The academy grads do get a toar from CMA where I went but to get a mate or towing they must complete 30 days on a tug before they will give you the mate of towing. This being said the toar program at cma is not that great in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;53052]That is a bit egotistical to say the only “real” mates are the ones that meet your standards. If you took one of your new york “real mates” and put him on a mississippi river tow he would be fucking clueless. To them he isn’t a real mate.[/QUOTE]
It’s not my standards, but as Jolly Tar said, could ANYone (responsibly) sleep with a 30 day wonder at the wheel ANYWHERE? I know I couldn’t. Simply having a completed TOAR does NOT make one competent. (Especially in 30 days) My understanding of a TOAR is: It is to prove that at one time, a candidate showed a DE that he could adequately do the evolution. That is WAY different than saying the guy is able to stand his own watch.
The Original Post was putting the thought out there to see if there were any ‘takers’ to sign up and pay for the privilege to have a 30 day shot at getting signed off. My comment stands, the concept of having someone aboard PAYING to be there changes the whole responsibility, relationship and liability aspect. I am NOT a owner, but I have been around long enough to see the difference between lawsuits. Can you imagine the insurance questions that would arise when it is found out that the guy who actually had the collision was PAYING to do it, and was not an employee of the company!?
As far as being on the river, or even in the GOM anchorhandling, of course I wouldn’t feel comfortable switching. BUT, I am responsible enough to know that I would take more than 30 days to see ALL aspects of the job to be considered qualified! I know that I took a few more days than 30 to be judged competent in my position. At least I am being honest, and can look at others and see the history of WHY the TOAR and apprentice program was instituted in the first place.
I think the real issue being discussed here is: If someone has a completed TOAR, why are they not ‘accepted’ as a new hire (watch standing mate), just on that fact alone?
[QUOTE=cappy208;53070]It’s not my standards, but as Jolly Tar said, could ANYone (responsibly) sleep with a 30 day wonder at the wheel ANYWHERE? I know I couldn’t. Simply having a completed TOAR does NOT make one competent. (Especially in 30 days) My understanding of a TOAR is: It is to prove that at one time, a candidate showed a DE that he could adequately do the evolution. That is WAY different than saying the guy is able to stand his own watch.
The Original Post was putting the thought out there to see if there were any ‘takers’ to sign up and pay for the privilege to have a 30 day shot at getting signed off. My comment stands, the concept of having someone aboard PAYING to be there changes the whole responsibility, relationship and liability aspect. I am NOT a owner, but UI have been around long enough to see the difference between lawsuits. Can you imagine the insurance questions that would arise when it is found out that the guy who actually had the collision was PAYING to do it, and was not an employee of the company!?
As far as being on the river, or even in the GOM anchorhandling, of course I wouldn’t feel comfortable switching. BUT, I am responsible enough to know that I would take more than 30 days to see ALL aspects of the job to be considered qualified! I know that I took a few more days than 30 to be judged competent in my position. At least I am being honest, and can look at others and see the history of WHY the TOAR and apprentice program was instituted in the first place.
I think the real issue being discussed here is: If someone has a completed TOAR, why are they not ‘accepted’ as a new hire (watch standing mate), just on that fact alone?[/QUOTE]
For the sake of clarification:
The concept presented here is not for someone to come pay to be on a tug for 30 days. The concept is for someone who is [U]READY TO BE ASSESSED[U][/U][/U] to pay to come aboard a tug for one or two days to ATTEMPT to get their TOAR signed off OR to pay for tugboat time to TRAIN to be assessed. Just me and an assessee, or two, working on assessments aboard a tug and barge.
The TOAR in its present form is a hurdle that one must jump in order to work on a tug. Does anyone remember the days before the Towing License scheme? If you had a license and were lucky enough to be hired, you went aboard and worked. I joined my first tug as 2nd mate with a 500 ton N/C license. I worked on deck and stood a wheel watch my first day. I was already an experienced Master, so what did I (or the captain) care if there was now a barge strung out behind me? My job was to see to the safe navigation of the tug and tow. These days, I wouldn’t be able to do that if I didn’t have a towing license. Mind you, this was in Hawai’i. I certainly would NOT have been competent to stand a wheel watch on a brown water towboat or on Puget Sound or any other high traffic, high risk area. The main worry in Hawai’i is to not get hung up on the bottom. All the other traffic is, for the most part, commercial and you know the guys on the other boats.
When I stepped onto my first OSV, I was the Mate. I took the boat from the sea buoy to the rig, with an AB in the wheelhouse with me. Never been in the GOM before and headed out through the Rabbit Patch. I had the license, the captain felt (wrong or right) that he could go off to bed. I got us to the rig without jeopardizing the safe navigation of the vessel. Imagine if they had an OSV Officer Assessment Record. Wouldn’t that be fun? Would a guy with the right tonnage but no OSVOAR be considered incompetent simply because he didn’t have one, or was desperately trying to find a way to get one filled out honestly?
