[QUOTE=captbbrucato;58645]If I read your question correctly; Are you looking for shore side personnel to be familiar with ship board operations and not to be [I]half-assed qualified[/I] to judge the professionals doing the job? I would think that sending the office folks through a “ride and see” program may be the better and less expensive option and have the greatest impact. The office support staff should have a clear idea and understand what we face on a daily basis. Riding along allows them to do the drills, help with a repair and stand a night watch. Why duplicate the “training ship” idea?[/QUOTE]
No, he is looking to train vessel crews because the office refuses to hire licensed, experienced engineers to begin with. They hire “oil change” engineers then complain when they can’t do anything but change the oil.
[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;58661]No, he is looking to train vessel crews because the office refuses to hire licensed, experienced engineers to begin with. They hire “oil change” engineers then complain when they can’t do anything but change the oil.[/QUOTE]
"As far as the training; Computer training for officers would be great, like the proper use of programs such as Excel and Word. With the amount of paperwork required by Captains and Chiefs anything that helps streamline the paperwork process will allow them to spend more time properly training their crews. Most Captains spend so much time doing paperwork that their years of experience and knowledge do not get pass on to the new generation of mariners. "
Also, get as many forms and such in electronic media, so it’s more efficient to fill out.
I have one form that requires me to enter the exact same data in 3 separate places, each time it invites mistakes.
Cut and paste would ensure that the info is the same.
I have been able to get the office to accept email parts requisitions.
I cut and paste from the online Grainger catalog and email it in.
Most Engineers in out fleet use the Grainger paper catalog, write the numbers on a requisition form, boatracs that to the office and then wonder why they got the wrong part.
As dumb and simplistic as it sounds, but Saltine doesn’t seem too worried about computer savvy. He is just concerned about having/ hiring competent engineers to actually do a decent job IN the engine room. As we have all seen, the paperwork is one thing. And their are a lot of engineers who excel at both jobs. But, the simple point is the ‘real’ job is what is important. (Holy shit… Did I just say that!?)
Thank you Seadog!!
That’s my point exactly! Streamline all the paperwork and then as a company it will be easier to required your senior Captains and Chiefs to do more on the job training for the young mariners. I was lucky enough to have a Captain that took the time to try and pass along the knowledge he had acquired in 30 years in the industry. Even do it was a burden on him because of all the time that’s he had to spend working on paperwork and dealing with a young inexperience mate (Me)!! Things should not work that way!! Captains should be able to spend all of their time managing, supervising, and training their vessel crews. If this was the case it would be a win win situation for the mariners and the companies not to mention the industry in general.
I agree!!
The more time I spend doing paperwork, the less time I have to spend doing the “real” job.
A WRENCH FITS MY HAND A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN A PEN!!
This is an ISO/ISM, SOLAS, Inspected vessel, you KNOW how much paperwork goes on here.
At least in the wheelhouse there are 3 guys to share the burden, the Engine Department is a one man show.
I agree!!
The more time I spend doing paperwork, the less time I have to spend doing the “real” job.
A WRENCH FITS MY HAND A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN A PEN!!
This is an ISO/ISM, SOLAS, Inspected vessel, you KNOW how much paperwork goes on here.
At least in the wheelhouse there are 3 guys to share the burden, the Engine Department is a one man show.[/QUOTE]
Having been on the same type of vessel , but without the ISO/ISM burden (before the inception), the job of a one man engine room can become VERY busy. While I did like the extra money from overtime, I was young enough then to not mind the time.
I was with ABS when more and more statutory requirements became mandatory. Just a simple annual survey on a ship like a chemical tanker would require me to spend as much time on paperwork as it did to do the actual survey. Even worse when the ship had multiple deadweights and loadline assignments. The last year or so that I was with ABS, ISM was starting to come in to play. At least the audits were carried out separately from Class and Statutory work.
[QUOTE=cappy208;58710]As dumb and simplistic as it sounds, but Saltine doesn’t seem too worried about computer savvy. He is just concerned about having/ hiring competent engineers to actually do a decent job IN the engine room. As we have all seen, the paperwork is one thing. And their are a lot of engineers who excel at both jobs. But, the simple point is the ‘real’ job is what is important. (Holy shit… Did I just say that!?)Saltine: is your current company ISO/ISM?[/QUOTE]What I am trying to put together is a program that will give all of our employees the opportunity to further their knowledge, making them a more valuable employee and make our company more efficient in the process. Not all recognize this but it starts with a change in the culture of how our company will choose to operate going forward. Changing a company’s culture can be a huge task and even harder if there is no buy in from your employees, especially the office staff. If you don’t put much into your employees you’re not going to get much back out of them. If you put your employees at the top of your priority list you will get corresponding results. I have been a part of a company before that treated and paid their employees as second rate citizens. Turnover was high, there was absolutely no loyalty and our employees weren’t proud to be working for us. New management came in and gave us the freedom to make the changes we thought would make a difference. It’s amazing what little things like bringing lunch on a vessel visit, commending employees to the whole fleet and giving employees a since of ownership in their vessels profitability will do. We showed our vessels what their revenue was, what their expenses were and where they stood in comparison. It was really an eye opening experience for those guys because they got to see more than the $10k, 15k or 20k/day their vessel was making and the costs of insurance, supplies, groceries, vendors, etc… What we currently are going thru is a whole different animal. We are currently not ISO or ISM being that all of our vessels are under 100T and the majority of our employees really don’t understand the system yet. We will move towards ISM in the near future even if we haven’t acquired any bigger tonnage at that point. We have much lower profit marigins and the knowledge level is much lower. In essence, you can’t hire licensed engineers or even A/B’s because these are much smaller boats and their just isn’t any room in the budget. So we are trying to mold these guys and get them knowledge and training from another source and we think a specific curriculum would be one piece of the puzzle. We’re not expecting these guys to rebuild engines, rewire electrical panels or do major work on electronics. We do want the end result to allow guys to change starters, fuel pumps, install new pumps, change impellers, basic electrical troubleshooting, working knowledge of microsoft office, organized and how to manage a vessel. We want our guys to understand that each vessel is like a small business and those that don’t make money have to be addressed and often not in a good way. And at the end of the day if the vessel isn’t making money then we have no reason to operate that boat or keep the crew. I have talked to several of our more senior employees and they really responded well to the thought of putting together a training curriculum. All of them even wanted to go thru it as a refresher on common topics but to continue learning in other areas. Having new guys to the industry is great if you can teach them the right way of doing things, if not it’s a total waste of everyones time. We have lots of new guys so it would go a long way in getting them some outside instruction that may not be available due to the knowledge level of their superior. Thanks for all of the comments and feedback.
