going to miss being called a Quartermaster.
We've been around since the late 1700s honing our trade... but I guess Navy bean counters think we've outlived our usefulness. Perhaps I'm wrong... maybe it's true... with the advent of GPS, anyone CAN do it successfully.
Farewell, Wheels!
Salutes and bells forever, Harry
2005-08-26 16:49:01
ReplyDeleteTampa, Florida
USS Dewey, DLG-14
The last few log entries concerning the phasing out of the QM rate and replacing that professional function with what are essentially machine operators (not that there's anything wrong with that!), reminds me of an incident that occured to me a few years ago. I am an ex-Quartermaster, but my civilian job is a Geographic Information Systems analyst. That really means computer mapping technician. On a trip to take a course in my field, I noticed several maps hanging on the wall of the company offering the training; examples of the firm's work and it's software's capabilities.
One of the maps was a nautical chart, produced entirely by computer, from data compiled in a marine database. It was a gorgeous piece of work, but I took a closer look at it with a QM's critical eye. The first thing I noticed was that the bathymetric data was well presented, but that there was no indication as to whether the numbers were feet, meters or fathoms. Precisely surveyed points on shore (for taking bearings) were carefully marked with the appropriate symbol, but they had no explanatory text! For example, the tiny circles were not labeled "penthouse" or "steeple", or "northernmost of three stacks". It was up to the navigator to figure out which feature on shore was represented by the map symbol. Finally, I noted the extensive use of pale red inks on the map, which would, of course, be invisible under a red safelight used to preserve night vision on a darkened bridge.
I realized that whoever was responsible for this map (I refuse to use the term "chart") had probably never been on a boat in his life, much less navigated one.
2005-09-04 03:39:52
ReplyDeleteCincinnati Oh
CG-52, CG-53, Inshore Boat Unit 14 NCW
We can't let this happen! Let the greatest rate in the Navy go away, so that we can become, Obvious Stupid (OS). You can't get lOSt without the OS. We've heard them all. I will be the first to say, I will not become an OS. Even if I have to get out and finih my twenty with another branch.
2005-09-12 15:14:24
ReplyDeletePensacola, FL
USS Saratoga, CV-60
This is a long-shot request for information.
I'm looking for information on a QM who served aboard the USS Darter (SS 227) during World War II. I'm looking for information related to a member of the commissioning crew, Thomas J. Bates, QM3. I'm not sure, but this may be my late grandfather.
I can't locate any information on the crew (except for two pictures of the crew - one of the crew, and one with wives and girlfriends) and would like to find out more information if possible.
If you can offer information, or direct me to someplace with more info, I'd be greatly appreciative.
Jeff Bates
2005-09-16 11:14:22
ReplyDeleteYoungstown OH
USS Pensacola (LSD-50)/ USS Carter Hall (LSD-50)
I have been a QM for over 7 years and I can tell you there is no better job to have. There is nothing better then being on the watch and noing that the Captain and the OOD is trusting you and your guys to get the ship to where it has to go safely. I love the Job and I have Mixed fillings about the direction that the navy is going with Navigating a ship while I do not disagree with going to Electronic Charts I do not think that that they should get rid of Paper Charts and Celestrial Navigation both have proven them selfs to be effectant for Generations and I belive that they should find a way to use both.
And as far as the QM/OS Merger is concerend I belive it was bad enough that we had to become Sig's but to have to be an OS is a fate greater then Death itself. We all no how bad OS are at Navigating a ship I can only hope that the Navy see's the danger in this and puts a stop to it. So to all the wheels out there keep on keeping the ship safe from harm way.
