People here are pretty dense, I’d say. It’s funny how current/retired Captains/Chiefs forget what it’s like to be an underlying to the sociopath bossman.
We don’t have all the information in this thread. Of course the OSHA letter is just a mere summary of what went down. Who knows what the USCG found, as we don’t have their report.
About all we do have is that this dude called the USCG and was later fired. This Seamans Protection Act does not allow this. Who knows or cares about the details of the fire pump, fire main, ship was allowed to sail, etc? It’s all irrelevant to the egregious ignorance of SPA.
I think there’s a bit of a hangup on the emergency fire pump. While the USCG doesn’t mention the emergency fire pump they did say they found a significant leak in the fire main. There is no mention of the proximity of this leak to the emergency fire pump. It’s entirely possible that the leak was proximate to the pump and that there was a situation where the leak was known about and the crew was avoiding running the pump.
We just do not have enough info to say for sure one way or the other. The fact that the USCG found a fire main deficiency would lead me to think that there was a legit issue and the CM either exaggerated or didn’t fully understand what the issue was, just knew that for whatever reason they weren’t using the emergency fire pump.
True. I was looking at it more in terms of company loyalty. But I agree with everything you stated. I especially like the middle age alternate summery.
I think there’s a bit of a hang up because if it wasn’t working it would likely be considered a “no sail” item.
The leak was in the starboard tunnel. Emergency fire pumps are typically in the shaft alley, though I’ve seen them in a space on the bow in the lower focsle. There is no mention of the nature of the leak. Is a flange gasket or perhaps a leaking drain valve?
In any case there is probably more to the story than we know and a bit of unexplained history between the Captain and the Mate. I sailed a long time as Chief. If there were issues as mentioned the Mate would have discussed these items long before any “complaint” was made to the Captain. If a complaint was to be made it would be about me not addressing these things. As far as issues with the lifeboat goes, as the head of the deck department, why didn’t he tell the bosun to work on the blocks and releasing gear. That’s square within his area of responsibility.
We’re talking about the Chief mate here, not some green 3rd mate or engineer. There was obviously dysfunction and poor social dynamics amongst the leadership aboard that ship.
Perhaps it didn’t work, and was repaired prior to USCG showing up? Not saying it’s probable, but most definitely possible.
I’ve seen ships sailing with EDG that would not auto start and transfer…because sending the 3rd up to hit the “open breaker” switch (which began the auto start/breaker close sequence) was deemed acceptable in some idiot’s alternate reality. Well, a euro port state control didn’t seem to agree…but somehow the ship was allowed to sail to the next port as parts were gathered for the repair.
My experience is that the there is no standard location for the emergency fire pump. I’ve seen them in the shaft alley, engine room, bow thruster space, steering gear, even it’s own compartment halfway between the house and bow, all on commercial ships. Can anyone shed light as to the location of the leak in relation to the emergency fire pump?
Meh, I’ve worked on a ship where the CE and 1AE didn’t know how to operate the OWS for a COI. You’ve been fortunate during your time as CE to have worked with such competent CMs. During my time as CE I haven’t been that fortunate. So no, I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t very familiar with the system.
Would this cast doubt on his positive performance evaluations attesting to his abilities? Don’t know how long he was assigned to the ship, but it was at least a year.
Any number of assumptions can be made to support any argument or narrative. One problem of using that letter to support a firing is the fact it was written 11 days after the event.
Could be the captain belatedly realized the C/M was a liability to the ship. However the fact that the captain fired the C/M before just before departure supports the Chief Mate’s case that the reason for the firing was the report to the CG,
From the OSHA letter:
Following the completion of the inspection, Captain relieved Complainant of his duties, suspended him, and ordered him to leave the ship.
What stands out to me is the report to the captain of 7 crewmembers abusing alcohol. If this wasn’t logged, or a contraband inspection conducted, or the company notified, this Captain was complicit. Trying to cover it up with a belated letter of warning and subsequent firing is pretty transparent.
That being said, without notifying the DPA, this Mate did not follow the proper steps necessary to be completely clean of blame here. Had he done that, I would say he had done all he could before going with the nuclear option, but I can’t fully support someone who doesn’t exhaust every option before involving the boys in blue.
Now I suppose he will be untouchable as a Master with Maersk until whichever point he wishes to retire
Obviously, this Chief mate knew there was a culture of retaliation as most of us who have sailed do. While going to the DPA first would have been the preferred way, he obviously feared retaliation and his fears were correct. Those that are critical of the Chief Mate should,
perhaps, be more critical of a culture that fires senior officers for reporting safety issues.
Speaking from the viewpoint of some one who was Captain and made a report to the DPA (as I was trying to go about the situation internally) I was fired 11 days later. If I had to do it over again I would have gone straight to the USCG.
This is a pretty clear case of retaliatory termination. OSHA saw it this way, too.
I didn’t want officers I considered unreliable aboard.
I wrote the minimum CPA in the night orders if it was less than what was in the standing orders so I sometimes used a violation of min CPA for a letter of warning. But that was mostly for green 3rd mates that I thought were not reliable.
A second mate one time arrived 20 minutes late at a waypoint that I had specified an arrival time for a timed arrival at the pilot station. They were unreliable and got a letter.
If a C/M arrived late to a timed arrival waypoint I don’t know why they wouldn’t get a letter if the captain had other reasons to want to fire them.
Age has nothing to do with one’s character or their sense of honor, ethics or integrity. Any “Captain” who puts himself and the company above the safety and well being of their crew and vessel is unfit for command and does not belong in the position of Captain.
While the Captain is considered management their first obligation is to their crew and vessel. It’s as simple as that.
Unfortunately, we see more and more examples of this not being the case. Considering that in the past two to three years there have been two to three vessels that stayed in the paths or drove into hurricanes. What is/was the priority of these “Captains?” It certainly wasn’t the safety and well being of their crew and vessel.
Am I understanding this right? You would have a 2 mile cpa in the standing orders, but put a 1 mile cpa in the night orders? So when a mate used the 1 mile cpa from the night orders you wrote that very night you would write them up for not following your 2 mn cpa from standing orders from however long ago you made your standing orders?
Writing someone up for being late to a waypoint? That’s reckless! What happened to safety first? So if there was traffic what would you want them to do? Cut your cpas to make up time? And 20 minutes? Really? I’ve never had a problem with Pilots not able to work with a 20 minute delay. Even if you had to get there at a specific time for draft/tide reasons writing up someone for being 20 minutes late is so wrong. Maybe that “gotta be there on time no matter what I’m a company man” mindset is why so many people on this thread are jumping to the conclusion (without evidence) that this CM was in the wrong.
No. In the standing orders it’s 2 miles “unless otherwise instructed”. During a coastwise 2 miles sometimes is not practical so the 1 mile goes in the night orders.
As far as the 20 minutes, a 'timed arrival" generally means the ship has to slow down to arrive at the assigned time. At Uraga Pilot station pilot boarding times are assigned 5 minutes apart, so 20 minutes late is an issue.
Not calling, is the second part of the problem. The night orders and standing orders both say “if for any reason you are unable to follow these instructions call the captain” With a conservative arrival plan 20 minutes can be made up if it’s caught early. But it’s not good to have 45 minutes up your sleeve and then arrive 20 minutes late.
