[QUOTE=Steamer;186941]Considering the accident rate before FBW was double that of today and Boeing, Airbus, and virtually every high performance military jet uses FBW (because no human could ever get one past the end of the runway by hand flying) I think few would agree that it did not work out that way.[/QUOTE]
FBW is exactly why a pilot can fly the new computer designed planes by hand. There is no FBW system in existence that I know of that can prevent the pilot from disengaging the autopilot and hand flying while still using the system. FBW sensors send commands to hydraulic systems to move control surfaces and are separate from the autopilot. The FBW system allows the pilot to manipulate the control surfaces without superhuman effort but has no effect on the outcome of a flight unless it fails.
We don’t fear new things, we fear poorly thought-out, poorly executed, unreliable, unsafe, hard-to-fix things. Special one-off ships are well-loved by mariners as long as they have systems elegance, quality, dependability, are safe, and are maintenance-accessible. Bonus love for being clever and comfortable.
As for the training: it’s completely vital. I have just finished a fire-fighting course. We talked about more than one case history where sailors died because they didn’t know how to use their new, updated fire-fighting tools. It’s heartbreaking when a safety system kills people.
I’ve sailed with my fair share of Luddites but in the end they either retire or get onboard with the new technologies. One of the skills I press hard on teaching cadets and new third mates is how to teach yourself new equipment by reading manuals. If you bounce from vessel to vessel you need to be capable of learning the intricacies of a new gps, ecdis, radar, etc with very little lead time. When I get a new officer and find them reading the manuals before we leave the dock I already know I have a professional aboard. When they follow that up with questions specific to the equipment operation, I never want them to leave.
To say that a crew would reject a new technology or a new vessel is dubious at best. Most sailors I know are happy to be working at all. Echoing another post on this thread; mess with the food, crew amenities, OT, or time off and you WILL here about it from the crew.
However, my experience has been very mixed in both the quality and usefulness of the manuals. They are not infrequently poorly written, poorly translated from the mother language, or both. Or incomplete. I have been frustrated with these problems time and again.
To expect most humans to rapidly learn and become proficient in the intricacies of important but complex equipment on-the-fly and with no training, especially when poorly designed, is simply unrealistic. Most can’t do it very well. What usually happens is that the equipment in question winds up being improperly used, or not used nearly to it’s technological capabilities, and its value is thereby compromised. Maybe that improves over time as the user becomes more familiar with it, maybe not. Maybe that contributes to an otherwise avoidable accident. People tend to get soured by too much change too fast, especially when there doesn’t appear to be a tangible benefit. The fact that there may have been real benefits to be had, but they were never realized because of a lack of training and knowledge, is a terrible waste and shame. Equipment needs to be designed around the limitations of the humans who will be using it.
An example of a company that always seemed to get it right with technological advancement was Northstar. Their loran and gps units were by far the best and most user-friendly I’ve ever used. With their gps units you literally didn’t need the manual for any but the most advanced functions. And when you did need it you could be sure it would be simple, clear and readily understood. Customer service was also outstanding.
One of the modern definitions of a Luddite is someone who simply rejects new technologies in general, on principle. True Luddites are very rare. I don’t know that I’ve ever met one. People slow to accept new technology for whatever reason are not, strictly speaking, really Luddites.
D[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;186996]A very important and valid point.
However, my experience has been very mixed in both the quality and usefulness of the manuals. They are not infrequently poorly written, poorly translated from the mother language, or both. Or incomplete. I have been frustrated with these problems time and again.
To expect most humans to rapidly learn and become proficient in the intricacies of important but complex equipment on-the-fly and with no training, especially when poorly designed, is simply unrealistic. Most can’t do it very well. What usually happens is that the equipment in question winds up being improperly used, or not used nearly to it’s technological capabilities, and its value is thereby compromised. Maybe that improves over time as the user becomes more familiar with it, maybe not. Maybe that contributes to an otherwise avoidable accident. People tend to get soured by too much change too fast, especially when there doesn’t appear to be a tangible benefit. The fact that there may have been real benefits to be had, but they were never realized because of a lack of training and knowledge, is a terrible waste and shame. Equipment needs to be designed around the limitations of the humans who will be using it.
An example of a company that always seemed to get it right with technological advancement was Northstar. Their loran and gps units were by far the best and most user-friendly I’ve ever used. With their gps units you literally didn’t need the manual for any but the most advanced functions. And when you did need it you could be sure it would be simple, clear and readily understood. Customer service was also outstanding.
One of the modern definitions of a Luddite is someone who simply rejects new technologies in general, on principle. True Luddites are very rare. I don’t know that I’ve ever met one. People slow to accept new technology for whatever reason are not, strictly speaking, really Luddites.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point as well. Maybe I expect too much but I feel it is a valid and useful skill to attempt to master. I also agree that the translations (particularly in Furuno and JRC manuals) are difficult to decipher at times. I’d rather see a mate with the manual in hand while pressing the buttons for the first time versus blindly poking their way into changed settings or a frozen piece of electronics.
You got me on the Luddites though. I was using it mostly for dramatic effect not the literal definition. I once had an old timer tell me years ago that he was an “analog” kind and of guy and didn’t care to learn all these new fangled electronics. He continued to tell me that he viewed that attitude as something he considered to be a contributing factor for our union being kept to run for he older ships. We had the older guys who knew the old equipment. Being an on the rise young mate I had to ask why he felt it beneficial to be thought of as the “old guys Union” and how he thought that might affect us moving into the future? He could pretty much give a rats ass when it came to thinking about the future. He was on he way out. I shrugged it off and went back to reading manuals and teaching him how to use excel. That’s my base point for a seagoing Luddite.
