I am conducting a pilot study into an officer’s hours of work during the day to day running of a ship with the aim of:
• Determining the level of minimum manning based on the number of hours it actually takes to run a vessel
• To identify if the MSN 1767 manning guidance is realistic
The implications of undermanning are long established and widely recognised. Exxon Valdez in 1989, Jambo in 2003 and Pasha Bulker in 2007 are just a few examples of how undermanning and the resulting increased workload and fatigue can cause serious incidents.
The MLC guidelines regulate the seafarer’s hours of work or rest, therefore, if the number of actual work hours it takes to run a vessel were known, it would be possible to calculate the necessary level of manning.
Due to the small scale of this study, it is unlikely that the required hours of work for all vessel types, cargos, trading areas etc will be defined. However, if some findings are made, it may prove the validity of such an investigation to be recreated in future studies.
Unfortunately, I only have approximately two weeks (from today: 02.04.2015) to collect as much data as possible before analysis. If you would like to contribute to the investigation, please follow the link below. I shall post the final results later this month or next. I have already written a background review entitled ‘Is minimum manning, safe manning?’ that I would be happy to email to those who may be interested to read it. Furthermore, please comment below as I am very interested to hear your opinion on the matter.
Absolutely, My name is Brianne Wright I am a fully qualified officer of the watch and am currently carrying out a supplementary year at Plymouth University, UK, to achieve a Bachelor of Science in Navigation and Maritime Science. As an integral part of the degree, I am carrying out this study as data for my dissertation on ‘Is minimum manning, safe manning?’.
It’s just a college paper, don’t give her a hard time. A full research project of this nature would be carried out by the government or the IMO. It’s better to have a college research paper done with good data like we can provide, but ultimately the only people who ever see it would prbly be her professors.
I think this is a very important issue however, in my experience I’ve found it varies greatly from boat to boat. For instance I worked on a 92 ft research vessel for several years and it was manned with at least 6 persons (because all of the various wenches, frames, and various other special equipment.) And as of late I work on a 220ft OSV that can be very effectively run with a 8 man crew. That being said those were in average circumstances. In a “all hands on deck” scenario we needed 8 persons on the research vessel i.e. when so much was going on deck that there was no one to cook or, watch standers were sleep deprived. And on the supply boat a 10 or even 11 man crew could have been justified in cargo operation in heavy seas. Its always good to be over crewed when the days are more intense.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;158356]It’s just a college paper, don’t give her a hard time. A full research project of this nature would be carried out by the government or the IMO. It’s better to have a college research paper done with good data like we can provide, but ultimately the only people who ever see it would prbly be her professors.[/QUOTE]
I’d like to participate, but it’s only for deck officers so far.
Have you filled it out?
Also, not trying to give anyone a hard time. You know full well that we’ve had all kinds of opportunists roll through here doing “research.”
OP seems legit enough and I wish her the best on her assignment.
Yea I did it. It seems the people at the University of Plymouth love to come here. I don’t know why they don’t seem to participate otherwise though. I’d love to hear more about how the licensing system in the UK works and what kind of opportunities they have.
Thank you all for your input so far. I completely agree that engineer manning, and all other personnel working onboard for that matter, is just as valid as deck officer manning. However, as it has been pointed out, unfortunately due to the size of this particular study and the limited resources and time available, there are limitations of the study. For instance, not all ships are the same type and all have different trading patterns, cargos and schedules. Even the schedule onboard one ships is constantly changing. Despite this I am sure the final data will enable some conclusions on the matter to be made, I am positive there will be trends discovered and hopefully identify how a study such as this can be valid, and improved, to be more accurate and representative in the future.
As I said in the main post, I am more than happy to post the final report here for you to read on its completion, furthermore, if I am to achieve very good results or findings, there is potential for the data to be used for officially published documents. My advisor is currently writing one himself.
Also, I apologise for my lack of participation in gCaptain previous to this post! Im not sure a newly qualified officer and university student would have much to offer in comparison to most of your experiences! But i will definitely take part from now on Thank you everyone
What’s the difference in your survey among Chief Mate, Chief Officer, and 1st Officer? Is there a difference in the licensing scheme in the UK? Will selecting any of the three be functionally the same response? Here in the US, all three mean the same position. For what it’s worth, the most commonly used term in the US, at least on ships, is Chief Mate.
Thank you for your question. Well on my last ship (cruise) the ranking system was Captain, Staff Captain, Chief Officer of Safety, 1st Officer x3, 2nd Officer x2. And for Chief Officer you need a Chief Mate licence, and for 2nd and 1st you just need OOW. So your answer depends on the ship you are/were on so in this case, choosing Chief Mate is fine. I hope that helps
[QUOTE=Brianne Jane Wright;158406]Thank you all for your input so far. I completely agree that engineer manning, and all other personnel working onboard for that matter, is just as valid as deck officer manning. However, as it has been pointed out, unfortunately due to the size of this particular study and the limited resources and time available, there are limitations of the study. For instance, not all ships are the same type and all have different trading patterns, cargos and schedules. Even the schedule onboard one ships is constantly changing. Despite this I am sure the final data will enable some conclusions on the matter to be made, I am positive there will be trends discovered and hopefully identify how a study such as this can be valid, and improved, to be more accurate and representative in the future.
As I said in the main post, I am more than happy to post the final report here for you to read on its completion, furthermore, if I am to achieve very good results or findings, there is potential for the data to be used for officially published documents. My advisor is currently writing one himself.
Also, I apologise for my lack of participation in gCaptain previous to this post! Im not sure a newly qualified officer and university student would have much to offer in comparison to most of your experiences! But i will definitely take part from now on Thank you everyone[/QUOTE]
Come on in, the water’s fine. I’d like to see your report when it’s done.
[QUOTE=Brianne Jane Wright;158446]Thank you for your question. Well on my last ship (cruise) the ranking system was Captain, Staff Captain, Chief Officer of Safety, 1st Officer x3, 2nd Officer x2. And for Chief Officer you need a Chief Mate licence, and for 2nd and 1st you just need OOW. So your answer depends on the ship you are/were on so in this case, choosing Chief Mate is fine. I hope that helps :)[/QUOTE]
Obviously a cruise ship. In my experience, the duties of “Chief Mate” on a cruise ship were split between the Staff Captain and the Safety Officer.
As promised, I am happy to share the results of the study with you and conclude that the study was largely successful. I apologise for the delay in posting the results but here they are!
The attached PDF concludes the findings of the dissertation in a couple of pages. For clarification, the ILO parameters tested against were the ‘Hours of Work’, ‘Hours of Rest’ and ‘Exceptional Hours of Rest’.
For those who are interested in a very short summary of findings, it can be concluded that the number of hours worked by a deck officer per month, is less than the hours of work permitted by the hours of rest and exceptional hours of rest regulations, but more than the hours of work regulations. It was therefore concluded that if a vessel of more then 3000 gt were to comply with the hours of work regulations, the level of minimum manning must be increased from 4 to 5 officers.*
May I pay a particularly large thank you to those of you who completed the survey. I could not have completed my dissertation with your assistance, and I am happy to say I achieved 80% for the project and graduated with First Class Honours!
Awesome, thanks for coming back here to put it up.
Edit: And may I also say, I’m sure we’d all love to here about your experiences sailing. I’d really like to here how your education system for training new 3/Ms is compared to ours.
Thank you everyone