So there is no room in the budget to hire licensed engineers, but you want to hire unskilled guys and teach them to be engineers? You will save money but just hiring qualified people. The old saying goes “you get what you pay for”
[QUOTE=brjones;58818]So there is no room in the budget to hire licensed engineers, but you want to hire unskilled guys and teach them to be engineers? You will save money but just hiring qualified people. The old saying goes “you get what you pay for”[/QUOTE]
I am not saying we’re trying to “hire unskilled guys and teach them to be engineers.” As I mentioned several times, these are under 100T oilfield boats that don’t make that much money in the big scheme of things. We’re talking about non-DP vessels that are concentrated on the shelf market in the GOM. So no, there is no room to hire licensed engineers. We are trying to take the guys that work in this segment of the market and make them as knowledgable and educated as possible. We’re not expecting a training schedule to make miracles happen but we hope to bring our overall knowledge level up to the highest possible.
I could sit here and just complain about the situation we’re in but I decided that talking to other guys in the industry and getting their opinion would go much further. It’s easy to say “just hire qualified people” and “you get what you pay for.” As a shorebased employee we have budgets that we have to work with and I can’t go in and say “just hire qaulified people” and “you get what you pay for” and expect upper management to rollover and agree. Just trying to take lemons and make lemonade.
Well here is what I see happening. You train the guys to do the work you want. Now they are skilled and in turn more valuable. Once they see they can go elsewhere and get paid better, they move on. Now you have to start the process all over again and retrain a new hire. From what I have seen, engineers are in a higher demand and companies are always looking for more. My company can not get enough engineers and they pay pretty good. So you have to be competitive to get the skills you want.
I hate to say it, but you just described a stepping stone company in ones career. You cannot change that. Even the moderately ambitious half-way bright mariner will progress to a higher tonnage license for more compensation which your company simply cannot facilitate. Turnover should always be expected to a certain extent having only small tonnage vessels.
The loop-hole in the stepping stone principle is that they intend to give a little Engineering information to their deck hands, but no Engineering seatime.
With only deck time on a sea service letter, you can never make it onto the Engineers License ladder.
Un-licensed Engineers are quickly being put aside for various reasons.
AWO RCP, insurance, contract vetting and the coming rules for Inspected Towing Vessels will most likely end them all together.
[QUOTE=anchorman;58844]I hate to say it, but you just described a stepping stone company in ones career. You cannot change that. Even the moderately ambitious half-way bright mariner will progress to a higher tonnage license for more compensation which your company simply cannot facilitate. Turnover should always be expected to a certain extent having only small tonnage vessels.[/QUOTE]
In essence you have hit the nail on the head. Without having a way for mariners to keep moving up the ladder with our company they will go elsewhere. We will more than likely have to weather the storm until we get some bigger tonnage vessels.
Why do you you have to have bigger tonnage vessels for your mariners to advance their careers? Why not have a program that prepares your senior captains for management positions. Their experience on the water doing the job would prove valuable when bidding on contracts. Or in HRM that experience would help them know how to best hire train and motivate employees. Perhaps you can partner with that local college to come up with program for captains to take business classes on their shore rotation.
As far as more hands on training, I think its an excellent idea for improving the safety and reliability of your vessels, which should cut costs. Safer and better maintained vessels will go a long ways toward crew retention.
Licensed engineers on every boat may not work in your sector of the industry, but one or two that rotate through the fleet to find trouble spots, recommend changes to your maintenance program and provide on the job training etc. might prove to be a good investment.
[QUOTE=Shadow;61360]Agreed, but you could still use it as a way to hold on to some of the better talent.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but only if they see a benefit in it for them. It also may increase turnover by providing them qualifications to then go elsewhere as Port Captain, Ops Manager, etc. The best way to hold on to the better talent is to offer them a possibility of higher pay. If the company is amll and can only pay so much then it will always lose people when they upgrade and move on to bigger boats that pay more.
I have an idea what company you are with and part of the problem is the age of the fleet and the reputation for buying worn out boats.
The only thing I know that would change this perception is for the owner to announce a new build program.
There are plenty of guys out here that have no interest in going past their 100 ton, but expecting them to stick around and deal with old equipment just is not going to happen. Same goes for thinking just getting some bigger boats well solve you’re problems. At least get some stuff with DP.
Also only masochist go from the wheel house to being a port captain. Your on call 24 hours and are usually paid less. And I’m not the only one who thinks going from the boats to the office is not a step up the career ladder.
[QUOTE=Shadow;61353]Why do you you have to have bigger tonnage vessels for your mariners to advance their careers? Why not have a program that prepares your senior captains for management positions. Their experience on the water doing the job would prove valuable when bidding on contracts. Or in HRM that experience would help them know how to best hire train and motivate employees. .[/QUOTE]Because organizations need a lot more indians than chiefs?