Another impressive Pelican…<embed height=“350” width=“425” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” id=“VideoPlayback” quality=“high” pluginspage=“http://macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” wmode=“transparent” src="http://www.youtube.com/v/arpIBn7AH_0&NR=1]</embed>
tengineer,
Your post is written exactly like someone that has never taken the training that you’re trying to defend. That is a common mistake and I assure you that a 4 hour lecture about steam turbines to an anchor captain is not a minimum standard to anything other that stupidity. In fact, I think I forgot most, if not all of that lecture because I haven’t thought about it since.
I learned something in that class. Don’t do tequila shots at Elbow Room the night before and expect to remember your name the next day.
"Your post is written exactly like someone that has never taken the training that you’re trying to defend. That is a common mistake and I assure you that a 4 hour lecture about steam turbines to an anchor captain is not a minimum standard to anything other that stupidity. In fact, I think I forgot most, if not all of that lecture because I haven’t thought about it since."
Anchorman,
I agree that explaining steam turbines to an ‘anchor captain’ is stupid if that is all they ever aspire to be. I’m old school, I believe that if you’re going to call yourself captain should have at least a passing knowledge of the means of propulsion of pretty much all vessels you realitically could claim to be able to serve on. Perhaps you’d prefer to have a license noted as “only qualified as ‘captain’ on anchor boats”, not row boats, not MSVs,not ships… nothing but anchor boats.
There are two schools of thought here as I see it. Those who aspire for maritime career that may encompass working on many different sorts of vessels during a long career and wish to have a broad knowledge both for their personal satisfaction and their future professional advancement. Then there are those who only want to pass the abolute minimum requirements necessary to get the license which will give them an increased pay or bragging rights
Hey genius. Any passing knowledge would be better gained on the vessel when you get there. Even two steam “sister ships” will have their own idiocincricies that you better know. I guess the 4 hour lecture in a class room will substitue for this debrief in your opinion. Being a Jack of all trades and a master of none doesn’t make any sense in the real world.
I will not argue with someone as dumb as you when I know damn well that you haven’t attended one STCW Chief Mate course. Maybe you should carry your school of thought iin the nearest classroom and learn something since that’s your preference.
Anchorman,
“I will not argue with someone as dumb as you when I know damn well that you haven’t attended one STCW Chief Mate course. Maybe you should carry your school of thought iin the nearest classroom and learn something since that’s your preference.”
Nope, haven’t attended one STCW chief mate course, I’m an engineer.
I appreciate knowledge and I do like to increase my ‘school of thought’, but that’s just me, call me dumb if you like.
My point all along is a captain or engineer license should stand for something. If you were inconvienced by being required to take a course that you deemed not needed I am sorry for you, but the people that put these regulations in place don’t have time to consult each individual and custom design a curriculum for them. The IMO along with all the nations in the world that are members agreed that these are minimum standards for someone who professes to be a professional mariner. I don’t always agree with their decision but I also didn’t feel it necessary to take European history while in school, though in later years it served me well.
The best 28 day hitch I spent as a Mate in the GOM was the 28 days I spent in the engine room before breaking out as Master. When I go to a new boat I always ask the C/E to let me tag along with him until I know that I can go to the basement and do any routine operation that might be called for. If the C/E goes down I don’t want to sit up in the wheelhouse and have to wonder what the fuck to do next.
Capt Anonymous,
You were the kind of captain we engineers look forward to working with. I worked primarily on ships and was required as chief to be either on the bridge or in the control room whenever the ship was entering or leaving port, therefore time spent on the bridge was a part of my life. Having a captain who had a rough idea of what was going on down in the engine room when the proverbial shit hits the fan is invaluable.
On another note; it was shocking to some new 3rd mates to learn that should the captain be incapacitated for any reason the chief engineer would be the senior officer, they usually assumed it would be the chief mate. This actually happened to me one time in the middle of a 21 day voyage and it was a smooth transition during a terrible time thanks to the team work we had established during our normal work routine.