2005-09-28 02:16:08
ReplyDeleteDenver, Colorado
USS RUSHMORE(LSD-47)
Hello fellow, QM's and former SM's out there. I know I'm still writing my title as SM2, but it was my first rating so I thought that I would hold on to it for just a little longer. Although, I did enjoy being a QM and never had the chance to qual as ANAV, and only did primary plot once or twice during sea/anchor details but that was mainly due to the fact of my abundant SM knowledge and my chief thought it would be better for me to be on the signal bridge during sea/anchor detail. I got out of the Navy after four years on 30 JUL 05 and am currently assigned to the USS Frank Cable (AS-40) in the Reserves. Sadly, you can't get away from all these stupid mergers even in the reserve fleet. My unit was "phased out" for the QM rating, they only want engineering ratings for that unit, I was moved to USS Emory S. Land (AS-39) and that's where I stand at this moment in time. I really liked the Navy and miss being active fleet a lot, and being a QM/SM. While I was upset about the phasing out of the SM rating, it made sence after awhile to merge them with QM, that one I agree with, but this s*** about merging us with OS is a double stab in the back for me. The (Obviously Stupid) rating, couldn't navigate a ship anywhere, while we did have a few good OS's, they were still really frustrating to work with. They didn't train me on CELNAV but would have liked to learn it, it's interesting. I want to return back to the ACTIVE FLEET, but when talking with my friends who are still in the fleet, they are merging QM with BM/OS??? What a fate for the oldest rating in the Navy, since the late 1700's and now they want to do away with them?? Ridiculous. Any advice from my fellow QM's former SM's out there??? I submitted my DD-368 to return back to active duty, but if they make me an OS and a BM forget it. I started out an undesignated SA, and I'm not going through the crap they put you through in deck all over again. I hated being in deck department, and I'll be d***** if they put me back in it again. I can proudly say that I made SM2 in two 1/2 years, and earned my SW pin as a third class. I miss the Navy, but I really don't think it's a good idea and I know alot of QM's will vouch for me on this, to get rid of QM, just to merge them with OS/BM. It's bad enough on both the former SM's and the current QM's to do two ratings at once, but four??? (QM/BM/OS/SM), I think that's overkill for even the hardest most dedicated sailors out in the fleet, namely myself and my fellow shipmates. Am I the only one who thinks the Navy is making a mistake by taking us off the bridge??? What are the brass thinking???
SM2/QM2(SW)TRIPP
USS RUSHMORE (LSD-47)
"America's Gator"
2005-10-23 06:01:37
ReplyDeleteNashua, NH
USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)
Hey cool site, its good to see a website about QMs and all the history is very interesting. Keep it up!!!!! And remember... "trust your keel to those who wear the wheel"
2005-10-26 13:35:19
ReplyDeleteGrand Rapids,Mi
USS Boston CAG1 --1961-1963
I just found this site as I was beginning to think that QM's were getting shy and disappearing.
The site is VERY informative and I enjoy the reading the new entries from guys on the ships at this time.I'm kinda an old salt,but we had stars back in my Navy too! (no satellites though).Please keep up the great work.
2005-10-27 11:25:19
ReplyDeleteWashington, DC
USS McCampbell (DDG-85), CGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), CGC Monomoy (WPB-1326)
Hello fellow QMs and SMs. I was very happy to find this site and be able to chat with other QM/SMs. I've read through a lot of the entries and can understand many of the gripes concerning rate mergers and such. My situation is a bit unique though. I originally joined the Coast Guard in 1988 when the QM and SM rates had already been merged for several years. QM "A" school for me was in Yorktown, VA and consisted of QM and SM school combined- 6 weeks of navigation and 6 weeks of signalling. Before that school had been established Coastie QMs went to Navy QM "A" school in Orlando and then after graduation went right into SM "A" school. This was back when you still actually graphed tides and currents by hand, plotted LORAN, and other skills that have now been computerized. Unfortunately we never did anything with the SM rate so I forgot most of what I learned. When I came into the Navy and went to DDG-85 we still had SMs but we merged with them my last year on board (2004). I got to get some good practice in and relearn flaghoist and flashing light. I'm up for QMC this year and am currently studying the SM rate manual as part of my Bib. I really don't care to be merged with the OSs or BMs and I hope I make QMC before it happens. A QMs primary job is safety of navigation and I really don't think that's a priority for either rates.