A reality check here:
I went to a merchant marine academy in the 1980s. There were no simulators, and hardly any training in small boats, and none of that was spent on piloting. To practice skills we had only the training ship, which spent most of her time away from land and other ships.
If you count simulator time as practice time, then a cadet has much more opportunity to practice piloting skills today than we did two generations ago.
The skills we had were considered adequate then. The skills cadets get now are likewise adequate, but the mix of instrument versus non-instrument skills is off-kilter a bit. A byproduct of the factory process of churning out navigators. Like new-car smell. Pleasant to some, annoying to others. Like new-car smell, rectified by time. The new navigator learns on the job how to rectify the mix.
A minor problem with simulators is that after the studentās initial experience with them, they realize simulations are games played for short periods, as opposed to life-and-death situations experienced for hours. Thatās where small-boat training excels. You actually become a competent seaman. But a rigorous academy small-boat training program would mean:
abolishing electives and sports to carve out time.
finding instructors experienced in small-boats (a big problem).
people to maintain the boats.
higher insurance rates.
Academies are factories who churn out newly minted products that need wearing-in. The wearing-in is the responsibility of the buyer (union or company). Academies could turn out better product, but that would require more money, and neither student, taxpayer, union, or most companies thinks the extra money a good bargain.
I think youāre a little to far removed from an academy to say that they canāt find the instructors, time, or insurance money for small boat training. And I mean no offense by that, just that I graduated far more recently than you and we had all the above. I have mentioned in another thread the availability of the small boat training, the problem is the deck curriculum is so chock full of other shit that you cannot fit the small boat training, which are electives, into your schedule without going over the credit limit and paying more/having to get it approved by the dean. I know this because I had this exact problem. Luckily for me I took a victory lap so I had some extra credits to use and was able to take said classes. I also lived in an area where in the summers I had ample opportunity to work on ferries, tugs, fishing boats, and OSVās. So when it came to what has already been mentioned in this thread about looking out the window and not staring at the ECDIS and other electronics I was pretty well trained. Thereās an instructor at my school who used to constantly repeat āwe need to teach you kids to be boat drivers firstā and I think we can all agree thatās a great place to start.
Also no one who majors in marine transportation is so dedicated to their division 3 sport that they would be pissed about missing practice for boat handling. I used to love missing a Monday football practice for class.
A more general issue: If you try and teach a youngish person to navigate a boat or airplane today, they fully expect to type in the destination and follow the magenta line on the GPS because that is how they have ānavigatedā their car or on foot their entire lives. Anything else is viewed as hopelessly primitive arcane bullshit from the 19th century
Navigating in general is a skill that becomes stronger with use and plenty of the kids today have NEVER done it. Back in the day, just to drive a car or walk in the woods, you needed some level of skill at knowing which way you were going and map reading. We today are not even starting with that.
I donāt expect anyone to teach students these skills. Just having them realize that they lack this skill and it is needed would be sufficient.
As it is when some old-timer says heās going to teach them ze old vay they think; maybe you canāt figure out this fancy computer stuff but Iām young and smart so itās not a problem.
As I said before, the smarter they are the harder they are to teach.
My first stab at explaining it made it sound as if I was saying I could control the position of the buoy by changing the rudder angle, which sounds nuts.
But watching while the ship turns it can be understood quickly.
Thatās good, you donāt happen to remember what text it came from?
Anyway thatās just an example of a place where a similar skill to the one discussed is documented. I havenāt seen any examples of this:
that the change in a rough visual ābearingā, taken from a fixed point within the wheelhouse, is sometimes good enough to determine if any risk of collision is likely to exist.
Thereās a lot of things new mates donāt know, take for example lashing so called high and heavy cargo on a RO/RO. However this is relatively easy to teach because the reason it needs to be learned is obvious, we have a system in place (lashing diagrams, tables, color-coded lashing etc.) and most importantly they know they donāt know.
Teaching rudimentary collision avoidance (with assistance from instruments rather than dependence) on the other hand is much more difficult to teach because the new mate already knows how to do it only in a more accurate, more precise way. They know they know and see no reason to learn a more primitive version which seems like a āback in the dayā skill now rendered obsolete.
I donāt recall it being done through the assistance of a text but more so through verbal instruction. But if I recall correctly we used Duttonās the most in that class.
