How many hours are you working onboard? Final Push for Data!

Professional Mariner Forum
1

Thank you to all the people who have already taken part in the following study. In order to improve the accuracy of the results I would really appreciate those of you who have not taken part to take just five minutes to do so!

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 one week left (from today: 10.04.2015) to collect as much data as possible before analysis. If you would like to contribute to the investigation, please follow the link below or paste it into your search bar. 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.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/hoursofworkmanning

Hope to hear from you all
Thank you

2

I average 15 hours per day.

3

[QUOTE=Brianne Jane Wright;159175]Thank you to all the people who have already taken part in the following study. In order to improve the accuracy of the results I would really appreciate those of you who have not taken part to take just five minutes to do so!

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 one week left (from today: 10.04.2015) to collect as much data as possible before analysis. If you would like to contribute to the investigation, please follow the link below or paste it into your search bar. 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.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/hoursofworkmanning

Hope to hear from you all
Thank you[/QUOTE]

I very skeptical that any progress will be made in the near future on the manning issue but without good data likely no progress will be made so while this study may not help it can’t hurt.

At one time determining manning was simple. If you read the NTSB’s report on the on the grounding of the Exxon Valdez the U,S, Coast Guard determined safe manning simply by asking Exxon what manning levels should be and reduced manning exactly according to Exxon’s advice.

Now that there is some thought that manning might be too low, at least in cases where it should be blindingly obvious that ships are undermanned, it turns out determining ship manning is one of the universe’s great unsolvable mysteries.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair

Bottom line is it can’t hurt to get mariner’s input.

4

[QUOTE=tugsailor;159178]I average 15 hours per day.[/QUOTE]

Then you are in violation of http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:55:0::no::P55_TYPE,P55_LANG,P55_DOCUMENT,P55_NODE:REV,en,C180,%2FDocument

5

[QUOTE=Kraken;159185]Then you are in violation of http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:55:0::no::P55_TYPE,P55_LANG,P55_DOCUMENT,P55_NODE:REV,en,C180,%2FDocument[/QUOTE]

'I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.

6

[QUOTE=Kraken;159185]Then you are in violation of http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:55:0::no::P55_TYPE,P55_LANG,P55_DOCUMENT,P55_NODE:REV,en,C180,%2FDocument[/QUOTE]

Is he? As far as I know that document applies to [I]seagoing[/I] vessels, i.e., subject to STCW. He may work on a tugboat that never goes outside the boundary line, and thus wouldn’t be subject to those rules.

7

[QUOTE=Kraken;159185]Then you are in violation of http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:55:0::no::P55_TYPE,P55_LANG,P55_DOCUMENT,P55_NODE:REV,en,C180,%2FDocument[/QUOTE]

Maybe so, but that does not apply to the U.S. Jones Act trade. For a Master that has to stand watch 12 hours a day, make departures and arrivals, supervise the mate in restricted waters, deal with cargo, weather, etc. etc. 15 hours a day is the norm.

I could tell the owner that I cannot do this and cannot do that because of this rule and that rule, but then be unemployed. Or I can continue to be a “can-do guy” and keep working while I look forward to the actual enforcement of new regulations, like Subchapter M, a COI, and a safe manning document.

8

In my last Company, we had to keep track of our hours on a Spread Sheet which would be sent in to the Home Office. I was very honest and My Captain got on my Ass several times for putting down the truth which put me over on most days. The way that I saw it was I was not going to Falsify the record and if they wanted to say anything, they could read my E.R. Log and tell me what I could or should be doing different. I also made sure that my AE filled it out properly.

9

[QUOTE=tugsailor;159192]Maybe so, but that does not apply to the U.S. Jones Act trade. For a Master that has to stand watch 12 hours a day, make departures and arrivals, supervise the mate in restricted waters, deal with cargo, weather, etc. etc. 15 hours a day is the norm.

I could tell the owner that I cannot do this and cannot do that because of this rule and that rule, but then be unemployed. Or I can continue to be a “can-do guy” and keep working while I look forward to the actual enforcement of new regulations, like Subchapter M, a COI, and a safe manning document.[/QUOTE]

If the OPA 90 rules apply, It’s no more than 36 in 72 hrs,

10

[QUOTE=tugsailor;159192]Maybe so, but that does not apply to the U.S. Jones Act trade. For a Master that has to stand watch 12 hours a day, make departures and arrivals, supervise the mate in restricted waters, deal with cargo, weather, etc. etc. 15 hours a day is the norm.

