New3M.
That’s a great CELNAV PDF, thanks for sharing! About your ideas concerning who, how many and why folks are on the bridge of a Navy ship, you are confused.
This is about the best article I have seen regarding the captain’s relationship with the chief, from Manu’s Scripts
Communicate with the Chief Engineer first. He is critical. More critical than the Chief Officer, because, in a crunch, you can do that man’s job but not the Chief Engineer’s. Start building trust. What are his problems? What are the machinery and manpower issues? Is he finding enough time for preventative maintenance? Any safety or other issues? Anything broken down now? Waiting for important spares? Are things good at home?
[quote=Jeffrox;15344]New3M.
That’s a great CELNAV PDF, thanks for sharing! About your ideas concerning who, how many and why folks are on the bridge of a Navy ship, you are confused.[/quote]
Not that confused, I think. I’ve been on the bridge of Navy ships and there are a hell of a lot of people up there.
When I was a new 3rd Mate a Navy Captain came up to the bridge while I was on watch. My AB was chipping and painting on the bridge wings, so it was just me. First the Navy Captain asked “Where is everybody?” I say “Right here.” He says “Who’s watching the Radar?” I say “I am.” Then asks about the chart table, wheel, look out, radio, etc. I told him I was on all of that. Then asks how old I was. I told I was 21. He got a little pale and asks “You’re not in charge of the whole ship are you?” Pretty much, until noon, I tell him. The guy could not believe it.
You should have seen his face when he found out I was making about as much money in my first year on the job as he was after 25 years in the Navy.
[I]Technical manager or superintendent is a different job than fleet manager. I think I said that. Fleet manager, vessel manager, DPA, whatever the company calls it, is usually the one in charge of the operations of the vessel. And this person is usually a Master. The technical superintendent is usually an engineer and they are in charge maintenance, Class issues, yard work, and regulatory issues that are technically oriented.
Do you think this not the case in most companies?
[/I]Ok ,Sean will reply on this one last time, because i can see you’re a confused. I will tell you the trend and that is the reality. Usually a very large fleet is divided into fleet 1 and 2/ 3… Each fleet has technical superintendents who are the PICs. They are in charge of interacting with Vessel ‘command’ and we refer that to include the Chief Engineer also. He (the PIC) is the one that manages the day to day activity.
We do have Personnel departments in different countries. We have Captains there heading those departments. Hiring crew and stuff and they report to what we call the Technical Head Office in another different Country. The Technical Office is where ‘everthing’ about the Ship fleet operations and trouble is managed from. Everything. But the Tech HO is reporting to a small Office in another country, where the Owner sits. The Owner has a small advisory team.
For all practical purposes and emergencies, all 40 ships in our fleet report to the Tech HO. Unfortunately they are all Engineers. In our Company even the DPA is also a C/E, and so is the CSO. We have added around a dozen ships in the last year and a half, being built in China, Japan and Phillipines. We station for overseeing the buildup Engineers again. Takeover crews we only call C/E, 2/E and sometimes E/O around 2 months before. The Master and mate we bring in around 15 days before. A few days before sea trials.
I travel Singapore, HK, Mumbai, Dubai very often. I see the world fleet as it is. It’s almost the same in every other office. There is a reason why i started this topic, that shore based management styles are conflicting with onboard management or rather the Command based management style. While we have reconciled and changed quite a bit, we are unable to bring in such changes. The reasons we can see quite a bit here. That there are a large number of people in positions of ‘Command’ who are not capable of being receptive to new ideas. Let alone conjecture actual change.
A Ship is basically nothing but Steel, Cargo, Machinery. Every operation on board is an Engineering operation. You cannot do anything of significance on board without the need of an Engineering system. Yet if you can see the tragedy replays in many replies on this thread. Dismissal as a ‘blackbox’ to outright namecalling. And then lastly a revelation for the Command:
Communicate with the Chief Engineer first. He is critical. More critical than the Chief Officer, because, in a crunch, you can do that man’s job but not the Chief Engineer’s. Start building trust. What are his problems? What are the machinery and manpower issues? Is he finding enough time for preventative maintenance? Any safety or other issues? Anything broken down now? Waiting for important spares? Are things good at home?
If this is what is being ‘taught’/ suggesetd and reminded to the Command to realize what is critical, i would be every bit correct stating, the present ‘Command’ do not realize how ships really run and he engineering and human criticality factors in place, so important and essential to comprehend. This statement should not be some revelation.
It should NOT be the ‘best’ article read on Chief-Master relationships. It reflects the starkest and saddest reality: That Masters have not realized how important the Chief Engineer is to the operation of the vessel, and they have to be reminded and exhorted to something which should be the very basic 101 of those who are responsible in running ships.
