[QUOTE=c.captain;97089][B]eff you…punk![/B][/QUOTE]
Thank you, want to borrow my pointy stick? Yours seems to be getting a bit dull.
I worked in the oilfield before going to an academy, and returned afterwards. I just wanted to learn more.
To say “all” academy people are lazy is nonsense. Some are and some work hard. I have been with useless hawsepipers and useless academy people.
I am also not perfect and make and have made mistakes. Show me the mariner who has not? Stereotyping is not helpful at all.
Ultimately with an academy degree you can always go do something else, at a less drastic pay cut than if not. A bachelors of science or an engineering degree and a few years sailing experience will always pay your bills, relatively speaking. No new f350 diesel duallys etc (why do people buy them anyways?) but you get the idea. 20 years on the water with no degree and a license limits your options, but doesn’t eliminate them.
Lets face it there are idiots everywhere. I know smart academy folks who can’t run a boat. I know guys who can run a boat but are dumb as rock and can’t navigate to save their life. issues on all ends. this is why to keep the industry alive we have to mentor and teach anyone with a will to learn, academy or hawespipe.
[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;97114]Some people WIII judge you on your degree, ABS for example. You might know how finish Einsteins unified theory but they won’t hire you without a BS degree. My friend went to Calhoun school and sailed chief for 12 years on tankers/lash/container and he would never be considered for an ABS job because he did not get a degree. As far a engineers go I learned more from a hawsepiper from the NYC John Brown school than any academy guy. There are good and bad from either side of the boat/ship IMHO[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Like many in this thread and as I have stated in the past, I have sailed and worked with Academy grads that were/are great and Academy grads that were/are some of the most useless engineers/mates that I have ever seen. The same can be said for those that came out of the focsle. Any method of training is only as good as what one makes of it. I do think that the one advantage KP has is the actual sea time, and on different vessels. Yet again, a Cadet has to be willing to be out there and WORK. It is the best learing anyone can have. When I was a Cadet, I put in a lot of extra hours just to learn as much as I could at the time (and blew off most of my Sea Project work. . ). Spent a lot of time in the bilge and boiler firesides, too. Nasty work for no money that paid of in spades once I was out of school. Was I nervous my first time as a Third after school? You bet. At least I had idea of what to do when things hit the fan, and that is really what the training is for. Anyone can stand a watch where things run smoothly.
You are correct highseasmechanic, it is team work. When you sail Chief this really hits home unless getting called out at 0300 because of an avoidable black out doesn’t bother you. We should all do our best to help each other, of course there are a few caveats here, one must want to learn, one must want to earn respect, and arguably the most important, one must enjoy their work.
[QUOTE=z-drive;97077]I did when i graduated, but whats the big deal? Good, wow, they have a license. But shame on a company or officer for letting them have any responsibility unless they have some experience and can prove they know what they are doing. Thats how it was for me when i came up, and haven’t seen it change. Been personally sailing after an academy for a decade-ish and if i changed to a different type of vessel/operation even with “all that sea time” I wouldn’t be left alone at first…Not until i’ve proven i know what i am doing. I don’t know too many green 3rd mates being left to stand a watch the first day they report to a ship.
Are you a king’s point apologist? I smell a little troll B.O… What, 5 posts, all complaints? If you dislike the merchant marine so much, why dick around on a merchant marine forum?[/QUOTE]
I love the Merchant Marines, and I have no idea why you take this to a ‘personal’ level.
You place the blame on the companies, I place the blames on the Academies (including Kings Point). Why shouldn’t the companies be able to expect that a license means something? An Unlimited Third Mates License should mean that an individual is Competent to be an Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch.
Our system is a bit broken, and I am trying to call it out. That’s all. With hopes that someday the Academies will go back to their roots, and focus more on the ‘vocation’ of being a mariner. Companies will hire more individuals with the understanding that they need to be part of the solution to have adequate resources on board to properly train a mariner. I have absolutely no idea who the individuals are that are complaining, but I am glad that it is a hot topic. Thank you for the comments.
