Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

Y PTEP ACCEPTAXE
Uhan first introduced to the fleet, System Achievement Testing was not.
mot with ovcrwhclming enthusiasm. Guarded skcptisn is about as close
as anyone cane to a&eptir.cc. The rigorous schedule of examinations
already participated in by FBM submarine crews in the arcas of nuclear
?ropulsion and n*;clear weapons safety contributed to this unenthusi-
astic reception.
t3inir.r acceptan& for the System Achicvcmcnt Test therefore was not a
sample job. A strong public relations effort was launched which
ctartcd with the indoctrination on the F'Db! h'eapons Systen Training
Prorjraz of cvcrycne taking the exam as well as the administrative
pqrsonnel responsible for using the results: To further aid both in
acceptance cf testing and the use of test results, a policy was
adopted whereby cnly the command examined and not its superiors in
the chai?l of cormand was supplied c;ith the test results. This gave
each commanding officer thc‘capability of evaluating examination
results in the light of his oxn knowlcdgc of his ship's training
needs and to make judicious use of the results. The practice
removed from both the commanding officer and the PTEP organization
the requirement to defend results from an untried test instrument.
Perhaps the most important step toward acceptance was the procedure
uhcrcby each set of test results was returned to the cormand by an
officer assigned ?TEP duties. The results were discussed with the
commanding officer and department heads in the light of individual
and overall crew performance. Czreiully kept records allowed these
PTEP officers to review trends and to point out consistent low and
184
.