Regarding the cargo lashing; this is where I feel most inept as a young third. My first commercial ship was an MSC oiler. They operate differently than a commercial tanker and it was really just me following the cargo mate around while the supply guys stood by the tanks and gave us ullages. Even so, we only loaded once while I was there and the discharges we did were unreps and we (the cadets) were sent on deck. My second ship was a container ship and the chief mate sent myself and the other deck cadet ashore whenever we were in port. I was around for final checks and such but thatās about it. My point being, Iām comfortable in traffic, Iām comfortable in maneuvering, but when it comes to cargo I lack the experience and thatās hard to explain to captains and chief mates as a 2nd mate at this point. Also; government ships that donāt move their cargo or donāt carry cargo havenāt helped my experience either.
I agree with your final point. There are some things that captains have tried to show me in the context of āthis is how we used to do itā and my thought process is usually, āwow, that looks like a pain in the ass. Iāll just use the ARPA/RADAR and if that fails itās in the standing orders to call you anyways so expect a call.ā Itās not that I canāt do what youāre showing me, but until I have to do that Iām going to stick with the system I am familiar and comfortable with.
Yeh, small boat handling is not a required part of curriculum. Itās great to do but since itās literally extra, it often gets pushed to the side. Also, we had plenty of afternoons to pursue small boat handling but in my experience it was largely neglected because it was neither observed nor graded. Groups of cadets would take out several boats, each under the supervision of a senior cadet. Most cadets were not boatmen and it showed, badly. If it was required, observed, and graded I believe it would have a larger impact.
I should also mention that most US mariners are not boatmen, period. There have been some few hands on board the ships Iāve sailed on that I would trust to get a small boat launched and competently handle it. Some few, indeed.
The minimum instructions I give to a new third mate is to give helm commands from near the center line but before giving the command quickly eyeball in the direction of the next course. This reduces the chance of an error.
I was taught to walk over to whichever side youāre turning to, check the wing/view astern, ensure there is no one behind you/in the way, then give the command. Which, if you have good situational awareness, there should be no surprises and shouldnāt be required but I find itās good practice and should the captain be up there shows him Iām at least paying attention to more than the track line.
ā¦and we agree on how valuable actual boat training is.
Thatās the best experience out there. Not all academy students are as highly-motivated as yourself.
In addition to a busy curriculum, I think academies donāt devote time to small-boat training because most academy instructors are unlimited tonnage holders. Gradates of academies themselves, or Navy people, with little experience in small-boats, thus disinclined to campaign for curriculum time for them. A few instructors see the value. Most donāt. I could be wrong. But if I were wrong, I think we would have seen at least one academy with a rigorous program of operating small boats.
I run a small-boat training program for a short while each year, so I can see all the reasons a college president would be against such as program.
If 50 cadets had to take an accredited, small-boat operation class (as opposed to a few highly-motivated persons such as yourself) the academy would need a large number of reliable boats. Which means maintenance. Which means money and staff. Where does the money come from?
And what happens if thereās a small craft advisory, or worse weather? An accredited class has to happen on time, or be made up that session. Now, there is no better educational (or religious) experience than sailing a small-boat in rough seas. But academy presidents and insurance companies might not see it that wayā¦
Class size: 3-5 students per instructor/boat. That way, each student is immersed in training, while the instructor can still focus on the boat. Thatās the way we do it. But thatās a lot of instructors. In a perfect world, first-classmen would be the instructors. Then itās a two-fer. You train underclassmen piloting, and you teach first-classmen responsibility under pressure. But could you get first-classmen accredited as instructors?
Such as are the headaches of running an accredited class, along with many othersā¦ Easier to toss cadets into a simulator. Theyāll still turn out OK, mostly.
That aināt no shit. Iāve known more than a few mates who came in through the cabin window who were more interested in how they were going to invest their accumulating day rate than learning seamanship.
Itās always amusing to see the young mates go nuts when something fails.
For example: gyro fails, every piece of gear starts alarming, so no autopilot, (no helmsman anyway) no north up radar, plotters and radars rotate into weird positions (which way is forward on the screens?).
Some of them think we need to divert to the nearest port and go in with an escort. Itās unsafe to continue.
They think Iām nuts when I say that we won WWII with hundreds of ships without any of these modern electronics.