[QUOTE=rshrew;97105]All I know is that I never wanted to go to an academy. When I finished HS I had been working around tugs my whole life and wanted to work up through the hawse. Had dinner with my old man my senior year and he told me don’t be a moron with all the new regulations and bullshit that is changing, get a degree and big license and skip all the BS. Best advise I ever got, meet a ton of good people took a lot of BS classes that had nothing to do with working tugs. But in the end I got a well rounded degree and a license to run tugs in the same time it would have taken through the hawse. I tell all the young people I meet now go to PMI or the Academy and stay one step ahead of the game, it’s up to you to put in the time working on the side to hone your skills to become a good shipmate and earn respect.[/QUOTE]
Thank you… I should have mentioned, that the Workboat Academy is a ‘vocational’ training program with one year of sea-time. However, they do not provide an Unlimited License, I believe they provide a 1600 GRT license. I also recently read an advertisement from them, that they are getting 90% + retention and 100% placement. This could be the future.
[QUOTE=C.TurnAndBank;97135]I love the Merchant Marines, and I have no idea why you take this to a ‘personal’ level.
You place the blame on the companies, I place the blames on the Academies. Why shouldn’t the companies be able to expect that a license means something? An Unlimited Third Mates License should mean that an individual is Competent to be an Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch.
Our system is a bit broken, and I am trying to call it out. That’s all. With hopes that someday the Academies will go back to their roots, and focus more on the ‘vocation’ of being a mariner. Companies will hire more individuals with the understanding that they need to be part of the solution to have adequate resources on board to properly train a mariner. I have absolutely no idea who the individuals are that are complaining, but I am glad that it is a hot topic. Thank you for the comments.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, C.TurnAndBank, my Academy has drifted so far from the fold it is no longer relevant. Of, course, is there really a US Merchant Marine these days?
None of this was to call out Maritime Academy cadets. This is much more focused on what can Maritime Adademies (including Kings Point) do to ensure competent graduates. They all have the ‘ability to learn’ otherwise they would not graduate. Many of those graduates take that ability and do a fantastic job.
Likewise, what can we as a mariner do to speak out to the company to state that we need more time / people on-board to help train these individuals coming up the ranks. If we don’t, we will lose the Hawespipe. In Europe it is already gone. There are no AB to Mates, there are only Professional Able Seafarers, and Vocational School (3 year) graduates.
Perhaps focusing this forum a bit. Should the USCG Question Pool be public? Should a license be based on memorization?
[QUOTE=C.TurnAndBank;97136]Thank you… I should have mentioned, that the Workboat Academy is a ‘vocational’ training program with one year of sea-time. However, they do not provide an Unlimited License, I believe they provide a 1600 GRT license. I also recently read an advertisement from the, that they are getting 90% + retention and 100% placement. This could be the future.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, you have injected some useful insight.
Perhaps a “Practical” section for the license exam. . . .
[QUOTE=cmakin;97141]Perhaps a “Practical” section for the license exam. . . .[/QUOTE]
Who’s going to perform the evaluation? Go look at the Msc hiring freeze discussion and think about how much money it would take to hire all these examiners. Not to mention the simulators, etc. needed to perform the evaluation. How much are you willing to pay in user. Fees to get your license? If you rule out government evaluators, you’re left with somEthing that smells a lot like what we already have, STCW assessments and Designated Examiners.
[QUOTE=cmakin;97141]Perhaps a “Practical” section for the license exam. . . .[/QUOTE]
Make em work in the towing sector. I don’t know why but that seems to wake them up. Maybe getting yelled at short range. Then after a year send them my way.
K.C.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;97143]Who’s going to perform the evaluation? Go look at the Msc hiring freeze discussion and think about how much money it would take to hire all these examiners. Not to mention the simulators, etc. needed to perform the evaluation. How much are you willing to pay in user. Fees to get your license? If you rule out government evaluators, you’re left with somEthing that smells a lot like what we already have, STCW assessments and Designated Examiners.[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that the entire point of STCW (KUP’s) Here is how we do it: Knowledge (memorize questions and answers), Understanding, (we use to have practical assessments that could be done in a classroom until the USCG removed the required training), and proficiency (On-Board STCW assessors that have absolutely no formal training in doing an assessment, no oversight by the USCG, and only one requirement – Read a 13 page handout which says, I am an assessor. Even the Assessors have zero training. Still say. Broken System.
