Master's Authority in principle and practice

[QUOTE=Yeasty McFlaps;165839]You are sort of right. The Master always has overriding authority with regard to safety. Try telling a drillship master that he’s in charge of the ship. He’ll tell you the same thing. You’re sort of right.[/QUOTE]

Drillships may be an obvious example but it’s not just there. Depends on the sector, the company and so forth.

The perception is of a ship captain as “master under God”, like Capt Ahab on the Pequid but the reality is very different.

This question is a hidden but central theme here when we discus incidents. The perception on this forum seems to be that the all captain have close to 100% control over the vessel at all times but in many cases the reality is very different.

This could be informative. Thanks for posting the question.

Me personally, I think the master is ALWAYS accountable but not always RESPONSIBLE.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165878]I agree that if there is disagreement over who is callling the shots the vessel has a problem. But isn’t the root of that problem the inherent contradiction of the paper/anchor captain set-up?

Are you saying that if the paper captain refuses to accept that he is not the final authority aboard he should be replaced with one who is more compliant?

I think Z-Drive has it right, you can find people that know how to play the game and “get along” but the anchor/paper captain system is going to be more fragile and break under less pressure then the traditional hierarchy where the person ultimately running the show and the master are one and the same.[/QUOTE]

Most vessels of any size face the problem of tension between different goals. There is tension between operations and engineering. This will be resolved optimally when Capt and Chief have a good working relationship. Same situation but more complex on a drillship. There is tension between the need to drill and the captain’s need to keep the ship safe.

Captains are still allowed to perform marriages and maroon disobedient crew right?

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;165896]Captains are still allowed to perform marriages and maroon disobedient crew right?[/QUOTE]

Sure, can still do those things. But the control of most events has shifted to people ashore. For example port control will tell the ship the pilot time but the after most of the crew is up getting the ship ready it will be cancelled because cargo ops of the ship at the pier has run over onto the next shift. I"ve had the crew up most of the night becuse the pilot times confirmed as much as three times then canceled because a ship is still at the berth.

Once you get alongside port officals can come aboard any time and demand whatever. Port State Control can come aboard and demand the full attention of all the senior officers any time for as long as they like. Ship is threated with detention of they don’t get full cooperation. Everything is done on someone else schedule.

Trying to take control is like plea bargining. The captain gets a choice of two bad choices. For example get stuck in a shity anchorage with no room to swing or go out and spend the night in heavy traffic.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165882]Most vessels of any size face the problem of tension between different goals. There is tension between operations and engineering. This will be resolved optimally when Capt and Chief have a good working relationship. Same situation but more complex on a drillship. There is tension between the need to drill and the captain’s need to keep the ship safe.[/QUOTE]

In my experience on drillships and MODUs as well as other vessels the captain and chief get along quite well providing one of them is not a prick [it happens]. Both the captain and chief have the client to answer to as well as the office on shore. They work together very well to keep both happy as best they can, it is a survival thing because when all is said and done the captain or chief can be replaced quickly if the client or shoreside management become unhappy. If the OIM/captain and chief engineer feel like the folks on shore have their back it means a great deal. The days of the captain being some sort of all powerful god are long gone, if they ever actually existed. Shoreside looks at this month’s or quarter’s profit and client satisfaction so they keep the contract, they don’t take the long view. The most successful captains and chiefs I have known are those that don’t really worry about whether they have a job, they worry about their professional standards. They take care of their crew and do their jobs. The crew in one way or another lets shoreside know if the captain or chief is a stand-up guy. You just have to be a leader and someone others want to follow. We all develop our own management methods, some like to emulate the biggest asshole they used to work for, others learn from their past bosses mistakes and strengths. Just ask yourself if you would want to work for someone like you has been my motto. The tension goes when the goal is just to do the best you can and take care of your crew. If that isn’t good enough for the people paying you they will let you know and you can move on to better things.

[QUOTE=tengineer1;165904]In my experience on drillships and MODUs as well as other vessels the captain and chief get along quite well providing one of them is not a prick [it happens]. Both the captain and chief have the client to answer to as well as the office on shore. They work together very well to keep both happy as best they can, it is a survival thing because when all is said and done the captain or chief can be replaced quickly if the client or shoreside management become unhappy. If the OIM/captain and chief engineer feel like the folks on shore have their back it means a great deal. The days of the captain being some sort of all powerful god are long gone, if they ever actually existed. Shoreside looks at this month’s or quarter’s profit and client satisfaction so they keep the contract, they don’t take the long view. The most successful captains and chiefs I have known are those that don’t really worry about whether they have a job, they worry about their professional standards. They take care of their crew and do their jobs. The crew in one way or another lets shoreside know if the captain or chief is a stand-up guy. You just have to be a leader and someone others want to follow. We all develop our own management methods, some like to emulate the biggest asshole they used to work for, others learn from their past bosses mistakes and strengths. Just ask yourself if you would want to work for someone like you has been my motto. The tension goes when the goal is just to do the best you can and take care of your crew. If that isn’t good enough for the people paying you they will let you know and you can move on to better things.[/QUOTE]

Good post, intresting inside look at another sector.

