[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165888]the pilot brings expertise not otherwise available.[/QUOTE]
Just as the “anchor captain” does. That does not make him in any way supersede the master of the vessel.
My point is that not possessing a specialized skill set does not make him by default a “paper captain”. He has to allow that to exist by letting someone else run the show. Hopefully the anchor handlers Chouest sent are low who types and are fine with being skilled advisors.
[QUOTE=caldwell275;165797]Okay, I will explain to the people who have no or limited experience on an anchor boat. there is the master of a vessel, he is in overall command of the vessel, but, the person sitting in the port chair during anchor operations takes command, he is in charge of the operation and can override the master if it warrants, the winch operator sits in the starboard chair and runs the winch, sometimes he thinks he runs the show and tries to push it, it is the guy sitting in the port chair that squelches him, the guy running the show is the anchor captain, he may or may not be the master of the vessel. He is the captain during anchor operations.[/QUOTE]
That is a skewed view on how things are ran. You have a person handling the vessel, and a winch operator. It can be any of the Mates, and sometimes the Master, although the Master does not or need to handle the vessel. The fact that someone is handling the vessel does not mean squat in terms of overall in-charge of the vessel. You are conning the controls and that is about it. The winch operator runs the winch, but it takes both personnel working together to ensure a safe operation. Remember that the guy operating a 500 ton winch can overtake the vessel’s bollard pull very easily. The guy handling the boat can pull too hard and get out of position where the winch operator cannot pay-out fast enough to prevent a shock load on the equipment (although dynamic mode (and shock valves) should prevent this effect to a certain extent). There is only one Master on any vessel and that does include the Aiviq.
I can however see how this can be misinterpreted if you have person running the winch, but coaching the boat handler. When it comes to working a vessel in shallow water, considering the displacement of the Aiviq, there is very little room error. While working in deepwater, you deal with a lot of weight, but in saying that, the catenary is forgiving on gear. The same cannot be said for the shallow waters in the arctic, and it is best for the most experienced to sit at the controls of the winch so you can monitor tonnage, torque values, and maximum dynamic settings - to name a few. It’s easier to coach a person with auto-head joystick while operating the winch; you cannot do it the other way around.
are you sayin they cant find an experienced UL master with anchor handing experience?
sounds like you need some foreign crew ( and flag to go with that)
[QUOTE=powerabout;167651]are you sayin they cant find an experienced UL master with anchor handing experience?
sounds like you need some foreign crew ( and flag to go with that)[/QUOTE]
Not at all; That is a pretty ironic post. There are a few US unlimited masters with plenty of anchor experience, but happen to be working on foreign flag vessels in foreign countries. Go figure.
Exact Anchorman,very well put. So how can the Aiviq run legally and efficiently with only one experienced Anchor/Winch operator on board? They are winging it to say the least! It’s insane Shell is letting them get away with this. Heard just the other day from a guy on there the Master couldn’t even set the boat up on DP… Thought a paper Capt might at least be able to press a few buttons. If I was the Capt. that helped with pencil whipping his TOAR and DP assessments, I might be a little nervous.
[QUOTE=JB Slave;167728]Exact Anchorman,very well put. So how can the Aiviq run legally and efficiently with only one experienced Anchor/Winch operator on board? They are winging it to say the least! It’s insane Shell is letting them get away with this. Heard just the other day from a guy on there the Master couldn’t even set the boat up on DP… Thought a paper Capt might at least be able to press a few buttons. If I was the Capt. that helped with pencil whipping his TOAR and DP assessments, I might be a little nervous.[/QUOTE]
I really do not know what a “paper captain” is. All of them (us) have a piece of paper, and most Masters do not run a winch or handle the ship directly - that is Oil Field reduced manning mentality. Earlier in my career, I did put a lot of value and pride in my task based skills, like boat handling & operational knowledge of certain systems. As everyday goes by, I do feel like I get a little rusty, because as Master, you just do not practice that on a day-to-day basis. Most Masters are way too busy managing the ship’s business generally. But, I do know that winch very well, Rolls Royce RT based 500 ton 3-drum reverse waterfall winch. It is not rocket science and it takes very little to be trained on the winch. It’s hard for me to believe that there is only one competent winch operator onboard, but who am I to doubt what I do not know for sure. The learning curve is not that strenuous regarding the winch, and I could train someone in just a few shifts. Hopefully, they fixed the clutch-brake interlock bug on the RT based winches.
