This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Blueprints of the engineering spaces on board a warship help shipfitters and welders visualize what kind of work needs to be done for an overhaul. What they don’t show is how to assign priorities to work packages, document repairs properly, or make the best possible use of both ship’s force and civilian workers. The ship’s engineer is supposed to do all that, and if he and his engineering overhaul are to succeed, he had better devise an effective “blueprint” beforehand.
Much has been written to assist a ship’s engineer in the management of an overhaul. All too often, all this writing remains unread except when it is hastily consulted in an act of last-minute desperation. This happens because there is so much other stuff to read—so many directives and instructions of which an engineering officer must be aware for safe and efficient plant operation.
The everyday tasks of administering engineering plant operations, personnel management, planned maintenance, corrective maintenance, reporting, watchstanding, and preparing for the next inspection make an engineer wish he could submit a requisition for a 72-hour day and a ten-day week. During an overhaul, time seems to become even more scarce and, as a result, demands that it be used even more effectively. Overhaul, while not simple, need not be painful; the solution rests with a recognition
of priorities and a delegation of functions.
An engineering department organization must be able to manage all aspects of a shipyard overhaul; it must be responsive to shipyard operations and management. Two steps will help to accomplish this:
►Itemize the engineering work package and assign responsibility for each work item to a division (e.g., boilers—B division, hull repair—R division, etc.).
►Copy the engineering work package and establish a master engineering work package with sufficient copies of each division’s work items.
Each division officer should then assign the best qualified individual to monitor the progress and quality of the shipyard’s work relating to a specific item,
e.g., item 221-07 (boiler repair) will be assigned to the chief boiler technician, etc. Thus, the most knowledgeable and responsible individual will have a continuing interest in his shipyard overhaul.
After distribution of the work package, a central engineering overhaul office should be set up with progress charts, master engineering overhaul specifications, and a system for internal routing of engineering overhaul-related items.
An experienced person with an engineering rating should supplement the log room staff during over' haul. This individual, preferably one with administrative ability, must be familiar with the Naval Ship Systems Command (NavShipsSysCom) technical manuals and manufacturers’ instruction manuals. He can be assigned collateral duty as the technical library custodian and assist in overall log room functions. His knowledge of the technical library and the manuals will make him valuable to both the ship s force and the shipyard.
A format should be established fora weekly report from the divisions to the engineer. This report must originate from the individual most directly involved with the job. Each division officer will review the report before submitting it to the engineer. Upon submission of the engineering/shipyard report, the progress charts posted in the log room can be updated, showing the percentage of progress by divisions and further breakdown by item number. This will serve as a ready reference of progress and problems of each job by item.
Upon receipt of the weekly engineering report, the engineer can prepare a report for the commanding officer relating to the overall progress, potential problems, and anticipated production delays. This report would include ship’s force work items that pose a potential interface with the shipyard work.
Quality assurance (QA) must take priority within the overall management organization. Ship s force QA inspectors must be assigned to the areas of their greatest expertise. All items in question by ship s force concerning shipyard work quality should be referred to the appropriate ship’s force QA inspector. If a problem is found to be the result of deficient work on the part of the shipyard personnel, a report shall be written and submitted to the contractor or intermediate management organization, i.e., Superintendent of Shipbuilding and Repair.
During the initial review of the work package, discrepancies will be found. These deficiencies may be minor, involving nothing more than a duplication or deletion of work. Even minor problems, if not pinpointed at the outset, will surface later. They must be reported to the contractor and supervising agency. Additionally, the activity that prepared the work package should be advised of the deficiency. This will not only solve the problem, but will alert the activity to deficiencies within its organization.
Maintenance of accurate, up-to-date overhaul records in the engineering log room is vital since constant review of each work item is a necessity throughout the overhaul. The master engineering work items may be maintained in loose-leaf binders and filed in numerical sequence. Each shipyard report, letter, quality deficiency report, etc., should be filed with the engineering master items under the affected item. All problems and correspondence relating to accomplishment of a specific item are then readily available and will reveal, clearly and concisely, the status of a work item.