However…my intent in using the words “tension between goals” was not to say there is emotional tension between individuals but rather that solving problems requires a compromise between different goals. I want less risk, chief want less hours on his equipment. I want things on less notice, chief wants more notice. Every time I demand something on short notice chief takes on the risk of a screw-up because sometimes it requires doing things out of sequence so there is greater risk of an error.

Because running the ship at 100 % ops 24 hrs a day is impossible often solving ops problems requires a choice between, for example, having dayworking engineers up at night and running up more hours or taking on more navigaion risk. However shifting too much burden onto engineering can increase the risk of equipment failure or someone making an error which can quickly lead to risk to the entire ship.

I think of it as a triangle. The three sides being the customer, operations and engineering. I can solve problems by shifting the burden towards the ops side or engineering, or I can use more of the customers resources for example by not giving them everything they want.

I always tell chiefs the same thing, we are in this together and if one of us fails we both do. Most of them get it, a few don’t, because old habits die hard I think.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165908]
I think of it as a triangle. The three sides being the customer, operations and engineering. I can solve problems by shifting the burden towards the ops side or engineering, or I can use more of the customers resources for example by not give them everything they want. [/QUOTE]

I would modify your triangle to customer, operations and maintenance&repair. For me operations even includes the daily watchkeeping, constant monitoring of plant/systems/equipment performed by the engine department. Just as deck department has M&R duties. The tension between any departments duties/tasking/responsibilities associated with ops and M&R is a concern I think about daily. Every decent captain I have worked with deals with the same struggle and has understood how I come to prioritize my own work, the work we discuss together and the work he needs me to get done.

I sometimes think the mark of a good captain is not how much he does but how well he does nothing. I do not say this in a pejorative sense. They need to be a stage setter. Make sure all the basics are in place, listen, evalauate, sit back observe, nudge or firmly decide when needed. In the best of cases this authority you speak of is a natural outgrowth of their personality, management and leadership skills. Putting aside all the good natured inter-departmental ball busting I admitt to being in awe of what they have to deal with.

What I do not get at all is how my experience has included so many employers with near pathological, deliberate ignorance of the fact that operating a deep sea, foreign going vessel is not the same as getting in a car, turning a key, moving a lever and stepping on a pedal. “Must be easy, we put automation on ther ship”. That they can’t or won’t understand the difference between ops and M&R. That having a PM system is one thing and keeping the settlers full is another. That might be another thread though.

[QUOTE=KPChief;165910]I would modify your triangle to customer, operations and maintenance&repair. For me operations even includes the daily watchkeeping, constant monitoring of plant/systems/equipment performed by the engine department. Just as deck department has M&R duties. The tension between any departments duties/tasking/responsibilities associated with ops and M&R is a concern I think about daily. Every decent captain I have worked with deals with the same struggle and has understood how I come to prioritize my own work, the work we discuss together and the work he needs me to get done.

I sometimes think the mark of a good captain is not how much he does but how well he does nothing. I do not say this in a pejorative sense. They need to be a stage setter. Make sure all the basics are in place, listen, evalauate, sit back observe, nudge or firmly decide when needed. In the best of cases this authority you speak of is a natural outgrowth of their personality, management and leadership skills. Putting aside all the good natured inter-departmental ball busting I admitt to being in awe of what they have to deal with.

What I do not get at all is how my experience has included so many employers with near pathological, deliberate ignorance of the fact that operating a deep sea, foreign going vessel is not the same as getting in a car, turning a key, moving a lever and stepping on a pedal. “Must be easy, we put automation on ther ship”. That they can’t or won’t understand the difference between ops and M&R. That having a PM system is one thing and keeping the settlers full is another. That might be another thread though.[/QUOTE]

Good point about M&R and ops. Somewhere there is a matrix with tasks that are important / urgent. If tasks that are important but not urgent they tend to get pushed back till they become critical.

But regards to masters authority, I’m not refering to the master’s authority over the crew but with the captains ability to control the operational situation.