Anchor-handling is something that generally takes years to master, but not so much in the Arctic. You are only dealing with conventional anchors and very little weight - relatively speaking. You must be a lot more careful in the Arctic, that is for sure - very shallow water, increased fleet angles, and a very heavy boat. As far as ice, I just know it keeps my rum & coke how I like it.
I do know the Captain on the Aiviq and he is one of the most experienced ice pilots in the world. The reason why he would be there in the Arctic is quite obvious. I have not talked to those guys for some time, maybe a few years. I remember the plan being to build a team that has all the experience required, because there was not one person available that had all of the attributes. Considering putting the Kulluk on the rocks, that was an obvious colossal failure in terms of the entire Shell planning effort & ECO succumbing to it. The most astonishing finding out of the entire mess was the testimony of the “fill-in” Master that Noble Drilling’s MERP dictated the tow route. That is unbelievable to me.
I am pretty confident the current Master would have never departed the pier, but hindsight is 20/20. Those decisions, that Masters generally must make, are not made running a winch or playing with the boat controls.
Now, if there is any type of animosity onboard as you have alluded to, that is not good for any ship. That is something that can be easily fixed with the correct approach. It seems to me to be more of a attitude thing and less of a competency issue.
[QUOTE=anchorman;167658]Not at all; That is a pretty ironic post. There are a few US unlimited masters with plenty of anchor experience, but happen to be working on foreign flag vessels in foreign countries. Go figure.[/QUOTE]
not hard to figure, overseas you avoid all the BS you have in the USA
Is the master of the Aviq the same guy that was master of the Chouest vessel Lawrence Gould that was fined a couple of million dollars in Antarctica for dumping oil? It would make sense… he would have ice experience.
Wouldn’t the uscg take his license as well as fining him? Though if that happened they’d still be able to hire him on as an advisor I guess right? As long as someone else is signed on as the “Master”.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;167779]Is the master of the Aviq the same guy that was master of the Chouest vessel Lawrence Gould that was fined a couple of million dollars in Antarctica for dumping oil? It would make sense… he would have ice experience.[/QUOTE]
Negative on that. Maybe, he might have pulled 1 month on the Gould. I knew the captain there. But pulled a hell of alot of time on the Nathaniel Palmer in ice.
No,but Master on Aiviq did have a fuel spill in AK, witch he tried to cover up.
[QUOTE=anchorman;167757]I really do not know what a “paper captain” is. All of them (us) have a piece of paper, and most Masters do not run a winch or handle the ship directly - that is Oil Field reduced manning mentality. Earlier in my career, I did put a lot of value and pride in my task based skills, like boat handling & operational knowledge of certain systems. As everyday goes by, I do feel like I get a little rusty, because as Master, you just do not practice that on a day-to-day basis. Most Masters are way too busy managing the ship’s business generally. But, I do know that winch very well, Rolls Royce RT based 500 ton 3-drum reverse waterfall winch. It is not rocket science and it takes very little to be trained on the winch. It’s hard for me to believe that there is only one competent winch operator onboard, but who am I to doubt what I do not know for sure. The learning curve is not that strenuous regarding the winch, and I could train someone in just a few shifts. Hopefully, they fixed the clutch-brake interlock bug on the RT based winches.
Anchor-handling is something that generally takes years to master, but not so much in the Arctic. You are only dealing with conventional anchors and very little weight - relatively speaking. You must be a lot more careful in the Arctic, that is for sure - very shallow water, increased fleet angles, and a very heavy boat. As far as ice, I just know it keeps my rum & coke how I like it.
I do know the Captain on the Aiviq and he is one of the most experienced ice pilots in the world. The reason why he would be there in the Arctic is quite obvious. I have not talked to those guys for some time, maybe a few years. I remember the plan being to build a team that has all the experience required, because there was not one person available that had all of the attributes. Considering putting the Kulluk on the rocks, that was an obvious colossal failure in terms of the entire Shell planning effort & ECO succumbing to it. The most astonishing finding out of the entire mess was the testimony of the “fill-in” Master that Noble Drilling’s MERP dictated the tow route. That is unbelievable to me.
I am pretty confident the current Master would have never departed the pier, but hindsight is 20/20. Those decisions, that Masters generally must make, are not made running a winch or playing with the boat controls.