The ‘Command’ System is indeed interfering in safe operations as many Masters, don’t really consider the Chiefs 4 stripes equivalent to theirs and feel more dependent on their dept side on the Second in ‘Command’ who feels he is equivalent to the Chief Engineer. When a C/E blasts out in frustration at a mate, most Masters inevitably support the mate. He ends dishing out a CR thats utterly idiotic and vindictive on the Chief. Fact is some of our best Chiefs get the worst reports from the Masters.
This is repeating across the Industry. And there is frustration, we cannot retain Engineers. Many times we are desperate and end up paying a much higher salary to the Chief than the Master, because of the demand and supply situation and then big ego headaches on board again. We increase Masters salary too, hitting the bottomline inconsistent with the demand and supply economics that markets need to run.
My idea was not to deride. But to bring reality home, closer to what truth really should be. And in the process interact with the professionals who might be the key to a better response and improvement in the Industry.
Self deleted. Post repeated inadvertantly.
New 3M said:
If you bothered to look anywhere on the internet, including what appears to be your favorite sites, Google and Wikipedia, you would see that the Naval Academy does indeed teach Celestial. In 1998, they didn’t stop teaching celestial, but stopped teaching the use of SEXTANT’s. They still teach celestial.
Sean said Page 3:
The art of navigation requires more than a modicum of intelligence. At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with “average” intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program?
Well if ‘Quarter Master types’/ ‘midship man types’ in the Navy do that, you must question yourself, possibl Sean, and not me if it is such a really highly skilled activity, that the Navy would delegate the learning of it to people who are not exactly ‘Officers’.
[quote=Allwyn;15375]Takeover crews we only call C/E, 2/E and sometimes E/O around 2 months before. The Master and mate we bring in around 15 days before. A few days before sea trials.
[/quote]
Why don’t you bring the Master on earlier than that?
The art of navigation requires more than a modicum of intelligence. At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with “average” intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program?
What do you need, a bone bag and juju stick?? I learned using HO 214, 229 and 249 before calculators were affordable.
[I]Why don’t you bring the Master on earlier than that?
[/I]Good question. But familiarizing with the machinery systems takes more time. Many new systems are are installed. Like purifiers and their microprocessor controls, it’s always best to familiarize with equipment while their manufacturer representatives are in the Yard and they keep coming and going over a period. We’re concerned that people familizrize themselves with he engineering part somehow. Trust me it’s not easy on the Engineers, taking over.
All the ballast systems, winches, deck machinery tests are alread tested in the present of Class and the attending Engineer Supt. We need the Captain to familiarize himself with basically the tested equipment on board. The final tests on designed redundancies on Bridge equipment is also almost carried out near the Sea trials stage and thats just a week or two before trials. Thats the time, the Yard too calls in the JRC and associated folks.
Why do you think the Master need be called earlier? Will be glad to hear in case we missing something there.
[LEFT][quote=injunear;15382]What do you need, a bone bag and juju stick?? I learned using HO 214, 229 and 249 before calculators were affordable.[/quote]
Celestial is not very hard. Anyone can plug in numbers, but you CAN NOT learn celestial using tables, or calculators. You learn that on the bridge wing.
After really thinking bout it, I’m starting to like Allwyn’s idea of the C/E being in command, and the liability that goes along with it.
I can see it now.
A large ocean going tug is towing a MODU through an oil field in adverse weather conditions, The master of the MODU decides to unlock one of his stern anchors, but the crew inadvertently drops the anchor on a 16" oil pipeline. Even though the tug was not aware of the situation, the tug master is ultimately responsible for and liable for the tow. This includes dropping the anchor on the MODU. Even though this took place and the master of the towing vessel was fired, this would now fall on the C/E.
Being in “command” is not a pissing contest between skill-sets of the bridge and engine room, it’s a question of liability when all goes wrong. IF that monkey is taken off my back, with everything being the same. That’s fine with me!
[/LEFT]
[quote=Allwyn;15384]
Why do you think the Master need be called earlier? Will be glad to hear in case we missing something there.[/quote]
I wonder if two weeks are enough for the Master to learn the layout, prepare himself for emergency management, develop procedures, etc. along with spending some time below decks to learn what the engineers have to work with? When I sail as Master I want to know how the engines work too. Most are bridge control now anyway so your Mates and Masters better know what they are working with. What about the other Master who will be relieving him? Does he get any shipyard or pre-sea trial time to find his way around?
It’s fair to say that the new automation and technical equipment are foreign to some Masters but if you don’t give them a chance to learn it (and pay for OEM training ashore) you’re setting them up for failure.
the present ‘Command’ do not realize how ships really run and he engineering and human criticality factors in place, so important and essential to comprehend. This statement should not be some revelation.
Who said it was a revelation? It what all good masters know, I posted it because it is from an experienced master and well stated.