My opinion is that the TOAR has created an air of superiority amongst tugboaters, many of whom never had to do a TOAR themselves. They’ve been looked down on all these years and now they’ve got someone to look down their own noses at. I also recognize that that’s normal human behavior, so I understand it. My opinion is also firmly in the school of thought that holds the idea that anyone who stands watch on a tug had better have tug deck experience, or on a case by case basis, verifiable experience as Master or Mate on small vessels and a thorough checkout by the Master of the tug. I know there are many who disagree with me, which I appreciate because if fosters debate.
For the noobs, I think the TOAR is structured all wrong. I’d like to see a stepped approach: Entry level TOAR for Apprentice Mate; Mate level TOAR for Mate/Pilot; Master level TOAR for Master. It seems to make sense. But instead, they handed us this blanket assessment list that covers skills that no noob has. So TOARs get pencil whipped, on tugs and at the Academies. Anyone who says they don’t is full of it. I know people who did their maneuvering (sec D) TOARs using wooden blocks on a table top. They called is a simulator.
My idea is to give people the option to be assessed on a real tug, under the eyes of a competent DE (me) who isn’t just there to sign people off in exchange for money. It costs money because I have to run a real tug, which costs money. Once a person has that TOAR in hand, it is a hurdle they’ve jumped, just like a first license, which is nothing but a license to start learning real-world skills. Which is what a 2nd, 3rd, 4th… license is as well. We never stop learning unless we’re fools.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
[I]My idea is to give people the option to be assessed on a real tug, under the eyes of a competent DE (me) who isn’t just there to sign people off in exchange for money. It costs money because I have to run a real tug, which costs money.[/I]
I don’t have the business acumen to see how this might be worked out. The insurance/liability issues alone have me stumped. Dealing with my peers when it comes to signing candidates off is a bone of contention already. Some sign off and ensure competence, others won’t sign because of the misguided belief they’d be responsible somehow when the new guy screws up. Either way, paying for your assessment shouldn’t carry a stigma if the assessor is straight-up and has the integrity to make it an honest assessment.
A degree from Harvard costs a fortune, one from Devries Online College does not. I’d hire the Harvard grad first wouldn’t you? They both paid for their education, it’s the accreditation that makes the difference. Right now we don’t have that but I’m averse to seeing Assessment Experts crop up everywhere and charging only to have some assessors walk folks through and others demand excellence. Who will set the standard?
In the end we’re still left with sleeping at night while these newly endorsed towing mates are on watch. To date, the idea of signing someone off has included the possibility that the person being signed off could be assigned to you as a mate the day after he/she completes his/her TOAR. Something an independent assessor would lack.
Why not follow the cadet model. You can have really low pay (just like a cadet), around $25-50 a day and no benefits. Their only “job” is to train and do their TOAR.
For the mariner they get as much time as they need and since you are an extra man you don’t have to worry about how to fit your training in amongst your other duties.
For the company, its an extended look at people for not much money and as mate positions open up you can pick and choose among the guys who have proven themselves.
I would think that even at that low pay guys would be lined up for it and they’re not really going to put up with much BS if the company tries to abuse it and use them as just another deckhand. Its pretty low risk for the company too since they are always going to be supervised and if you hire anyone who has cadeted with you they are a well known quantity at that point.
I didn’t say all tug mates. You are choosing select parts of what I wrote so you have something to get mad about. I was referring specifically to ocean towing operations commonly found out west on the pacific.
My point is that the toar is supposed to be all encompassing but every different sector of towing has its owen unique demands. You can’t expect a guy who toes barges across the pacific to have the same skills as a guy who works ny harbor.
To get a towing endorsement with any license under 500 ton you have to 1) get an apprentice mate and 2) work on a tug for, I believe, 18 months while holding the apprentice mate and 3) complete a toar. With 24 months time on deck you can get a 500 ton license and a toar. Not many deckhands get their shit together in there first six months and get their apprentice mate, which for many requires them to shell out money for school to do so. Therefore, it is faster and easier to get a 500 ton and a toar as your first towing license.
I viewed the poll as doug asking, if he started a training school would there be interest. Not having puerile pay a towing company, but starting a school with a tug and small barge. Academies do that safely with no insurance issues, why couldn’t a private school?
[QUOTE=dougpine;53073]For the sake of clarification:
. Does anyone remember the days before the Towing License scheme? If you had a license and were lucky enough to be hired, you went aboard and worked. [/QUOTE]
Yes. This is what brought us the ‘Bay Titan’ and Bayou Canotte Mauvilla incident. These are the reasons why it was correctly (IMHO) determined to need a YEAR of towboat time to be proven to be capable to stand a watch on a towing vessel.