For example back in the day ships stayed alongside for days if not weeks getting ready for the next voyage sailing was when the captain thought the ship was ready for sea. Even today when under contract with MSC the sailing orders say something along the lines of: “upon completion of cargo ops and when in all respects ready for sea the vessel will proceed…”

It was never that way on the commercial side but used to be you’d see more finish cargo at or before 1700 (shift change) and sail at 1900. Now more often it’s sail one hour after completion of cargo, no times given. The lack of a fixed time alllows more ships into one berth but imposes a cost upon the ship.

It’s driven by berth space of course, seem like shipping is getting more and more efficent but it’s all coming out of the ship’s account so to speak. It’s seems more like driving a city bus then a ship.

Not just sailing time, bunker times, arrival of stores, techs, port officals, port state control, everything, seem like all events are driven by people ashore.

Sadly there is little left the captain can control except underway. I have been in more than a few meetings where it seemed the people doing the planning and running show considered the captain the bus driver and the chief the mechanic. In the lower level shore-side meetings I see this less but in upper level meetings many times I have come away with that impression.

[QUOTE=KPChief;165910]operating a deep sea, foreign going vessel is not the same as getting in a car, turning a key, moving a lever and stepping on a pedal.[/QUOTE]

+100

This is why more upper management need to be licensed with sea going experience.

Some masters need to be reminded that their overriding authority only applies for issues of safety and safety alone. Some on them seem to think it gives them the right to tell people to get on their knees and suck.

[QUOTE=follow40;166005]Some masters need to be reminded that their overriding authority only applies for issues of safety and safety alone. Some on them seem to think it gives them the right to tell people to get on their knees and suck.[/QUOTE]

Federal law requires all crew to follow all lawful orders. The masters authority isn’t limited to telling people to do what the ISM manual says they are supposed to do and “master’s overriding authority” is just his authority to do contrary to company policy because of specific safety concerns. You still have to do anything he tells you to do that isn’t forbidden by company policy or otherwise illegal, that’s the nature of being a seaman.

But of course he’s still not considered to be management…

The ferry Sewol had stability and overloading problems. The steady master reported problems to the company, the company reportedly responded by threatening to fire him. The relief captain was in command on the Sewol’s final voyage.

Does anyone believe that the Sewol’s master had the authority to address the problems? Could the captain have used better leadership, management skills and charisma to reduce overloading and increase crew training?

In my experience with salvage, I can say the Salvage Master runs the show during an operation. It is not uncommon for a Salvage Master to direct a tug into precarious situations with higher possibility of a grounding, hull breach, or injury. I am not sure how much it holds true, but we were told the Salvage Master takes the responsibility.

The Captain can always tell the Salvage Master no, but risk is the nature of the job.

[QUOTE=Deviated;166035]In my experience with salvage, I can say the Salvage Master runs the show during an operation. It is not uncommon for a Salvage Master to direct a tug into precarious situations with higher possibility of a grounding, hull breach, or injury. I am not sure how much it holds true, but we were told the Salvage Master takes the responsibility.

The Captain can always tell the Salvage Master no, but risk is the nature of the job.[/QUOTE]

I"ve no salvage experience but presumably even if the Salvage master is in charge of the overall operation the vessel master would still be responsible for the vessel. I would think that being able to evaluate the risk to the vessel would be within the expertise of the vessel’s master.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;166033]The ferry Sewol had stability and overloading problems. The steady master reported problems to the company, the company reportedly responded by threatening to fire him. The relief captain was in command on the Sewol’s final voyage.

Does anyone believe that the Sewol’s master had the authority to address the problems? Could the captain have used better leadership, management skills and charisma to reduce overloading and increase crew training?[/QUOTE]

What the master had, unfortunately, was the ultimate responsibility to refuse to sail an unsafe vessel or in an unsafe condition. I say unfortunately because there is no recourse for companies saying “you do it or we’ll find someone who will”. The company will find some dupe to take it and have an accident even if you stand your ground. Sadly there is no jail time for negligent companies. Get stuff in writing to cover your ass.

In this country an anonymous phone call to the USCG can accomplish a lot.

One time at a Company not to be named, a Newer Captain was “Talked” into sailing into weather that was considered not safe by a Seasoned Mate. Now, this Company had a Policy that ANYONE could stop an unsafe act.

This unfolded over almost a day as at first the New Captain was not wanting to sail into an on coming storm but Chartering wanted him to go. After quite a few hours the Captain finally got tired of fighting and decided to sail. The Mate and Chief Engineer said No and called the office to notify them of them “Stopping an Unsafe Act”. Both the Mate and Chief Engineer were Fired!

This Mate was well liked by the office and was considered a “Fare headed Boy” (A Office Ass Kisser) by most of the other boat crews. Even those that did not really care for this Mate spoke up about his being fired and were told to shut up by the office as they could be replaced as well.