Now, if there is any type of animosity onboard as you have alluded to, that is not good for any ship. That is something that can be easily fixed with the correct approach. It seems to me to be more of a attitude thing and less of a competency issue.[/QUOTE]
You know what a paper capt. is… someone that holds the proper credentials but can not do much more. In this case everything from Stability, Voyage planning to Vessel movement is beyond his skill set. The Mates are left to figure it all out… Shell contracted outside Ice Pilots (I believe Canadians) to serve aboard the ARCTIC fleet Vessels, Aiviq included… so they have that covered.
I"ve only heard the term “paper captain” in the fishing fleet. In some fisheries the vessels required by law to have American captain would have either Norwegian or Japanese “fishing masters” that were regarded to be by everyone aboard to be the real captain.
Here is an article “WHO’S IN COMMAND? The “Paper Captain” and the elements of 46 U.S.C § 12131 violations” by a CG officer providing guidance to boarding officer to determine if the "paper captain’ scam was being used.
WHO’S IN COMMAND?
The “Paper Captain” and the elements of 46 U.S.C § 12131 violations
Written By CDR Mark Hammond
This article briefly discusses violations of section 12131 of title 46 of the United States Code, often referred to as “paper captain” violations. This law requires that a documented vessel be placed under the command of a U.S. citizen.
The Hearing Officer must find prima facie (Latin for “at first sight” or “on first appearance”) evidence that a violation occurred in order to proceed with a preliminary assessment and adjudication of a civil penalty case. In other words, the evidence in the case file is, on its face or at first appearance, sufficient to support each element of the charge/charges. As with any case, a clear understanding of the essential elements of the particular statutory or regulatory cite alleged to have been violated will help in determining what constitutes sufficient supporting evidence.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: A documented commercial fishing vessel is boarded at sea by the Coast Guard. During the boarding, the person observed at the helm operating the vessel is identified as a non-U.S. citizen/permanent resident. Another person on board (a U.S. citizen) identifies himself to the Coast Guard boarding team as the vessel’s “captain.” He also presents a crew list which lists him as the “captain.” Looks good on paper, right?
During the course of the boarding, however, the vessel’s “captain” displays little knowledge of the operation of the vessel and the location of important documents and required safety equipment on board. Additionally, he appears to rely exclusively on the experienced “deckhand” (the person previously observed at the helm) to answer the boarding team’s questions as well as operate the vessel. In contrast to the clueless “captain,” the experienced “deckhand” demonstrates a thorough working knowledge of all aspects of the vessel’s operation, and other crewmen aboard the vessel tell the boarding team that he “gives all the orders.” The boarding team notes that the “deckhand” maintains his personal effects in the captain’s quarters while the “captain” shares a berthing space with the rest of the crew. The Boarding team concludes that the vessel is actually under the command of the non-U.S. citizen and, consequently, the vessel owner is charged under 46 U.S.C. § 12131 for failing to comply with the U.S. citizen in command requirement.
According to 46 U.S.C. § 12131(a), a documented vessel may be placed under the command only of a citizen of the United States (exceptions to this requirement are documented vessels with only a recreational endorsement, and unmanned barges operating outside of the territorial waters of the United States). Obviously, in order for a violation to occur under this cite, the vessel involved must be a documented vessel and the person in command of the vessel must not be a U.S. citizen. Evidence of vessel documentation and crew citizenship status is fairly straightforward.
In the typical “paper captain” case described in the scenario above, however, presenting persuasive evidence of who was in command of the vessel can sometimes present a bit of a challenge.
We often see cases where vessel owners, in an apparent attempt to circumvent the requirements of 46 U.S.C. § 12131, establish different positions on board their vessels in writing such as a “fish captain,” or they’ll have a “master” and a “captain” on board, each with separate and distinct duties.
For example, in some cases the U.S. citizen “master” will be designated in writing as having overall responsibility for the general care of vessel and cargo, but the non-U.S. citizen “captain” or “fish captain” will be the designated person having responsibility for the operation and safe navigation of the vessel, and the care/conduct of the crew. The documentation laws contained in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 121 and 46 C.F.R. Part 67 generally require that U.S. documented vessels must be owned and under the control of U.S. citizens. Among other things, control refers to the right to direct the operation of the vessel. Actual control as a matter of fact is more important than a person’s title. Accordingly, the law refers to the person in command of the vessel and not to the “master” or “captain.” If command of a vessel is split between two or more persons and one of the persons in command is not a U.S. citizen, then the vessel is not only under the command of a U.S. citizen.
