Google is not my friend here,
May I ask what is a knot Ship please
Knot-ships were ships built for Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS), a predecessor of MSC.
Here’s one of many:
USNS Rose Knot - Wikipedia
Maybe ten of them were bought for the Alaska seafood trade in the 1970s and converted to processing boats by enclosing the weather deck.
Examples of ones that worked in Bering Sea fishing trade:
Yardarm Knot
Sealaska
Al-Ind-Esk-Asea
All Alaskan
Ominsea (added as per @KemalPamouk )
I assume that you omitted the finest of them all because she was in a class of her own, the OMNISEA.
The C-1 (motor) class of government sponsored boats…The former m/v Paul H. Townsend ((ex Coastal Delegate/Hickory Coll) ran on the Lakes for decades as a cement carrier. Neat little layout in the engine room.
The Northern Victor is still out there too, right? It’s modded to the hilt, but still one if the great C1Ms.
That, but also while swinging the heading of anchored ship was constantly changing. Never the same twice but typically the rate of heading change seemed highest when the ship reached the end of it’s swing and started back the other way.
The crews putting bunker barges alongside ships at anchor on windy days also deal with this,
Before the days of thrusters it was common for new-ish captains with a year of experience to make perfect landings alongside docks in any kind of wind, only to end up short of the dock in flat calm weather.
Windy landings were the norm. One was always unconsciously calculating the force of the wind, and using it to advantage. Calm landings were the outliers.
The williwaws in Dutch Harbor behind the Spit are the worst. You could be making a landing on a dock on the Mt. Ballyhoo side, approaching the dock against sixty knot gusts blowing down off the mountain. Making turns for 7 knots just to get close to the dock.
Then the wind would suddenly drop, and you’re going too fast. Then within moments the wind would start again— from the exact opposite direction, blowing you hard towards the dock, with way still on. Slam full ahead, hard port, circle back, try again.
Mr. Reintjes builds damn fine reduction gears. We should have blown them up on those landings.
So, after all those heavy-wind landings, in flat calm weather you often ended up stopped parallel to the dock but fifty feet away, the deck crew looking at you as if you’d lost your marbles.
You had unconsciously allowed for a wind that never came, and you would have to go around and try another approach. Embarrassing. It took a little more experience to land in calm weather than rough weather.
I worked in an office in Fremont around Y2K that was still getting junk mail for Yardarm Knot and have friends who like to dive on Al-Ind-Esk-Asea but hadn’t connected the vessels before.
I was never embarrassed by doing whatever it takes in order to not pile up a dock. The old Knot Ships, except for the SeaAlaska, were charmingly engine room controlled, and direct reversible. I developed a level of patience that drives my wife nuts to this day.
One of the significant problems with the current Certificate of Competency system is the lack of formal assessment in ship handling skills.
In the UK’s maritime training system, there’s a heavy focus on aspects that are rarely used at sea, such as intricate navigational and stability calculations, the sextant, and the magnetic compass. While these are important foundational skills, the practical aspects of ship handling are often overlooked.
Sometimes, ship handling is assessed in oral exams using a small wooden model on a table, which doesn’t effectively simulate real-world conditions. This method is insufficient for evaluating a mariner’s actual ability to handle a vessel.
Maritime training in the UK is frequently administered by professionals with extensive deep-sea experience, who may not have had ample opportunities to develop ship handling skills. These captains often spend most of their careers on long ocean passages, delegating ship handling to pilots when arriving at ports, and thus may not engage in hands-on manoeuvring themselves.
Moreover, there’s a noticeable lack of OSV mariners involved in training programs, even in specialized areas like DP. For instance, some conferences on DP expertise feature speakers who, despite their qualifications, may not have practical experience as DPOs. It’s challenging to fully grasp the complexities of DP operations without firsthand experience.
The emphasis in training often leans towards memorization of regulations rather than practical application and understanding. This approach can lead to mariners being well-versed in theory but less prepared for the practical demands of ship handling.
To address these issues, it’s crucial to incorporate rigorous ship handling assessments into the CoC system, perhaps utilizing advanced simulators to replicate real-world scenarios. Additionally, involving experienced OSV mariners in the training and certification process could provide valuable practical insights and enhance the overall quality of maritime education.
Using wind and current to assist you is always better than to try fight against them.
My experience on single screw ships with direct drive (no gear, CPP, or bow thruster) was to use a bow spring line as leverage to bring the ship alongside. Likewise to swing the stern out to get away from the wharf. (Alternatively, using aft spring if the situations required it)
Isn’t simulator training compulsory per STCW’10?
I had examination watch at the local Maritime school here in Ålesund for some years after retirement. I’m pretty sure that at least the Management level student had simulator training as part of their curriculum.
Mr Ladder,
What you say about table top ship handling with a wooden model is totally correct here in the UK. At my Masters Orals I was asked to turn my last ship short round, I did ask if he meant my last ship and was replied yes . My last ship was a UT 704 AHTS so it was rudders hard starboard, port engine ahead stbd engine astern and BT full starboard. And hey presto 
I am quite shocked by what you say about DPO 's not being trained by time served DPO’s
On a separate note during my Pilotage career the times that I said during the MPX that we would be arriving at slack water and the Master saying good. We hated slack water and even worse when there was little wind. Nothing to lean on.
I did work at a Port in Northern Europe that had a fierce tidal stream.
The certification process for mariners has to follow a cookie cutter process for students otherwise it would become prohibitory expensive for the candidates. From the time I had passed Master FG until I did refresher courses the primitive equipment that was the radar simulator had evolved into Bridge Simulators that could mimic ship manoeuvres using tugs.
In contrast Swires had a very good training school in Singapore for all aspects of vessel operation in the offshore not just in DP but also covering stability of OSV’s , running anchors and everything else that is unique to the trade.
I suppose it is comparable to being type qualified in the airline industry and instead of CEO’s complaining about not being able to find the well trained officers they require they should ensure that they provide the training required. This includes tanker endorsements and other requirements for different classes of ships such as draught surveys for Bulk Carriers.
Not required in STCW. It is at the discretion of each administration whether to require it for their certificates.
It is a requirement for Australia and New Zealand certificates.
Early on in this thread there were a discussion about using only/mostly throttles to manoeuvre twin screw boats.
In 1974 I was doing ship and boat deliveries and got a contract to deliver 3 harbour tugs from Singapore to East Africa. (two to Mombasa and one to Dar es Salam)
These were typical Japanese style tugs, built by Hitachi Shipyard in Singapore.
They were equipped with what was called “steerable nozzle” (i.e. the nozzle could turn 45 degr, around the propellers. No rudders)
Similar to this one:
Source: SRIRACHA 41 - Sriracha Tugboat
I had no experience with this type of arrangement, so my first attempt to put the tug alongside was an eye opener. The tug didn’t behave anything like I was used to from either single or twin screw ships/boats.
I ended treating it like a single screw ship, (I.e. nozzles locked in tandem mode) and a bow spring)
I hired a Malay Mate that had been operating similar tugs in Singapore to show me the tricks. The trick was to put both nozzles 45 degr. outboard and used ONLY the throttles.
PS> I sailed the first tug to Dar es Salam myself, but hired a Master for the other two.