I remember when the Airlines started using the Line “Any Member of our Flight or Ground Crews could ground a plane for any sign of a problem” but it was also known that while they could do this they would also be replaced with a person that would allow the flight to leave.

Several years later this Boat sank during a storm!

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165915]
But regards to masters authority, I’m not refering to the master’s authority over the crew but with the captains ability to control the operational situation.[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes of course I see what you are getting at now. Perhaps then the last comment in my post was germane after all. I have thought about this often too. Of course the reality of the master’s authority has changed over time. And with his all of ours too.

While it is too easy to blame the first tier of knuckleheaded sand crabs in the office, I suspect the truth lies deeper down (or higher up if you please).

I keep thinking this business changed for the worse when the nature of ship owning changed. My working theory is a ship owner used to be an individual or family run entity or a tightly held public company something with people in the highest levels of running the show that had some strong significant ties to what they were doing including intimate knowledge of ship operations (above and beyond ship “management”). That at some level they were genuinely interested in operating a shipping company, perhaps even enjoyed it. Make a profit sure but that was only one component of their motivation. (When something went wrong management might ask: “what are we doing wrong”).

When direct management changed from technically knowledgeable folks to (for lack of a better generalization) MBA’s and motivation shifted from doing it better and achievement to stock price the path to present conditions was set. (When something went wrong management might ask/say: “this would be a good business if not for those idiots on the ship, why can’t they do this right?, why didn’t they tell us that crack was a problem?, why didn’t they tell us they can’t retain good seamen?”)

Couple to this IMO and the more active role in ship management rules they decided to take - one part ISO quality standards, one part “good” ideas of multi-nation regulatory personnel, shake, pour over the maritime world. (When something goes wrong they say “why didn’t they document x, y, z while we had them trying to to their jobs while trying to conform to all the procedures we published in an almost incoherent format? Quick jump to a conclusion and issue a new procedure with new forms immediately!”)

Once you had an executive management team occupied only with shareholder value (or more precisely, what financial industry thinks is value) its not a far trip to do more with less, some incidents, some poor press and bingo, shareholder pressure from a different direction. Some time later expect to get a ISM code and the requirement for a safety management system including a DPA, internal audits, external audits, PSC inspections.

I think it is worthy to note that if you were doing it right from the beginning you probably already had a management system and procedures and forms and reports. You just didn’t call it a SMS. Now don’t go thinking I am against reducing incidents, injuries, harm to the environment, etc. I just remember actively trying to achieve those goals as a ships officer and port engineer before the ISM code. Authority and accountability seemed clear enough then.

Pick your cliche, knee-jerk reactions, pendulums swinging. A sequence of maritime incidents at a point in history when news media and public opinion and elected officials can spin each other up to act whether ill considered or not (do something, anything) and you’ve got yourself a new way of doing things. I just have to wonder if this was the best thing to do about it. It’s not that a SMS is inherently bad but as we look at what has been implemented at our companies can we say this is a better way of doing it or incrementally worse? Is it reasonable to expect a system of policies, a procedure manual, a system for collecting and correcting non-conformities can change the attitudes and motivations of the owners? After all were’t there polices and procedures, incident reports, analysis, corrective actions before?

Perhaps it was inevitable. There have always been irresponsible ship owners. Many times others (crew, passengers, general public, environment) pay for their mistakes. That is tragic and probably even criminal in some cases. Those owners should get what they deserve (but rarely do). To the extent ISM would hold this new class of owners responsible for their decisions it is a good thing. But I have to ask, has the ISM code and PSC enforcement driven any unscrupulous owners out of the business? Has any DPA been punished for not advancing a crew concern to upper management. Has any upper management tried to use the DPA as a buffer to avoid being held accountable?

And to your original point, has the ISM code had any unintended consequences? Such as the perception (reality) that the master’s (crew’s) authority is devolving in this management environment that has evolved in the wake of ISM. Has any crew member experienced a negative response to bringing a concern to the DPA?

Has the nature of ship owners changed because of all this? Have they all of sudden realized that making any profit at all depends on the safe and efficient operation of their ships by a crew and shore staff that actually care about what they are doing and that might have professional attitudes about their jobs? Or has ISM been poorly implemented and led to way of doing things just viewed (by ship owners) as just another hurdle (mandatory cost) to jump over on the way of squeezing more out of less? I would say no, their nature has not changed at least not in any positive way.

Disclaimer: Yes I know the above is full of generalizations and I know all ship owners are not the same, yes I know some may still even be of the older ilk where they actually would recognize a ship if they saw one, that they remain dedicated to their business, possibly a family or industry heritage and resist performance art for shareholders and still manage a fair profit.