I guess we need to clarify the differences. Let’s say you had a choice between a CM/Master who either:
Memorized every answer, on all the tests and passed, no real studying or grasp of the subject matter. Or
A Master/CM who used a calculator to cheat on one exam, Let’s say C-Nav. But studied and knew the rest of the subjects with 90%+ success.
Who would you rather sail with? Cheating is cheating, and goes towards someone’s ethical code. But having confidence in you Captains ability is also paramount.
I’m not so sure it matters if the guy knew the answer to “what do you do in a foreign country if the embassy wants you to transport home a body” question without studying or not.
Having trouble understanding your comparison? Please elaborate if you would. A question like that, is basically reading and memorizing, however doesn’t hold weight in competency as a Master.
i sailed with a guy who’d failed the 3ae exam or maybe it was jr eng. exam 3 times!, he eventually passed by memorizing questions and answers, it took him a long time. He wasn’t engineer material in my mind and i wouldn’t want him in any position over me.
it is this kind of person that can lead to a tragedy.
When I did the first two years (Navigator II &i) at the Maritime School in 1962-64 nothing but the issued formulae book and your private slide rule was allowed.
By the time I did the last year (Master) calculator had replace the slide rule. (1968-69)
After I retired and returned to Norway I have served as a Guard during exams for both Nautical and Engineers I & II per STCW at the local Maritime Collage.
Most exam papers are answered on their private laptop computers and all commonly available info are allowed, (as it is in "real life).
Any programs that can be used to communicate with the outside has to be off and all smart phones are collected to avoid cheating. (I.e. sending the question to and receiving help from an outside party)
No verbal exam in any subject any more. That includes languages. (Norwegian and English only, incl. Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP)
No verbal Spanish anymore as it was when I sat for my Master exam.
Root learning and reciting the RoR at exam is no more either.
PS> Any “Cut and Past” items has to have source accreditation, otherwise the entire exam paper may be rejected.
That’s entirely my point. None of the tests do. Great, you can calculate how many tons of deck cargo an OSV can carry, and you can identify all of the parts of a pedestal crane. But does any of that make any difference when it’s time to decide whether or not to drive into a hurricane, or how to react when a fire breaks out?
In my experience most companies hire senior officers based on a candidate’s experience, job performance evaluations, and recommendations from other senior officers. A good operations manager will develop good working relationships with junior officers, and know who they want to work with as senior officer.
I’ve tested at multiple RECs over the past 20 years, and would be very surprised if there is any amount of cheating going on. In my opinion the USCG does a great job of testing the minimum requirements of a mariner.
I’m in no way a legal scholar, but it would seem that when an injury or death occurs onboard a vessel it’s typically the vessel operator and license holder that is found at fault not the governmental body that issued the officer’s credential.
For example when an operator of a motor vehicle rear ends someone because they were looking at their phone no one blames the motor vehicle administration for issuing the individual a drivers license. When accidents occur individual license holders should be held accountable as well as their employers. In the case of the Exxon Valdez do you think the CG was at fault for issuing Joseph Hazelwood a masters license?
Vessel operators would be wise to invest in relationships with their crew. Give them adequate shoreside support and training. Making frivolous accusations about the integrity of the USCGs licensing capacity is just stirring the pot, and it will not help with building a roster of good employees.
Sure, it wasn’t proof of cheating but he kept a very good eye on the ones with blank scratch paper and searched them thoroughly, inspected their calculators as well.
I’m British dear boy and am pretty sure the embassy wouldn’t even know if there was a British ship in port, let alone ask to put stiffs on it. Do you do an oral exam for your tickets? One on one with the examiner who can ask you anything he wants?
When I did chief mates the biggest fail was chart work surprisingly. That was because included things like a vertical sextant angle of a light house and a magnetic bearing taken in a brief clearing of fog. To arrive at an estimated position the candidate had to realise that : The vertical angle had to be calculated corrected for the height of tide at the time. The ship crossed a traffic separation zone and finally there were different tidal streams applying a different times. You were given a deviation table for the vessel.
Up to that time I had spent all my time in the merchant navy at sea in tankers but fortunately I had worked as a longshoreman in my leave. The oral exam was two and a half hours in discharging a heavy lift from a conventional cargo ship, preparing the hold for refrigerated cargo, putting out a fire in said ship and preparing a tow. The Ministry of Transport examiner also asked questions on any part of the written papers he thought you were weak on. During sea time we prepared for the exams using 7 figure log tables used in the exams to keep up speed. We sat the exams in very small groups and someone consulting his sleeve for a formula would have been immediately noticed.
Masters was another week and a half of hell topped off by the Deviascope where one played around with little magnets trying to swing the compass as the examiner watched.
Most of what I learnt is now redundant except stability and meteorological knowledge and being on tankers we had radar. Many of my peers were still sailing deep sea where the only things that used electricity on the bridge was the nav light panel, the bulb in the binnacle ( with oil lamp backup) and the DF set.
Exactly, there’s always been a group of people that you’ve wondered how they have gotten to the position they are in. It’s just that the tests aren’t that complicated. How do these Jr Officers know how easy it is to cheat to Master?
I know a gang of KP alumni who stole a bowditch from the REC, marked it up, then returned it to the shelve. They got the smartest guy in their class to devise a formula based on words in the exam question. The formula translated these words into a 6 digit number. The first two digits told you what table to use, the next two gave you the x axis of the table and the final two gave you the y axis.
So “The bearing of the first lighthouse is 169 degrees” might give you the number 192123 then go to table 19 column 21 and row 23. At that position is another number like 873456. Now above one of those numbers they would mark a small dot.
It is a lot more complicated than it sounds but it was an idea she stole from WWII cryptologists.
The point is that the system took a genius to develop the system and someone with the guts to steal the book, mark it up, and return it. Those guys put in the work but after that any idiot could learn the system in a few hours and the book lived in the REC for many years. Hell it might still be there.