As far as the command not understanding how ships are run, that’s nonsense. Running ships is what the command does.
With regards to the command structure if we look at the aviation side the senior pilot is the captain and he/she is in command of the aircraft. In fact commercial aircraft had flight engineers at one time. There were three crew, the captain, 1st officer and flight engineer in that order of seniority. You’re argument seems to be that because engineering systems are so complex the chief should be in command but the that was not the approach taken by the aviation side. Aircraft are more complex then ships and also operate in a less forgiving environment. I don’t hear any calls to bring the flight engineer back much less put one in charge.
I don’t have any issue with the pecking order on board. My pieve is the shrinking engine room crew as I mentioned in a previous rant. Automated engine rooms and auto load shareing equipment are fine as long as everything works properly. I guess I shouldn’t bitch as my first consulting check has just arrived.
The liability thing can swing both ways. When the Lykes ship took out the first container crane in Galveston, the 3rd asst took the hit I believe. We had a pilot run us aground 20 odd years ago. He claimed we lost an engine. I proved we lost it after we ran aground. The master lost his license for a year. The pilot skated.
It’s slightly off topic. I just got interested about a couple of posts ( capt. nemo and allywin) that mentioned that modern airlines don’t carry GPS on board. I asked my brother who’s an airline pilot (delta) and it’s true. Most airliners today don’t carry GPS relying instead on a much inferior system called IRS. Hard to believe.
Just getting back in . . . Here is the point that the old man was trying to make; as the officer, you are the one who responsibility and accountability will fall upon. The CG or an ambulance chaser will not care if a 15 yr AB thought it was a good idea, if an officer approves, HE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE. That is command, not management. On the beach a CEO/COO/CFO can pass the buck on down the line and may have his liability limited for decisions. An officer in the merchant marine will not.
Haven’t we been over this before?
Ultimately it is the owner who puts the master in charge of a ship. If owners were unhappy with the present system they would be pushing for change.
The chief’s problems are not lack of command authority, the main problems are lack of spares, lack of proper tools, insufficient time for maintenance and repairs, eng crew not familiar with equipment, poor quality fuel, lack of shoreside support, poor communication with port engineers.
Anyone who thinks a career in the engine room make one qualified to command a ship at sea does not understand what’s involved.
[I]HE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE. That is command, not management. On the beach a CEO/COO/CFO can pass the buck on down the line and may have his liability limited for decisions. An officer in the merchant marine will not. [/I]
Every such operation is a management operation. As i mentioned it before, these are not complex ops. What you described is subjective. The aim of good Management is always to simplify. He does something wrong when he was arrogant and unprepared enough not to listen to available saner advise, is possibly the biggest reason to nail him. Modern Managements do not endeavour to BLAME the individual. We are leaning to ‘blame’ the Management on board more for non-implementation of the SMS system. And the Captain is not the sole person being blamed. The Chief Engineer also must take and report/ grade/ audit the entire ship every 3 months. The Captain too. The give their grades and point out deficiencies for example.
Not to blame individuals is a very FUNDAMENTAL basic of the Safety Management System (SMS) on board, specially when i well implemented. When you analyze ‘non confirmities’, do you blame people? Or do you evolve better training procedures/ eliminate the hazard/ create awareness/ put, post hazard indicators? The whole idea of an SMS is to evolve on safety. And you won’t realize, without your subjective stress on ‘Command responsibility’ how big a success it has been even though it still is very modestly implemented and does not find much support amongst those who vouch for ‘Command’.
Your responsibility as a Captain and the C/E’s is primarily the task to implement the Management system effectively and point out deficiencies that you ma observe during operations. If there’s a UFO cropping up midsea and attacking the vessel, sorry most Offices haven’t developed a procedure for that. And we’ll leave that to the good judgement of the Captain, and won’t blame him if something happens. But if there’s a small fire coz that becomes big simply because the extinguisher charges were say expired, we’ll blame those responsible for not implementing a given.
Same as with the 3/M instead of training him COMMAND, you must be telling him about the best practises and keeping an OPEN mind. The operation is not the complex part, it is the planning you have put into it to prevent operational hazards that is key to safer operations.
And yes, teaching the young 3/m that and telling him to keep an open mind, like all modern management systems teach. And thats why the example you gave regarding the 3M about Command, conflicts with the ability to implement modern standards.
Ironically, towards that end we have encouraged motormen and Juniors in the ER, that the have a right to disobey the C/E’s, 1/Es Command. If the C/E Commands a junior to fix something like a magic pipe or do anything environmentally illegal under normal operations, they must be disobeyed. We will not haul up the Junior for disobeying ‘Command’.