I could tell the owner that I cannot do this and cannot do that because of this rule and that rule, but then be unemployed. Or I can continue to be a “can-do guy” and keep working while I look forward to the actual enforcement of new regulations, like Subchapter M, a COI, and a safe manning document.[/QUOTE]

If you need to work 1 hour over the permitted hours a day to make the vessel stay in business, then the safe manning certificate is either wrong for your vessel or the company you work for is breaking the law.

11

At a company I used to work for we would record all of our rest time and overtime in a log. The office would be upset when people would get 3-6+ hours of overtime in a day. The complaint was were not allow to work more the 15 in a day. One captain told the office I’m not lying on the paperwork if you don’t want guys working over to add personal. The other captain would put you down for only 3 hours OT and if you worked more wouldn’t pay you. That happened once and when I worked for the other capt the second the third hour was up i walked away.

12

We don’t have that problem where I work. 12 is generally the max. Some ships in the fleet, forget about OT unless it’s a weekend at sea. Our contracts make any time over 8 hours, and weekends, overtime. I think the longest day I’ve worked here is 14, but that was because of a long transit into port and then bunkering right after we moored.

You have to be careful here too, some of these chiefs will not pay OT even if you were doing an emergency repair that put you past your normal hours…people have had to take it up with the union.

But I digress, this is not a discussion of pay or union issues.

13

I am hopeful subchapter M fixes some of this, but really doubt it unless its a foreign voyage, or subject to STCW. My biggest gripe is you don’t need the type of supervision (typically) when you’re offshore, you need it in confined waters, and if anything the big push on crewing needs to be on inland/near coastal voyages that may not be subject to STCW. The 2-watch system is broken and needs to go.

One thing to think is some boats that have 2 nav officers required by the client (Motiva in many cases) would be better served by one person on a 4-8 schedule than 2 on 6-6 in my opinion. Case being the 2nd watch stander usually is very inexperienced and not even necessarily an official mate (licensed but sailing AB often); if both mates are held to the same standard as regular east coast “chief” mate’s you’ll have a robust crew, and when dealing with 4-8 the master can supplement when necessary without going over 12.

14

[QUOTE=Kraken;159198]If you need to work 1 hour over the permitted hours a day to make the vessel stay in business, then the safe manning certificate is either wrong for your vessel or the company you work for is breaking the law.[/QUOTE]

What safe manning certificate? U.S. tugs are not inspected vessels. And they do not have safe manning certificates — unless they are sailing foreign (but then its only a make-believe safe manning certificate to appease foreign PSC).

15

[QUOTE=z-drive;159217]I am hopeful subchapter M fixes some of this, but really doubt it unless its a foreign voyage, or subject to STCW. My biggest gripe is you don’t need the type of supervision (typically) when you’re offshore, you need it in confined waters, and if anything the big push on crewing needs to be on inland/near coastal voyages that may not be subject to STCW. The 2-watch system is broken and needs to go.

One thing to think is some boats that have 2 nav officers required by the client (Motiva in many cases) would be better served by one person on a 4-8 schedule than 2 on 6-6 in my opinion. Case being the 2nd watch stander usually is very inexperienced and not even necessarily an official mate (licensed but sailing AB often); if both mates are held to the same standard as regular east coast “chief” mate’s you’ll have a robust crew, and when dealing with 4-8 the master can supplement when necessary without going over 12.[/QUOTE]

My recollection is that the larger Seaspan tugs (Canadian) have two mates that stand 6 and 6 while the master floats. I have done that a few times when I’ve had two mates and it works pretty well.

16

I can see that working well.

17

[QUOTE=tugsailor;159238]What safe manning certificate? U.S. tugs are not inspected vessels. And they do not have safe manning certificates — unless they are sailing foreign (but then its only a make-believe safe manning certificate to appease foreign PSC).[/QUOTE]

I was unsure what kind of vessel you were working on, so I just assumed it was something like a PSV or bigger.

18

16 on 8 off is my schedule, I often work extra, sometimes 18 or 20 hours on then my 8 hours off.

Also our clock rotates, so I go to bed at 0100 for a week, then 0300 for 4 days, 0500 for a day then back to 0300.

Aleutian trade / commercial fishing vessel…

19

Hello All,

This survey has now been closed! I shall post the results shortly after analysing!

Thank you to everyone who took part!

Brianne

20

Dear All,

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!

Thank you

Brianne