Whether the evidence is submitted by the Coast Guard in support of a violation, or by a charged party to show that there was no violation, what will be most persuasive to a Hearing Officer is detailed documentation of crew responsibilities, knowledge and experience, as well as witness statements from other crewmembers regarding who controls the operation of the vessel. That kind of evidence is likely to carry more weight than a bare assertion that a U.S. citizen was the “master” or “captain.”
In this case it appears that the term is being used in an attempt, for what ever reason, to damage someone’s reputation.
[QUOTE=JB Slave;167839]You know what a paper capt. is… someone that holds the proper credentials but can not do much more. In this case everything from Stability, Voyage planning to Vessel movement is beyond his skill set. The Mates are left to figure it all out… Shell contracted outside Ice Pilots (I believe Canadians) to serve aboard the ARCTIC fleet Vessels, Aiviq included… so they have that covered.[/QUOTE]
I would say that the Mates should be doing the stability and voyage planning, along with making a good pot of coffee as well. That is pretty much part of the job. Like most all seasoned Captains’, all have experienced at one time or another, low performing personnel that just did not have it. I can say undoubtedly, that I have never experienced someone that could not do anything at all, particularly a Master. I believe that Kennebec Captain is spot on with his assessment of where this is actually going. One thing is for sure, if there is any truth to what you are saying, it is only a matter of time before such problems fix themselves.
As I said before, as a matter of perception - I know all of those GOM anchor handlers like to call each other Captain, there is usually 4 of those guys running around doing task based skills with these fancy titles. I can say it’s unbelievable now, since I’m no longer in the mix.
If you throw several guys with that mentality on a vessel with proper manning, and now all of a sudden, you have a Master that oversees everything with his coffee cup - something never before experienced, I can see how there will be certain animosity - especially when you are no longer the 3rd Captain, but just a Mate.
Do the Mates also have to go to the bathroom for the Master, or can he handle that one on his own?
[QUOTE=powerabout;167766]not hard to figure, overseas you avoid all the BS you have in the USA[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate on that one?
[QUOTE=anchorman;167848]I would say that the Mates should be doing the stability and voyage planning, along with making a good pot of coffee as well. That is pretty much part of the job. Like most all seasoned Captains’, all have experienced at one time or another, low performing personnel that just did not have it. I can say undoubtedly, that I have never experienced someone that could not do anything at all, particularly a Master. I believe that Kennebec Captain is spot on with his assessment of where this is actually going. One thing is for sure, if there is any truth to what you are saying, it is only a matter of time before such problems fix themselves.
As I said before, as a matter of perception - I know all of those GOM anchor handlers like to call each other Captain, there is usually 4 of those guys running around doing task based skills with these fancy titles. I can say it’s unbelievable now, since I’m no longer in the mix.
If you throw several guys with that mentality on a vessel with proper manning, and now all of a sudden, you have a Master that oversees everything with his coffee cup - something never before experienced, I can see how there will be certain animosity - especially when you are no longer the 3rd Captain, but just a Mate.
Do the Mates also have to go to the bathroom for the Master, or can he handle that one on his own?[/QUOTE]
That seems plausible. The 2nd captain thing has been discussed here. Some one said that when they were on watch as second captain they could take care of 99% of things that came up on his watch. That makes sense, the same discussion was had regarding U.S. East and West coast tugs. In one case each watch just handled whatever came up and in the other the captain always came to the wheel house for some operations regardless of watch.
I’ve done it myself as mate where I never called the captain when he was off-watch but just took care of what (non-emergency) ever came up.
The standard deep-sea system is far different. A VLCC does not get run like a crew boat. The watch mate is given very specific instructions (track-lines, voyage plan, standing orders) and is expected to follow them. A brand new third mate fresh from school is expected to be able to step on board and be able to stand a watch. There is no way he will be able to handle every situation for example transist through Singapore Straits or arrival at Yokohama.
The mates do get very good at their jobs. It shouldn’t be surprising if the C/M has a better, quick, off the top of his head knowledge of cargo or stablity just as the second mate gets good with voyage planning. Of course the master has to have an good overview and keep an eye on the big picture.
It boils down to two “captains” with roughly the same skills operating independently at different times or officers dividing tasks (navigation, cargo) in accordance with very differant experience levels and working as a team. (Never liked that word, prefer the word “crew”).
I can see where confusion and disagreement over how the vessel is being run could cause the crew to be highly dysfunctional.
Clearly I have nothing to add.
-A