[QUOTE=+A465B;171115]
So what first steps can we, the readers here, [U]actually[/U] make, even simple things, to change the course of safety management aboard our own ship and organizations? …
More money, more guvvermint’ and more time isn’t going to count.
[/QUOTE]
You’re going to hate this, but I think it is more “guvvermint.” I think we (you really, as professional mariners) need to ask your congressmen for help (Stop laughing). Listen, I know “regulation is bad” and you guys all “know what you are doing,” especially you Captain types. But without regulatory oversight, your safety would be completely dictated by the goodwill of your employers. (I noticed you stop laughing)
Without “the man” telling ship owner/operators to do certain things to keep you safe, they wouldn’t do most of those things to keep you safe. How do I know? Because they talk to their congressmen most every time a new “regulation” forces them to spend money on your safety - and usually oppose it.
We need to find a way to make financial pressure in the face off high risk, low frequency events illegal. Captains need an “out” in the face of pressure when a clear hazard exists. Companies should not be allowed to dismiss their culpability by laying it off on the mariner.
The regulations relating to ISM are clear, but I think that we may have to finally admit that the ACP program has its flaws (Objectivity cannot be bought). That has to do with a vessel’s condition, though. What I am talking about in the way of new oversight (of the gov variety) has to do specifically with weather routing.
(Help me out here - I’m not a mariner - I just spent my life trying to save mariners when stuff went bad, so this idea might be full of BS.)
IF - owner/operators were compelled (by federal law) to gain “approval” for a captain’s weather routing plans any time said plan will take a vessel within X miles of a named storm, wouldn’t that give mariners some relief from considering the companies leaning towards profit over safety?
Yes - “approval” needs to be defined, of course. I’m not thinking CG approval (God , no,) but rather a volunteer organization of licensed and experienced senior mariners, who literally vote to approve or not approve (agree or disagree) with a submitted sail plan.
Again, just in those rare cases where named storms come within X miles (I’m think 100) of a projected sail plan. (Yes - regulating the 123 rule I suppose)
If Captain Davidson had been able to tell Tote “This plan takes me within 100 miles of a storm path, I need to post it to [Insert name of Mariners Board here] for approval” (or you’ll face significant fines for not making sure I did)- It’s doubtful anyone (or any of you by the way) would have said yes to it.
As it is, owner/operators are allowed to say “It was the Captain’s decision.” And the unsaid truth is “the captain who we nag about every dollar spent of fuel, on delivery time, on schedules, on…” well, you know better than I what they nag you on.
Government can be a pain, to be certain, but often the laws enacted provide mariners the ability to say no to their employers. Being able to say “Sorry Boss, but I’ll lose my license and you’ll get fined if I make this particular trip without five captains - not on your payroll - saying yes to it.” would be good for you, right? Wrong?
I’m seriously asking.
When I wrote “We won’t earn anything” I meant it. We know what is wrong. At some point we should do something about it. This is one idea.