Our environment, community and security is at risk when it comes to Tugboat Companies that escort Cargo Ships and Fuel Oil Barges within the busy Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach California. Some Tugboat companies choose to severely reduce crewing levels on Tugboats to only a 2 person crew while escorting Cargo Ships and transporting Barges loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel oil used to fuel ships for their next leg of their voyage. While performing these complex tasks, some companies choose to operate with only 1 Captain onboard the tugboat by his or herself to navigate our busy harbors, while the Deckhand boards the Fuel Oil Barge to serve lookout duties and provide the Captain valuable information about any impeding traffic or other hazards while navigating inside our busy harbors. This practice of leaving the Captain on the Tugboat alone is a recipe for disaster. A engineer or equivalent should always remain on Tugboat during these operations, thus reducing the r isk of a environmental hazard and danger to the crew members. Please tell these companies to stop endangering our community, environment and port security, and put safety first instead of profit.
That’s why I signed a petition to The California State House, which says:
“A California State Assembly Bill proposal that would require Tugboat companies to operate with a minimum of 3 crew members when escorting ships and transporting Fuel Oil Barges within the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. No less than 1 Captain, 1 Deckhand and 1 Engineer or equivalent, awake and alert while performing the above operations. Live-aboard Harbor Tugboats will not be excluded from the above rule.”
Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:
First of all kudos to you to actually talking action on a BS situation and not just griping about it. I have worked on many minimally manned vessels and it is a big problem. Most towing vessels should at a minimum be 3-5 man boats depending on wether call out jobs or 24hr crewed. I would probably take a look at your petition if it included all California ports. Restricting it to just LA/LB I doubt it will go far. We have enough patch work laws in CA. Calling for another state bill for something so specific doesn’t really help that situation.
Don’t really know how far it would go anyways. Marine transportation is part of the interstate commerce system (federal regulation) and as such limits states power to regulate manning (amongst other things) on commercial vessels. It is really a problem that needs to be brought to the USCG as it has been before by many (NTSB included). USCG will just do what industry wants though. Case of the tail wagging the dog.
I must first say that I cannot take credit for this petition(I should of stated that on my earlier post). This is a forward of an email I received and thought there would be no better forum than Gcaptain to spread the word on this petition. As a GOM employ myself this petition currently does not affect me, but figure that whatever can help our industry and create just one more job for an American mariner cant hurt. Thanks for your input hopefully this petition gets to the right people in California and does not get shot down right out the gate.
Another quick question on how the USCG has not been looked at for blatantly changing manning/licensing schemes to save boat owners money. To me this seems outrageous how a government agency that tax payers pay for are not in our corner. I mean 750’ATB’s, 330’ OSV’s all manned according to company orders and the USCG just says “Thank you sir may I have another”. Hopefully it does not take a large maritime casualty involving death for the government to see what is happening here.
I don’t know how it is in other places, but I do know that when I worked for Crowley (both on the Gulf and West Coasts), harbor work was done with at least a captain and engineer. In Lake Charles, if there was a boat available at the dock, and a spare captain and engineer, they would not call out a tail tug for the arriving/departing trailer barge and tug. That was the only harbor service we did on the Calcasieu. Since I lived there at the time, I spent more than a few evenings running the river between the industrial canal and sweet smelling Cameron. . .
I also got suckered into a lot of work in the shipyard on my “time off”, but that is the subject of another thread. . .
The minimum and often unsafe manning levels of USCG inspected and un-inspected (but regulated) vessels has been brought up in many serious marine accident investigations. (NTSB, state agencies, etc.) Fatigue is always brought up as a factor. Nothing ever changes though. Those large maritime casualties you speak about have already happened. Over and over again. I worked a 6 on 6 off watch schedule for 4 years on a 28/28 rotation. That schedule should be illegal. Not sure what it would take to have vessels adequately manned (in the true sense of the word, not the COI numbers).
Therein lies the rub. They can mention fatigue all they want in the investigations, but that doesn’t actually mean anything. We’ve got the new STCW, which supposedly helps the situation, but practically speaking all it’s really done is make it a real pain in the ass for management to get everyone’s hours straight. One line I’ve heard says it well: “We don’t set the manning or the schedule, and we have to work within that.” Or something very close to that. Companies won’t voluntarily add more crew either, which is understandable; more crew costs more money. They will only hire as many as the safe manning certificate requires, and maybe, maybe a few more if deemed operationally necessary (for example, the steward department). So it’s down to the authorities (the Coast Guard) to actually look at safe manning and do something about it. And that has to be coupled with inspections of foreign-flag vessels to ensure they’re manned safely–if a foreign vessel isn’t deemed to be manned safely, they don’t get into the US. Apologies for the wall of text, this forum is playing up for me at the moment and it won’t let me do paragraphs.
If you google search, “gCaptain crew fatigue”, they write an article on the problem about at least twice a year. I’ve seen articles in I think workboat magazine or some of the other industry journals.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;121777]If you google search, “gCaptain crew fatigue”, they write an article on the problem about at least twice a year. I’ve seen articles in I think workboat magazine or some of the other industry journals.