During shipyard overhaul, the proper documentation of repairs is often overlooked or given only cursory attention. The advantages of a well-documented work package are not readily apparent during the shipyard repair effort. If properly documented by ship’s force, however, substantial advantages will be achieved in preparation for the next overhaul—not to mention the wealth of information available for ship’s force use during and after overhaul. It has been said, “The time to start preparing for the next overhaul is at the end of the present overhaul.”
Documentation of work items can be accomplished best through the Use of OpNav 4790/2K forms. This will place the ongoing or emergent work on the current ship’s maintenance project (CSMP). This will also provide an effective tool while undergoing overhaul since it gives a condensed but comprehensive overview of the shipyard work as well as the ship’s force work items. Upon completion of the work items on the CSMP, the item becomes a permanent part of the ship’s maintenance data collection system (MDCS). It is thus readily available for a wide range of users. The maintenance data collection system could later resolve such questions as contractor deficiencies, work package completeness, equipment maintenance, operational or design deficiencies—and provide the information to justify ship alterations.
The MDCS can help both ship's force and the type commander prepare for the next overhaul. A future engineer, for example, may suspect major problems with the ship’s propulsion plant; an accurate MDCS will tell him the condition and clearance of the stern tube bearing at the time of overhaul, the reduction gear bearing’s condition and clearances, or if the tail shaft was removed or inspected. This history, coupled with known facts, will enable ship’s force to compile a thorough and concise shipyard overhaul package which will get the most from each overhaul dollar.
An effective overhaul management organization will eliminate the need for frequent conferences. Meetings or conferences will be necessary only to set policy or to correct a departmental organization or management deficiency.
If a ship’s engineer wants to get the most from an overhaul, he should bear in mind that evolutions such as an operational propulsion plant examination or a light-off examination, right, offer valuable training opportunities for his departmental personnel.
Ship’s force repairs and equipment overhaul during shipyard availability are a vital part of the overall ship repair function. Repairs planned by ship’s force must be coordinated and managed to achieve the maximum effectiveness of time and resources, while posing a minimum of interface with shipyard work. This can be accomplished only by thorough work projection.
When it is first established, the ship’s force overhaul management system (SFOMS) is a target or tentative plan. It must be kept flexible and free of rigid deadlines. Only essential work items should be reviewed and integrated into an overall priority. It is not uncommon for the SFOMS package to experience a growth rate of 50% or greater during the overhaul availability period. While the initial SFOMS package serves as a planning tool, it should not dictate work policy. The SFOMS should be kept flexible and updated to reflect changing conditions.
Timely identification and procurement of repair parts required for ship’s force repair items are vital. Any material deficiency should be documented on an OpNav 4790/2K—including pertinent facts and corrective action. If repair parts are required, they should be ordered at the time of deferral with the job sequence indicated on the 1250 supply form. The 1250 should have a separate engineering department supply number, referenced in the narrative portion of the 4790/2K. This will enable the repair parts to be easily related to the repair action.
Following review of the CSMP, the department number in the narrative can be easily identified to the departmental supply log. This will assist material management, status update, and work planning. Repair parts can be made available for use or stored for future use. Again, flexibility is a must; a complete and comprehensive CSMP with related supply data is a valuable tool. The engineering department administrative assistant should be responsible for the administration of the CSMP and engineering supply system.
When a previously deferred item has been completed, it should be updated as such in the CSMP. In instances where maintenance actions are performed, a completed action should be submitted. This will accomplish documentation of the maintenance and report the condition of the equipment or component required. The engineering administration assistant ought to be responsible for the administration of documenting procedures.
Areas of shipyard/ship’s force conflict will be
come evident during overhaul. In each case, shipyard work must take priority. A delay in contract work could subject the Navy to a monetary claim by the civilian contractor.
Use of Assist Ship’s Force (ASF) funds during the early months of the overhaul should be held to a minimum. Only jobs completely outside of ship’s force capabilities should be considered. The availability of ASF funds during equipment testing and light off examination (LOE) preparation is also an important asset to draw upon. Ship’s force work, inspection, and operational training effort will probably be at its peak during this time, and substantial ASF funds will enable it to proceed with an orderly test and operation sequence of the overhaul. Interruptions from emergent work ought to be kept to a minimum. A senior petty officer from the engineering department should be assigned to the supporting intermediate maintenance availability (IMAV) as its coordinator. He can process each IMAV work request, while coordinating the ship’s work and priorities with that of the IMAV. In matters pertaining to the engineering department, he can report directly to the engineer. The work requests submitted by the engineering department can be routed through the engineering administrative assistant prior to review by the engineer and approval by the commanding officer.
