Hopefully your internal auditor approaches the audits as a mutually beneficial exercise. I perform internal audits and really do try to make them as useful as possible. It can be difficult to remember that an audit is not a “test.” A pain in the butt maybe but it shouldn’t make you feel like you are under a microscope.
[QUOTE=Steamer;23141]Hopefully your internal auditor approaches the audits as a mutually beneficial exercise. I perform internal audits and really do try to make them as useful as possible. It can be difficult to remember that an audit is not a “test.” A pain in the butt maybe but it shouldn’t make you feel like you are under a microscope.[/QUOTE]
With me, it’s never feeling like being under a microscope. I welcome scrutiny as a matter of principal, and look to audits as a learning experience to solidify what I already know, or have learned, and even learning something new regarding trends/regulations within the industry. What I do not like is a company internal auditor accompanying an ABS external audit for the purpose of interjecting comment of behalf of the company and/or the vessel, and what makes it worse, at times, you may have an auditor (internal), from the company that is an ex-captain, that will convey opinion as how “they” would do something “if” they were me, or how “they” did something a certain way while being a captain…that’s the shit I just assume left at the gangway before boarding. I run my ship within the scope of regulations and the way I see fit - that goes without question. Better suggestions, yes, without doubt, I will consider them - personal opinions based on personal preference,…can pretty much kiss my ass. That is the basis of not particularly liking ISM audits - it’s not the scope of the material within the code (I actually like that part).
I agree with that, I am surprised the external auditor allows the guy to attend. I wouldn’t dream of following an external auditor around and making comments. He will tell me what I need to know when I get my copy and I will have an opportunity to tell how I will deal with his findings.
“… and what makes it worse, at times, you may have an auditor (internal), from the company that is an ex-captain, that will convey opinion as how “they” would do something “if” they were me, or how “they” did something a certain way while being a captain…”
Well, not meaning to start a slugfest, but I think you are being a bit too defensive. Look at it like a BRM thing, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, maybe the guy has something to offer based on his experience which might be longer or shorter, or different than yours. All you have to do is smile and pretend you are interested in his opinion and he will go away happy and the atmosphere will be a bit less apprehensive for all concerned.
All too frequently I come across guys who are “one ship stupid.” They worked up to their position on that vessel and have never had the benefit of anyone else’s mistakes or successes. They don’t know there are often several ways of doing something and all of them might be perfectly acceptable and some of them better.
"I run my ship within the scope of regulations and the way I see fit - that goes without question. “Better suggestions, yes, without doubt, I will consider them - personal opinions based on personal preference,…can pretty much kiss my ass.”
Reference my previous paragraph, how can you filter out the “better suggestions” if you don’t want to hear the not-so-better ones? Of course you run your ship the way you want and that is as it should be. All the audit is for is to make sure you run it legally, safely, and the way you agreed to.
[QUOTE=Steamer;23171]I agree with that, I am surprised the external auditor allows the guy to attend. I wouldn’t dream of following an external auditor around and making comments. He will tell me what I need to know when I get my copy and I will have an opportunity to tell how I will deal with his findings.
Well, not meaning to start a slugfest, but I think you are being a bit too defensive. Look at it like a BRM thing, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, maybe the guy has something to offer based on his experience which might be longer or shorter, or different than yours. All you have to do is smile and pretend you are interested in his opinion and he will go away happy and the atmosphere will be a bit less apprehensive for all concerned.
All too frequently I come across guys who are “one ship stupid.” They worked up to their position on that vessel and have never had the benefit of anyone else’s mistakes or successes. They don’t know there are often several ways of doing something and all of them might be perfectly acceptable and some of them better.
Reference my previous paragraph, how can you filter out the “better suggestions” if you don’t want to hear the not-so-better ones? Of course you run your ship the way you want and that is as it should be. All the audit is for is to make sure you run it legally, safely, and the way you agreed to.[/QUOTE]
I agree with all of that, but you simply do not know who I’m referring to. From my perspective,you would agree if in my shoes, unless you think its wise to give a monkey a machine gun, and I assume you don’t. Your post has the same considerations I take into account.
[quote=Captmad;23095]Greetings,
Glad I got everyones viewpoint. Perhaps the gentleman was from the investigative branch of MSO but this was never articulated.
What I really resent is having to teach our inspectors their job. As described in the various replies seems we are always platforms for training, always. Doesn’t our CG have any people performing these functions that know what they are doing? Yes they do but by that time the people move to the next billet to get that ticket punched for promotion. So we continue the seemingly endless cycle of training inspectors.
The other thing that gripes me about our “inspectors” is they do not have any sea time! Someone that does not have any seatime is telling me how to run my ship! Do you see where this is going?
So what does the most learned readership of gcaptain think?[/quote]
Sadly, back in my day at least, the ship drivers were in a completely different world from the Marine Safety folk. Those two carrier fields rarely mixed. In fact, I found the Marine Safety folk downright antagonistic towards the ship drivers (not all of course, but too far too many).
I think with the Sector stuff now, that separation is changing somewhat, but don’t really know personally.
Thank you all for the input.
Like the rest of you, I take great pride in making sure my ship adheres to the alphabet soup regs and welcome any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
The incident that prompted this post was a multi point 835 given by a very inexperienced inspector that was all BS. This 835 was cleared without much ado at the next port call. As stated the #3 observer that was from the investigative branch kept quiet the whole time. If this investigator knew anything about safety, why did he not speak up??
Maybe I only have to put up with the COI couple days of the year. So what is wrong with wanting to deal with experienced professionals that are not ticket punchers??