Tengineer,
I don’t think that is correct. With OICNW a C/E cannot be incharge of a navigatonal watch. If i am incorrect please let me know where I can find this in the CFR’s or STCW because as far as I know it dose not exist. <strong>Chief Mate is defined in 46 CFR 10.104 reads"chief mate means the deck officer next in seniority to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of the incapacity of the master" </strong>If you were allowed to take command the chief mate onboard was an idiot. I don’t know who keeps making this stuff up about the C/E being next in command!!!
Yeah tengineer 46 CFR 10.104 is pretty explicit. This is the first time I’ve heard about a C/E claiming command responsibility of the vessel in the event the Master is incapacitated. Can you elaborate on the point for us? If the C/E goes down does the C/M take over downstairs? Sounds like an evil C/E fantasy to me although a wise Master (and hopefully his Mates) is always aware who truly runs the boat.
I told you he was an idiot. I’m glad that I didn’t have to do the explaining. Case in point.
Never said I was in charge of any navigation watch. I was told when this incident happened that I was the senior officer of the ship while the captain remained incapacitated. It’s some sort of admiralty law thing.
Addendum:
In order to clarify I called someone who was on that ship at that time and asked him what he remembered of that incident. He remembered it clearly as he was the one taking the telex communications from the office. He said that according to the company’s attorney’s if the chief mate did not have a master’s ticket the chief engineer was responsible for the safety of the ship, crew, cargo and was the representative of the company in all administrative matters during the captain’s incapacity [he was in a coma] until such time as a master could be delivered to the ship at the next port. He even remembered my one order to the bridge crew which I had forgotten. He said when I finished reading the last telex I looked at the chief mate and said, ‘for God’s sake don’t run into anything’
"Sounds like an evil C/E fantasy to me"
No, more like a bad dream.
When I was a young second engineer we had just finished doing an underway overhaul and everyone had been up for well over 24 hours. When it was all done we were sitting around in the mess when I mentioned it sure would be easier being a mate and maybe I’d switch over. The old chief looked at me and said,“What the hell would you want to do such a thing for? For God’s sake they’re letting women up there, then again you might look good in a dress.”
There’s no regulatory language that compels a C/M to hold a Master’s license, yet the CFRs clearly state that the C/M assumes command of the ship in the event the Master is incapacitated. How does it work in the engine department? If you drop, and your first has no C/E license, what happens? He’s the de facto C/E until the company can get a license on board. I realize that any self-respecting first already has his C/E license, I’m just trying to illustrate my point.
I think your company’s attorney needs to go back to attorney school. I can certainly understand how a company, through internal policy, might delegate specific responosibilities to the C/E in such an event, but they cannot circument the CFRs at the advice of counsel. And, even in they did there’s nothing to prevent the Master (or acting Master) to override company policy if, in his professional opinion, the safety of the ship, her crew, and her cargo justify his decision. I can’t for the life of me even fathom why an engineer would want to assume command of the ship. Isn’t that why you become engineers in the first place?
This was not US flagged ship, the CFRs are USA rules. This was a ship on the high seas flagged in Singapore and believe me this company had some of the best admiralty lawyers money could buy.
Ah, as we drill down the facts reveal themselves… Well, in that case I’d personally rather have an American C/E (assuming your nationality is such) in charge than some wacked out foreign C/M.
Thanks for the compliment but the chief mate was very competent and went on to serve as master on container ships until his retirement. Please excuse me for confusing people but prior to becoming involved in my present part time career I was regularly employed on vessels in international commerce under many flags including the US flag. International admiralty law and rules of commerce on the high seas can be very different from the cut and dried rules of operating a vessel in the confines of ones flag state.
What added liabilty does the C/E assume for being called the senoir officer if not including the navigation watch?
Anchorman,
as stated previously:
"He said that according to the company’s attorney’s if the chief mate did not have a master’s ticket the chief engineer was responsible for the safety of the ship, crew, cargo and was the representative of the company in all administrative matters."
Tengineer