I accidentally omitted that fact, sorry. It is downright disheartening how much regulatory BS paperwork mates have to complete.
I equate the flight engineer to the watch standing engineer (that went away long ago on most ships). Chief engineer duties have very little in common with flight engineer. And really, I think of all the duties of the captain on a ship, very few are shared with an airplane captain.
A Shame!
Doesn’t matter how important specific duties are. What matters is can they be physically shifted. Duty engineer shifted to room by automation.
Most of chief and captain duties can also be shifted but next move is shoreside via broadband sat comms.
Who then will be the embodiment of authority on board? I think moving paperwork ashore is a great thing though – maybe then you could go back to being captains and engineers. And if the office has a paperwork bleat, they only need to walk over to the next desk to talk about it.
The French also went down the dual certification route. One master I talked to said that it was still work in progress. He didn’t like it and no one wanted to be chief mate.
Still be a captain and chief, but they would get by with C/M and 1 A/E level skills. C/E spends almost all his time in his office, calulating fuel, ordering parts etc. Could be done ashore.
This is already the case on small ships where the captain is standing watch.
I was wondering about disipline on board, wasn’t the catain in this case very young?
Also deep-sea currently captain has the authority to fire. From the other thread on small ships this is done by “HR”. Already captain doesn’t have much authoirty dealing with the crew in that case.
The master was a 28-year-old Dutch national who had been employed for 6 years on board Priscilla as the maritime officer then chief officer. He joined Priscilla 2 weeks prior to the accident on his first contract as master.
That is a rough way to finish your first hitch. On my first chance I was super nervous and all up in the Mate’s business. I’ve calmed down quite a bit nowadays, but if I were going to run through pentland Firth, I’d be on the bridge for sure.
Exactly my thought. I have the impression that they didn’t know where they were in for and that while passing the Merry Men of Mey outside the safe passing period is asking for trouble. Some navigators…
It depends on the sector, on the tugs and coast-wise freighters the mate was expected to handle his watch without calling the captain unless something unexpected happens.
I don’t know about this case in particular but just looking at the chart it doesn’t look difficult, especially if the mate has been through before, no big turns. Adjusting for leeway is not really an esoteric skill unless the current strength catches the mate by surprise.
An academy mate straight out of school maybe not but a mate that has been sailing coastwise maybe it’s routine.
From my WAFI perspective it looks like a pretty exciting place. Of course for me the Sasanoa River had its moments of interest as well. Not least because I traversed it on 9/11/01, and got plenty of interested attention passing BIW…
There’s no way a ship should go through there without the master on the bridge. And there’s no master who would want to go through there without being on the bridge.
I’m not familiar with Pentland Firth, is it more difficult then Seymour Narrows?
From Coast Pilot 8
Continuing northwest, the vessel enters Discovery
Passage and encounters Seymour Narrows, 216 miles
from Seattle, where the current velocity is over 15
knots.
Different sectors do it different. On my first ship as mate Capt came up the first time through Seymour narrows but not the trips after. The mate is expected to handle his watch without the captains assistance.
There are many areas of the world such as Seymour Narrows or the Pentland Firth where once the numerous coastal shipping frequented and after a check passage with the master on the bridge the mate on watch handled the passage on his own. Here we have The Hole in the Wall and French Pass. With the demise of coastal shipping and legislation both are barred from passage by deep sea shipping.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pass
From the Investigation Report:
When Priscilla grounded, the master was already awake and getting dressed in preparation for the Pentland Firth transit; the force of the grounding threw him on to his bunk. He immediately went to the bridge and realised the vessel was aground. The master made one attempt to free Priscilla by putting the engine full astern, but this was unsuccessful. The master sounded the general alarm and the crew was mustered and accounted for.
I knew this would end up with a dick swinging contest. However, I can’t think of a situation whereby I, as master, would be happy to let my ship proceed through there without being on the bridge. No doubt the chief officer is capable, but that’s not the point. I know you like philosophical questions KC so here’s one: Why not be on the bridge?
The Ch.Officer on a small ship trading in Indonesia got annoyed by the old man for always being on the bridge in normal entry and departure from ports until they were clear of the sea buoy.
The old man told him; “I know that you are capable, but you can do something 100 times without an incident. The 101st time something may happen and I’m going to be there”.
(As told by the said Ch.Off.)
A Master that was a regular at Cellar Bar in Singapore back in them days had a different view. He always told stories of accidents and near misses that happened on ships he had been on. He always started the story with; “Mind you I was not on the bridge at the time, but…”
Nothing complicated about it. The captain can’t stay on the bridge 24/7 so a test of some sort could be used.
The captain could ask himself is there is a reason to be on the bridge? For example, does the mate requires assistance? Is his presence is required by regulations, custom or policy? Is there any other reason to be on the bridge?
If the answer to those question is no then there is no reason to be on the bridge.
You seem to be claiming that safely piloting a coast-wise ship in restricted waters is such a rare skill that it is practically inconceivable that a ship could have two people on board with the skills required.
I’m saying that in my experience the mate having the requisite skills is a common thing on smaller coast-wise ships. On the Alaska run it was more or less assumed that the mate would have or could quickly acquire the skills required.
I’m not saying that at all, in fact I specifically said that the mate was no doubt capable. Obviously the captain can’t be on the bridge 24/7 which is why he should pick the times he is on the bridge, and I stick to my original point that an area where 16 knot currents can be expected/experienced is a time the Master should be on the bridge. Not had the pleasure of the Alaska run but have worked the UK coast. Would you stay in your cabin while your car carrier went through the Pentland Firth?