If we followed the ‘intent’ of the code correclty, then the ‘smell’ of STCW assesments would not be that bad. On the other side, this is where mariners need to step up and learn more about the process so we can be better Mentors’ / Assessors’.
I suppose this thread is mostly aimed at blue water shipping, however, many acadamy grads will choose (or be forced) to work in the OSV market.
For the most part, larger DP OSVs are now being operated to NI standards which require two bridge officers on watch. The master & chief mate run on opposite watches being assisted by a “mate / DPO trainee”. A new acadamy grad is more than qualified to fill this position as a large part of the job involves staring out of the windows.
[QUOTE=PLM;97155]I suppose this thread is mostly aimed at blue water shipping, however, many acadamy grads will choose (or be forced) to work in the OSV market.
For the most part, larger DP OSVs are now being operated to NI standards which require two bridge officers on watch. The master & chief mate run on opposite watches being assisted by a “mate / DPO trainee”. A new acadamy grad is more than qualified to fill this position as a large part of the job involves staring out of the windows.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. In fact, working on Tugs and OSV’s (in my opinoin) require a much greater skill set than the ‘blue water’ fleet. Let me re-phrase, what I believe you are saying:
It does not matter that a Maritime Academy graduate may only have 3 to 4 month’s of total sea-time. It does not matter that the individual may have received his / her license by memorizing an exam. It really doesn’t even matter if the questions on the exam were provided to the individual before he received the license. What matters, is that the individual has eyes and can stare out a window with the best of them.
This is a complete dis-regard of the concept of Bridge Team. – Broken.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;97143]Who’s going to perform the evaluation? Go look at the Msc hiring freeze discussion and think about how much money it would take to hire all these examiners. Not to mention the simulators, etc. needed to perform the evaluation. How much are you willing to pay in user. Fees to get your license? If you rule out government evaluators, you’re left with somEthing that smells a lot like what we already have, STCW assessments and Designated Examiners.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I am not saying that it is a good solution. . . . That said, a desktop simulation, especially for engineers, i.e. dealing with specfic alarm/low level/pressure situations. . .
[QUOTE=C.TurnAndBank;97152]Isn’t that the entire point of STCW (KUP’s) Here is how we do it: Knowledge (memorize questions and answers), Understanding, (we use to have practical assessments that could be done in a classroom until the USCG removed the required training), and proficiency (On-Board STCW assessors that have absolutely no formal training in doing an assessment, no oversight by the USCG, and only one requirement – Read a 13 page handout which says, I am an assessor. Even the Assessors have zero training. Still say. Broken System.
If we followed the ‘intent’ of the code correclty, then the ‘smell’ of STCW assesments would not be that bad. On the other side, this is where mariners need to step up and learn more about the process so we can be better Mentors’ / Assessors’.[/QUOTE]
It’s ironic this thread pops us as my company is dealing with a routine legal case that happens to involve damage by a 3rd party’s equipment. We had a vessel get damaged when it hit an underwater object, that wasn’t marked on the charts and did quite a bit of damage to the vessel. The defendants, owner of underwater object, are playing the “Captain wasn’t competent” card and rather negligent in hitting their submerged legs of an old platform. As I go thru my deposition the opposing attorney’s are keying in big time on how did we verify this Captain was competent and what “continuing education” did we provide to make sure “he still remembered how to run a boat.” That was a very tricky question for me to answer because so many things were running thru my head, most of which would have been inappropriate to say. I responded by asking him if he had a drivers license of which he replied yes. I then asked him how did his company deem him “competent” to drive to the deposition and how do they continue to make sure “he still remembered how to drive a vehicle?” The response was "I asked YOU a question that needs an answer. Your state puts you thru a system that deems you competent or not and you either get a drivers license or you don’t. The USCG puts you thru a system that deems you competent or not and you either get a drivers license or you don’t.
