Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!military
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Questions about rank
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 03:28:15 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Oct19.032815.13223@cbnews.att.com>
Followup-To: sci.military
References: <1990Oct15.034011.13332@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct16.010922.11162@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct18.021232.6816@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Lines: 32



From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)


In article <1990Oct18.021232.6816@cbnews.att.com> tomh@modcomp.uucp (Tom Harvey) writes:

>The OOD must be an officer while underway.  I can assure you that on
>smaller ships senior eenlisteds do indeed serve as OOD.  Typically E-6
>and above are in port OOD qualified.  When the USS Farragut (DDG-37) was
>in drydock in ~1977, I was a qualified OOD as an E-5. (I guess we
>were in no danger of sinking)  This sort of stuff is typical in the 
>"skeleton" crew standown situation.


Chief petty officers can be OODs on Coast Guard vessels.  At least, this
was the case on the 378 I was stationed aboard.  It stands to reason that
even lower enlisted ranks can qualify on smaller cutters, since the seniority
of the officers aboard is proportionately lower.

Any comments, Rex?


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com       + + + + + + + +        Kodiak, Alaska :)
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-