No, you’re not expecting too much at all. It’s entirely reasonable to expect a master or mate to start with the manual, riddled with shortcomings and painful though it may be, and do the best they can with it. You have to at least try. And yes, it’s a valuable skill for anyone to have, deck or engine. I always encourage my mates to “hit the books” regularly and as-needed. But many don’t have the ability and never will. So when the designers/manufacturers come out with a new mediocre or downright crappy piece of equipment, maybe with an equally crappy manual to go with it, no one should be surprised if it doesn’t improve navigation safety, and may even hinder it.
We recently got a “new and improved” Simrad depth sounder. Besides being unreliable (3 over a 8-month period) it’s a complicated touch-screen piece of shit. They try to pack so many features into it that it isn’t good at anything. It took several days to figure out how to shut off the “no gps fix” alarm for good, and the manual was worse than useless. GPS fix alarm? On a depth sounder? Yup. I can totally live without these pain-in-the-ass, multi-function electronics. Sometimes all you need is the depth.
Littoral Combat Ships are a prime example of the wonders of technological improvements gone wrong. Here’s an example of when all the research and training money can buy can’t save the technology from itself. Except in the commercial world we don’t get all the training money can buy, we get the cheapest product promising the most miraculous returns with only the training the office thinks is affordable.
When we fail by not being able to live up to the hyped up returns the office dreamed of who gets the blame? The supplier of the product who sold the hyped up product? The starry-eyed office folks who dreamed of miraculous returns? Or the crew who can’t make the crappy product work with insufficient training?
This is why many people are wary of the next great thing.
[QUOTE=Steamer;186941]Considering the accident rate before FBW was double that of today and Boeing, Airbus, and virtually every high performance military jet uses FBW (because no human could ever get one past the end of the runway by hand flying) I think few would agree that it did not work out that way.[/QUOTE]
2 different things here, are you talking about flight control computers that convert your input to something that will fly the plane ( typical fighter) or just full power controls, i.e. no cables?
Updated - - -
I have crew that clearly have never used a PC/mouse come in for DP courses.
I wondering how that will go when they get on an ECDIS vessel?
[QUOTE=DeckApe;187027]Littoral Combat Ships are a prime example of the wonders of technological improvements gone wrong. Here’s an example of when all the research and training money can buy can’t save the technology from itself. Except in the commercial world we don’t get all the training money can buy, we get the cheapest product promising the most miraculous returns with only the training the office thinks is affordable.
When we fail by not being able to live up to the hyped up returns the office dreamed of who gets the blame? The supplier of the product who sold the hyped up product? The starry-eyed office folks who dreamed of miraculous returns? Or the crew who can’t make the crappy product work with insufficient training?
This is why many people are wary of the next great thing.[/QUOTE]
The LCS are such a great example on the business end of marine technology. The engineering firms that sell to the US military are in the business of making a good sales pitch and making money. As you said, the technology often doesn’t live up to its promises. I see that in the commercial world as well. And it creates a problem. How do you compete with another business who is willing to cut corners and is over-confident in their sales pitch? We can’t outright call them a liar. And we don’t have the time or money to buy and test every piece of technology that comes on the market.
That is a real tough problem. I honestly wish that the owners would bring their crew along to more of these sales meetings. As one of the shore-based people, I love getting feedback from the crew. And the crew could help filter out some of the BS.
The Coast Guard estimated that adjusting the autopilot rule would affect 9,458 foreign-flagged and 95 US-flagged tankers.
They are very accurate in their “estimates”.
I also notice that this affects 95 US flag tankers.
Presumably not the xxx ATBs used to transport oil and other liquid products within US waters?
The European attempt at simplifying Port Entry procedures are obviously not popular with everybody.
Here from Maasmond Newsclippings today:
MORE AND MORE PAPERWORKS ONBOARD The following received from a master onboard a Dutch flagged general cargo vessel We have to make pre arr. Documents in every port, as you know Europe is in process of making paper work easier for seaman , the so called single window administration, it is a farse and a failure so far. For this simple trip within Europe a lot of paper works are required as sample this trip loading salt in Porto Empedocle then loading on deck 6 windmill blades in Castellon, the blades are to be delivered in Eemshaven and the salt to Bremen. In pre single window days we had IOM forms that were accepted everywhere, now every country is trying to invent the wheel again, and our administration is going haywire, in each port we get other form, for ISPS/Waste/crewlist, so in each port we are making a new crew list a new ISPS list and waste list, although all look the same , only their ( respective ports ) forms are allowed, please look at Casttelon papers, is redicules, crew list is a joke, and pre arr 2016 doc in word format is repetition on other forms, we had to insert 2x ISPS and waste details, and DO fill in forms, otherwise you will not be granted access to port.
How does it work for ships and crews entering North American ports, are there a uniform system, or is it each port for itself?
I have no idea how foreign ships may be treated entering US ports, but for smaller vessels in the domestic trade there is virtually no port specific paperwork. Coming from foreign ports to the US, I see very little port specific paperwork. Most of the paperwork is handled agents.
There is a tremendous amount of paperwork in Mexico. It is all prepared by the agent in Spanish and the master just signs a lot of forms. There is more paperwork at each Mexican port. Mexican officials (Customs, immigration, Navy, etc.) always come aboard in the first port, but they thin out at subsequent ports. Mexico does not care about crewmen with criminal convictions.
Canada can potentially be difficult, but its usually quite easy. The agents do the paperwork. On the west coast, Canadian officials usually do not come aboard US vessels, the agent doesn’t either. If officials come aboard so does the agent. On the east coast, there isn’t much US/Canada trade by US flag vessels so Canadian officials always come aboard and they can be quite particular at times. The biggest issue for US vessels going to Canada is crewmen with criminal convictions, including drunk driving. Canada has access to the US police computers so they know everything.