The point I’m trying to make is no matter where you get your knowledge from there has to be a single system that deems someone competent enough to get their license. This system needs to be thorough and really have an credible way of putting out a “product.” If the US system keeps “dumbing” down things the end product will continue to be “dumb.” A college degree is only as good as the education you received while there so a USCG license is or shouldn’t be any different. Instead, the US has lobbyist and other special interest groups that politcally get things bypassed instead of wanting a better product. Norwegian mariners (and many others) have way more training to do before getting a license anywhere near as big as our academy grads along with lots of actual sea time Until we change or demand more to get a license the end product will contiue to be the same.
Well, this thread has morphed nicely since last night. My ire (and others) was borne out an impression the OP was playing the old “Back in my day” card and how the academy grads of today are inherently inferior to those starting out his day. That’s a position I don’t take lightly.
Getting past that, I can’t comment on the relevence of the schooling we are getting at the Academy. I hope all this late night studying will be worth it but if you really feel the Academy’s are missing the mark, PLEASE get the word out. I know my first couple assignments as a 3M are going to be a stressfest. That’s part of the process. I hope the senior mates DO NOT take their eye off me on watch until I demonstrate competence.
Simulators are here to stay. Yes, real sea time is prefered but it is what it is.
Perhaps it’s true the newly minted 3M’s will need a bit more time to get their sea legs but it should not be a much longer time. For the most part, we are smart, motivated young adults who’s greatest desire is to do a good job.
[QUOTE=Saltine;97168]It’s ironic this thread pops us as my company is dealing with a routine legal case that happens to involve damage by a 3rd party’s equipment. We had a vessel get damaged when it hit an underwater object, that wasn’t marked on the charts and did quite a bit of damage to the vessel. The defendants, owner of underwater object, are playing the “Captain wasn’t competent” card and rather negligent in hitting their submerged legs of an old platform. As I go thru my deposition the opposing attorney’s are keying in big time on how did we verify this Captain was competent and what “continuing education” did we provide to make sure “he still remembered how to run a boat.” That was a very tricky question for me to answer because so many things were running thru my head, most of which would have been appropriate to say. I responded by asking him if he had a drivers license of which he replied yes. I then asked him how did his company deem him “competent” to drive to the deposition and how do they continue to make sure “he still remembered how to drive a vehicle?” The response was "I asked YOU a question that needs an answer. Your state puts you thru a system that deems you competent or not and you either get a drivers license or you don’t. The USCG puts you thru a system that deems you competent or not and you either get a drivers license or you don’t.
The point I’m trying to make is no matter where you get your knowledge from there has to be a single system that deems someone competent enough to get their license. This system needs to be thorough and really have an credible way of putting out a “product.” If the US system keeps “dumbing” down things the end product will continue to be “dumb.” A college degree is only as good as the education you received while there so a USCG license is or shouldn’t be any different. Instead, the US has lobbyist and other special interest groups that politcally get things bypassed instead of wanting a better product. Norwegian mariners (and many others) have way more training to do before getting a license anywhere near as big as our academy grads along with lots of actual sea time Until we change or demand more to get a license the end product will contiue to be the same.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, extremely articulate and relevant. This really is the question. How can we get the USCG to see that what they are doing ‘is not’ working. Yes, it may have in the past… But we live in a brave new world. Larger ships, smaller crews, technological advances getting in the way, the oil majors demanding competence and a litigious society which requires us to prove it.
The solution lies with the USCG to ‘not’ dumb down the STCW. To hold the Maritime Academies to meet the STCW (at a minimum , and to require formal training for an Able Seafarer to become a Mate.) Anyone from the USCG that comments on this thing? Thoughts / Opinions?
If the United States cannot provide competent mariners, and the United States is out of compliance with the ‘intent’ of STCW, is the Jones Act in trouble?
Let’s keep this professional.