Talk:Submarine Command Course

Failure
Famously, officers who fail the course are taken off the submarine, given a bottle of champagne, and told not to come back. I have two questions that the article doesn't cover and I can't find a good source. Are failed candidates allowed to retake the course (presumably not), and what's the rationale for kicking them out of the submarine service? I can guess a few reasons - in the former case it's an expensive, extensive test of character, and in the latter case a submarine captain presumably doesn't want a bitter failure second-guessing him - but is there official word? It seems a very expensive way of doing things. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Up or out" is perhaps exceptional, but the RN does have a policy of "going forwards quickly or not going anywhere again" for command roles (why a reprimand following a minor incident after a long absence of promotion can sometimes be a career advantage). Also most of the Perishers candidates pass. There are plenty of courses with lower pass rates. This isn't just a training course (course candidates are trained on a course to pass that course) it's also a selection exercise or interview. Compare the 70% pass rate for this to something like SAS selection and it looks a lot greater - although even RTU isn't as final.
 * It's also about the size and cost of naval vessels compared to other front-line military commands. A pilot error can lose an aircraft, but that's still orders of magnitude less than a sub. It's infamously expensive to train a pilot and would be wasteful to lose a third of them in this way, but subs, and their command, are such a crucial role that this loss (and yes it's a huge loss to lose) is considered acceptable.
 * Then there's the simple lack of command roles available. Not many subs. Lots of applicants. They have to be weeded out somehow. Given the costs involved, is this better before or after the course?
 * Mostly though the evaluation in the Perisher isn't a course about command training or judging if a candidate is "ready yet", implying that they might become so with more time, it's to evaluate their inherent abilities and character for command. They've already been trained as much as is possible - before and during this course - before they get as far as the evaluation. Now it's about what they brought from themselves. So yes, the exclusion from further on-board submarine service is a loss, but it's one that's considered acceptable. And as you note yourself, there are issues with failed candidates then having to serve with others. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that was a good answer. It's one of those things that probably can't be adequately referenced for a public encyclopaedia because, like a lot of naval customs, it's so ingrained that it goes without saying. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)