Because in such cases, unfortunately criminal responsibility is being entailed on whosoever does such an act. The Motorman will face the same legal consequences as a Captain under the laws of most Countries. And in cases where the Master and C/E are held, they might just ditch ‘command responsibility’ and blame Juniors to escape imprisonment. Truely, when faced with a few years and such happens all bravado on ‘Command and responsibility’ fade faster than the realization you’re squealing under the classic ‘Prisoners dilemna’.
When we talk of ‘responsibility’, it is a very subjective thing and if you think a little it indeed is. Dictators governing nations are ‘responsible’ people. Very ‘responsible’ indeed. It’s what they stake thats important. They stake their Nation, not themselves. The stakes are played on scant regards to a lot of principles of good governance and involvement. Similar to the advise given to the 3M…Command, but don’t listen to good advise, even if available. Pure rhetoric…and dangerous too.
To say CEOs and CFOs don’t have ‘responsibility’ is not correct, though many function as irresponsibly as those in ‘Command’ . Those who wilfully and purportfully undermined the system are prosecuted. If you implement a modern management system, you have a responsibility. If you command…ironically you underplay responsibility. Most mishaps are happening under people who overplay Command, mostly in a very subjective and romantic manner. Good for the golf course or for the uninitiated, but those who talk the maximum Command, will push blame desperately on someone they ‘commanded’ when faced with ‘his honor’. Exactly like the Captain advised the 3/M on Command…YOU are responsible.
[I]Ultimately it is the owner who puts the master in charge of a ship. If owners were unhappy with the present system they would be pushing for change.
[/I]The owner of my Company hardly knew anything about shipping when he stared investing in this business a decade or so back. And most of the ship owners know little, like mine. Owners don’t appoint ‘Masters in Command’: The Law does. While applicable in the last century, i wonder why it is in this one. Thats why i asked about it’s inviolabilty.
Is it possible, to have a Cargo Engineer who do all the deck work that the mate does today, and also assist the C/E where week long breakdowns in cranes occur and where the Mate/ Master cannot assist him. Is it possible to have a team of people on board with total responsibility to implementing and enhancing the SMS and not reliant on the Command System. Maybe we have a better and safer ship.
Margins are down so much in shipping it’s unbelievably hard to run things. And one thing that i wanted to come here in the end was also reduction in the size in Office establishments. How about just very few people managing a 100 ships. It’s possible, yes, but for that we need changes on board. It’s not necesarilly taking away ‘command’ from Navigators, but exploring the possibility that the owners/ their representatives can choose according to routes and types of ships, who they would like to have be a Chief Exec on board a ship, a Navigator or Engineer. What expenses it would entail and would it enhance the aspects of the Management system. Let them, instead of the law have a chance.
“How about just very few people managing a 100 ships”
How about just very few people operating a 100 ships?
Allwyn, your obvious objective is to eliminate trained, professional mariners…or at least deck officers. Engineers seem to be golden. Does “management” take credit when nothing goes wrong or blame when it does? The answers are yes and no.
Being economically efficient is important. Being cheap is stupid. You tend one direction more than the other. I don’t think I need to specify which way you lean.
[quote=Allwyn;15481][I]Ultimately it is the owner who puts the master in charge of a ship. If owners were unhappy with the present system they would be pushing for change.
[/I]The owner of my Company hardly knew anything about shipping when he stared investing in this business a decade or so back. And most of the ship owners know little, like mine. Owners don’t appoint ‘Masters in Command’: The Law does. While applicable in the last century, i wonder why it is in this one. Thats why i asked about it’s inviolabilty.
Is it possible, to have a Cargo Engineer who do all the deck work that the mate does today, and also assist the C/E where week long breakdowns in cranes occur and where the Mate/ Master cannot assist him. Is it possible to have a team of people on board with total responsibility to implementing and enhancing the SMS and not reliant on the Command System. Maybe we have a better and safer ship.
Margins are down so much in shipping it’s unbelievably hard to run things. And one thing that i wanted to come here in the end was also reduction in the size in Office establishments. How about just very few people managing a 100 ships. It’s possible, yes, but for that we need changes on board. It’s not necesarilly taking away ‘command’ from Navigators, but exploring the possibility that the owners/ their representatives can choose according to routes and types of ships, who they would like to have be a Chief Exec on board a ship, a Navigator or Engineer. What expenses it would entail and would it enhance the aspects of the Management system. Let them, instead of the law have a chance.[/quote]
I really do not understand where this is going. Fine, an engineer on the deck and not a mate. OK, that’s great…good idea. A Chief Exec on board a ship. OK, that’s great…pretty much what we got now. A well trained crew conversant in the SMS that promotes safety aboard the ship. OK, that’s great…I can say our crew is safe now.
What exactly is being advocated here? I’m really not sure.
What responsibilities and liabilities are being shifted around here? It almost reads as nothing at all.