An effective and thorough training program scheduled with manning and workload forecasting
is an absolute essential during overhaul. Some factors to be considered by an engineer are:
►Tailor the training to the individual
►Schedule key individuals for training at an appropriate period
►Coordinate the overall training program with the work load
School quotas must be planned around a solid foundation of engineering knowledge factors, i.e., use of Training Readiness Manual (or Master Training Plan) requirements as a base for selection and schedule of training. Each individual who fills a school quota represents increased knowledge and skill but also represents an immediate loss of available manpower. These conflicting priorities must be carefully gauged to achieve a productive result for the command. Obviously, it would not serve the command to schedule a “short-timer” for extensive off-ship training.
The planned work load should be thoroughly evaluated, and the scheduled work integrated into the overall training schedule. Usually, the most stringent requirements of an overhaul are at the end. During the early phase of the overhaul schedule, the senior members of the department are scheduled for off-ship training with a gradual shift to the junior members toward the end of overhaul. We can better afford to send Chief Smith to an eight-week school during the first quarter of overhaul than in the final testing phase. The absence of Seaman Jones will have minimal impact upon the organization and planned work.
In scheduling school quotas, each individual should be considered for his ability to successfully complete the school. Is he motivated? Does past performance indicate a skill that would benefit from specialized training? These factors must be considered if training is to be effective. ^
An engineering officer must plan his department s training early. He should provide a comprehensive listing of required and desired quotas to the ship s training officer prior to overhaul and make his training requirements known—it should never be left to someone else. Shipboard training must be coordinated with a department’s weaknesses in mind; its most knowledgeable and articulate petty officers should be designated as instructors in shipboard training programs.
Personnel qualification standards (PQS) are an excellent approach to individual training. They are both a training guide and a gauge that measure the effectiveness of overall training. On-the-job training can be very effective in an overhaul. Time must be taken to use the repair of major components as a training aid. How many young strikers have seen a turbine overhaul of the main engine or a ship’s service turbogenerator? Such opportunities should be made available to them. Mobile training team visits, divisional lesson plans, and duty section drills must be used to their best advantage.
The light off examination, while a major milestone, must not be undertaken as a separate entity. Both the LOE and subsequent operational propulsion plant examination can be used as evolutions that will further enhance the state of training and readiness of the command.
The Propulsion Examination Board (PEB), while often viewed as an engineer’s bugaboo, performs a vital function in the testing and training of our ships. A visit by the PEB should be a valuable experience for all concerned and an excellent means by which to gauge the effectiveness of an engineer’s overhaul management.
The above organization, when taken in context with the appropriate type commander’s guidance and tailored to fit specific application, will ensure a thorough and comprehensive approach to the business of obtaining the most from overhaul dollars. No magic buttons are available for every contingency. The success or failure of a shipyard overhaul depends upon the ship.
During his naval career. Lieutenant Maggard served on board surface vessels and submarines; he was a ship superintendent at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and served a tour in Vietnam as an engineering adviser to the South Vietnamese Navy. He is currently employed by Dixie Carriers of Harvey, Louisiana.
_______________________________________________ Weather-Beaten__________________________________
A veteran Navy captain and a shiny new lieutenant, flying cross-country, were approaching Lake Michigan when warning came of a thunderstorm ahead. At the controls, the confident lieutentant dashed off a note on his knee-pad that they could easily beat the storm across the lake. The weather-wise captain shook his head, signaling the lieutenant to go around the lake.
Not one to give up easily, the stubborn young pilot wrote: "Have 20 hours over-water flying time. Will go across.”
The captain promptly scribbled back: “Have two days in-the-water-time. Will go around.”
Henry E. Leabo
(The Naval Institute will pay $25.00 for each anecdote published in the Proceedings.)