[quote=Captmad;23189]
The incident that prompted this post was a multi point 835 given by a very inexperienced inspector that was all BS. This 835 was cleared without much ado at the next port call.[/quote]
In this case I don’t think there is much you can do. This is precisely what I don’t like about COIs, you can have things in good order and there a huge random factor about the inspection. The number of 835’s don’t reflect on how well the ship is being run, things can be loosely goosey and you don’t get a single 835, you’re running a nice tight ship and you get a list as long as your arm. Thats why I’d like to see a scoring system based on an audit.
Anchorman - Same here, but I don’t phrase it like that, I say that I run the ship to a high standard, sounds less personel, and conveys the message that I am open to disscussing what the standard is and how to achieve it.
i can agree with anchorman about the personal opinion suggestion thing. First thing here is, who can attest that the speaker ran a tight ship? Maybe he/she is a self proclaimed hero, but everyone else under he/she command concluded he/she was/is an absolute moron. Also everyone is different, and therefore in terms of leadership you cannot do things the same. ie What is good for the goose…
Also consider the many veribles in vessel design/construction. You cannot steer a z-drive like you do a convention rudder steered vessel. So before you give suggestion(s), you should atleast do some research. Maybe the suggestion your suggestioning is ALREADY being implemented…Take an addage like; You hear with your ears not your mouth, So if your mouth stays closed and your ears open. You just might learn something.
Also consider the brown noser who conveniently agrees with everything your supervisor says when in the presence of that supervisor, and also convenient is how the brown noser knows and can do you job better than you. But in the absence of that supervisor, the same brown noser is totally incompetent–Build yourself up, by tearing another down
Anchor man - Please write back and let us know when you put that brown noser in his/her place
[quote=Kennebec Captain;23192]
Anchorman - Same here, but I don’t phrase it like that, I say that I run the ship to a high standard, sounds less personel, and conveys the message that I am open to disscussing what the standard is and how to achieve it.[/quote]
That was my conscience speaking out loud within the forum. I don’t ever volunteer such things out loud, so I don’t really phrase anything like that at all, although I do think it at times during an audit when confronted with an opinionated auditor. (not that I will hold my lip when it’s appropriate to question said auditor)
Any Master that I’ve worked with that had to say “he’s the captain”, or create a situation where he has to reiterate that fact, was generally not very good leaders to begin with. Somethings go without question, and this wasn’t defensive posturing by any means. Just a little factoid for arguments sake regarding some personal opinion endured during a few audits.
[I][quote=Robert;23176]…I think with the Sector stuff now, that separation is changing somewhat, but don’t really know personally.[/quote][/I]
It definitely is with junior officers. In the past few years all of the LTJGs I’ve worked with came from a previous assignment to a cutter. In the past, they were sent to “M” (marine safety) or “O” (cutter forces) on their first assignment and never crossed.
Anchorman - I agree with you, I have taken your remarks about audits out of context to make my point. pwrmariner makes a point as well, we can type on this forum that we run a tight ship but may in fact spend the day at sea in bed.
In practice there is little difference between running the ship “your way” and maintaining a high standard if you’re the one who determines what the standards are. I agree also about having to use the phrase “I am the captain”, instead “this is not your area of expertise/responsibility” - it means the same thing.
If I were to go down that road, I would be a little more creative…like being a professional baseball player or astronaut.
[quote=Steamer;23171]I agree with that, I am surprised the external auditor allows the guy to attend. I wouldn’t dream of following an external auditor around and making comments. He will tell me what I need to know when I get my copy and I will have an opportunity to tell how I will deal with his findings.
Well, not meaning to start a slugfest, but I think you are being a bit too defensive. Look at it like a BRM thing, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, maybe the guy has something to offer based on his experience which might be longer or shorter, or different than yours. All you have to do is smile and pretend you are interested in his opinion and he will go away happy and the atmosphere will be a bit less apprehensive for all concerned.
All too frequently I come across guys who are “one ship stupid.” They worked up to their position on that vessel and have never had the benefit of anyone else’s mistakes or successes. They don’t know there are often several ways of doing something and all of them might be perfectly acceptable and some of them better.
Reference my previous paragraph, how can you filter out the “better suggestions” if you don’t want to hear the not-so-better ones? Of course you run your ship the way you want and that is as it should be. All the audit is for is to make sure you run it legally, safely, and the way you agreed to.[/quote]
If you only knew the Auditor Anchorman speaks of!
Just as well, I think. I have little patience with morons and aholes.
We had not noticed…
Captmad,
While it is probably a bit disturbing to have the third inspector be from what you term the “investigative” branch, like mentioned before, I wouldn’t read anything into it.
Over the last decade I’ve been working on Passenger Ro/Ro vessels that are subject to annual and quarterly COI’s. In that time frame I’ve seen everything from one inpsector to a half dozen and to be honest It seems like sometimes these inspections are used as an excuse to get out of the office. I’ve also noticed a distinct difference in how these inspections are carried out based on which port is conducting them. I would be more inclined to think that the third inspector on your vessel just wanted a change of pace and jumped at the chance to observe.
As with most on here, I’ve been through my fair share of these and now I pretty much just take them as they come. I don’t believe in “cramming” for a COI (or any other inspection for that matter). I firmly believe that if we are doing our jobs, everything should already be in order and if it isn’t, we fix it and move on. Non of the fuss and craziness I’ve witnessed when I was a junior officer.
Is that the “Tusty” on your avatar?
Many happy memories from that boat.
[quote=Steamer;23411]Is that the “Tusty” on your avatar?
Many happy memories from that boat.[/quote]
The Tusty and Castle Cape in the background. Picture taken from a lifeboat during drills about 3yrs. ago. 
Not sure who I’m talking to, but if you were on her in the last decade or so there’s a good chance I’ve worked with you.