Does it ever actually get addressed, nope.[/QUOTE]
I agree with a lot of the above posts in regards to crew fatigue and the Safe Manning Levels of vessels. What I can say is that the boat owner is not going to put extra people on the boat if he’s not being forced to do so. Why would he? On a large OSV an extra person in the wheelhouse and engine room could cost the company close to $500,000/year when you factor in payroll, insurance, 401k, training, etc… Now the guy who put extra people onboard to be “safe” is at a big disadvantage because his payroll is higher and not getting any more money for his boat. I do know that some of the majors pay for extra people onboard such as DP Operators and riggers but this is almost nonexistent on the smaller vessels.
What I can see is that crew fatigue is probably much higher on say a Utility Vessel or Crew boat. Those boats typically are crewed with a (4) person staff and run a lot in the field. So you have a Captain/Mate and Deckhand/Oiler on watch for a 12 hour shift to load/unload cargo, pump fuel/water, bind/unbind cargo, maintenance engines, etc… with the deckhand virtually doing all of it alone. At least on the bigger OSV’s you typically get longer time in port to load/offload as the capacities are much bigger and allows more time for maintenance or catching a little more sleep.
No matter our thoughts its something that needs to be looked into seriously. We tried implementing a 8 on 4 off, 4 on 8 off daily schedule with lots of resistance but those who conformed actually liked it. We ultimately gave up on it as it was a full time battle worrying about it.
I would feel more motivated to sign this petition and get involved if it wasn’t just a California State movement. If it were on the national level, that would pique my interest. I don’t work in California, and hopefully I never will, so whether they do anything about this situation or not doesn’t affect me because any trickle down effect that takes place from state to state would take years, if not decades. The other reason I’m not on the edge of my seat about this is that I can’t stand it when those damn California hippies think that they’re on the cutting edge of legislation every time they pass some damn restriction that makes life harder for honest, hard working Americans. Make no mistake, I’m definitely for disallowing the 6/6 watches, they are the bane of every tugboatman’s existence. I hope they do go away for everyone as quickly as possible, but I’d rather see the USCG come out with a nation-wide ruling on it than those pot-smoking California Communists.
have you ever been to california? pretty sure mariners in california dont smoke pot just like in New England? Plenty of hippies in New England pal. dont kid yourself. any legislation that helps mariners get more sleep is fine with me.
[QUOTE=“PaddyWest2012;121943”]I would feel more motivated to sign this petition and get involved if it wasn’t just a California State movement. If it were on the national level, that would pique my interest. I don’t work in California, and hopefully I never will, so whether they do anything about this situation or not doesn’t affect me because any trickle down effect that takes place from state to state would take years, if not decades. The other reason I’m not on the edge of my seat about this is that I can’t stand it when those damn California hippies think that they’re on the cutting edge of legislation every time they pass some damn restriction that makes life harder for honest, hard working Americans. Make no mistake, I’m definitely for disallowing the 6/6 watches, they are the bane of every tugboatman’s existence. I hope they do go away for everyone as quickly as possible, but I’d rather see the USCG come out with a nation-wide ruling on it than those pot-smoking California Communists.[/QUOTE]
This “pot smoking California Communist” is running mate on a OSV in the “good ole boy network” so until the boys in the south learn/get off theyre asses and are capable of running the equipment being built in theyre own backyard. We are all one unit.
As a California born resident I may not believe in all the southern traditions but this is not about that, this is about more jobs and safety. If this petition was for Lake Charles tugs I would sign it even though it affects me none.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;121943]I would feel more motivated to sign this petition and get involved if it wasn’t just a California State movement. If it were on the national level, that would pique my interest. I don’t work in California, and hopefully I never will, so whether they do anything about this situation or not doesn’t affect me because any trickle down effect that takes place from state to state would take years, if not decades. The other reason I’m not on the edge of my seat about this is that I can’t stand it when those damn California hippies think that they’re on the cutting edge of legislation every time they pass some damn restriction that makes life harder for honest, hard working Americans. Make no mistake, I’m definitely for disallowing the 6/6 watches, they are the bane of every tugboatman’s existence. I hope they do go away for everyone as quickly as possible, but I’d rather see the USCG come out with a nation-wide ruling on it than those pot-smoking California Communists.[/QUOTE]
Brilliant observation from someone that obviously doesn’t know jack-s about California. It would be the same as calling all southerners slack jawed red neck morons or New Englanders liberal “better than everyone else” ass holes. Take your prejudice someplace else. There are still 50 states in the USA and though we may differ those of us in the marine industry sink or swim together. What paradise you live in? Must be heaven there with no hippies, no pot, everyone thinks alike and knows everything.
So what is the USCG response if you’re running a vessel without the proper manning according to the Certificate of Inspection or Documented Vessel Certificate?
[QUOTE=acesouthcoast;121994]Pretty sure all uninspired towing vessels have COI’s. I know ATB’s have them. All the tugs at my company are inspected by ABS every five years.[/QUOTE]
ABS is the classification. If the tug is over 300 GT, it is CG inspected. Under 300 may or may not have COI. If the barge carries petroleum products, it will have a COI.
Yea almost all the tugs I’ve been on have moved petroleum barges. I know they have COI’s cuz I’ve taken them out to see what the exact manning requirements are.
I’ve also sailed on ATBs that were uninspected and SOLAS. The barge of course had a COI.That had the various auditors scratching their heads when they were first delivered.
[QUOTE=acesouthcoast;121994]Pretty sure all uninspired towing vessels have COI’s. I know ATB’s have them. All the tugs at my company are inspected by ABS every five years.[/QUOTE]
Been hittin’ the reefer again like we talked about? Tisk, tisk…