To remind (or inform) the Bay Titan was captained by a recent Academy Grad, who had a foot locker full of assumption, and NO experience. The Mauvilla was being run by a 30 year veteran deckhand who “finally” got his license after ( I think 8 tries.) These are the examples that cost lives, millions of dollars in damages, and woke up the USCG that the old system was NOT working.
Then a mere 5 years later (when industry had gutted the entry level jobs) and there was a shortage of mariners Kirby petitioned the AWO who got on the USCG’s ass to weaken the rules, and made up the 30 day wonder rule.
What’s it going to take? Another couple dozen fatalities? A knocked down bridge?
It’s bad enough the USCG doesn’t even enforce ‘recency’ until post accident! They kissed the industries ass and relaxed what was a pretty sane rationale program, and gutted it.
[QUOTE=cappy208;53083]Yes. This is what brought us the ‘Bay Titan’ and Bayou Canotte Mauvilla incident. These are the reasons why it was correctly (IMHO) determined to need a YEAR of towboat time to be proven to be capable to stand a watch on a towing vessel.
To remind (or inform) the Bay Titan was captained by a recent Academy Grad, who had a foot locker full of assumption, and NO experience. The Mauvilla was being run by a 30 year veteran deckhand who “finally” got his license after ( I think 8 tries.) These are the examples that cost lives, millions of dollars in damages, and woke up the USCG that the old system was NOT working.
Then a mere 5 years later (when industry had gutted the entry level jobs) and there was a shortage of mariners Kirby petitioned the AWO who got on the USCG’s ass to weaken the rules, and made up the 30 day wonder rule.
What’s it going to take? Another couple dozen fatalities? A knocked down bridge?
It’s bad enough the USCG doesn’t even enforce ‘recency’ until post accident! They kissed the industries ass and relaxed what was a pretty sane rationale program, and gutted it.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the old system [I]was[I][/I][/I] working. Those two tragedies happened because they were the exception to the rule, not the norm. Regulatory agencies respond to individual incidents by imposing regulations across the board, with little thought to the impact on the industry’s management and labor.
The [I]Mel Oliver[/I] incident happened under the new licensing scheme, and accidents on our rivers are up 25% since the new licensing scheme took hold. You can’t blame the TOAR for that. Blame the companies, the captains who don’t properly vett their mates AND the mates who willingly take the helm without enough experience to do so. With the disappearance of entry level jobs due to reduced manning, this was all bound to happen. Get rid of the traditional hawsepipe route and you lose generations of knowledge overnight, because none of that knowledge is being passed along in the best of all possible training: hands on, on the job, apprenticeship. Mentor to apprentice, over and over through time. It’s gone, and we’re paying for it now.
There’s always going to be some wingnut who will jump his bicycle off the roof and into the pool. When he misses, some would rush to ban bikes, pools, or both because the first instinct is to solve the problem by making it disappear, when it’s actually possible that the jump could be made safely if the kid took the time to learn how to do it right, under supervision. Maritime companies do the same thing: A training accident or incident or near miss is reported and the next memo from the office prohibits further training. Where’s the logic in that?
A contemporary example from our own industry is the silly eye candy of doing emergency tanker escort training at 3-5 knots and then not continuing to build those skills up gradually to 10 knots - which just happens to be the speed you’ll be going when the pilot needs that “Power indirect full to starboard!”. So why don’t we train up to speeds of 10 knots? “Because that would be dangerous and scary”. In fact, it’s only dangerous and scary if you haven’t trained away the danger and fear. Once that’s done, it’s a routine maneuver that the tugs [I]are designed to do[/I] but the operators aren’t trained to do.
The root causes of the vast majority of accidents are well understood. It most often boils down to good people making bad decisions, and not having those decisions checked and/or questions by the people around them.
Commercial pressures drive the folks who know better to cut corners out of misplaced loyalty or the fear of being fired. I can say with near certainty that in the accidents mentioned above, and in the Philly accident where the K-Sea tug ran down the Duck Boat, that a contributing factor to all of them was a culture on those vessels that did not allow for humans to be human, and ask for help when they needed it. How can I be so certain? Because I’ve been on boats where “man up and deal with it” was the culture, and I’ve also been on boats where the exact opposite was the case. Boats where “man up and deal with it” was the last thing that was expected of anyone. And those boats run better than the other type. Call it BRM, call it error trapping, call it what you will, it all points straight back to honest communication in an environment where it’s expected that people will look out for each other first and foremost. Everything follows from that point.
No sir!! all the tugs in the northeast and GOM if you can’t handle the boat and take care of anything that comes up in your watch (0000-0600 1200-1800). You can’t be a Mate!!! some companies even go as far as calling all their mates relive Captains.
At my company everyone is just a promoted deckhand.
Sad very sad!!!
True, but how does that prove my statement wrong? Last I knew there was only one nc/ocean toar, not one for the northeast/gom and one for the pacific.
If we continue to bitch about what the industry or the USCG has created they will just come up with something new and equally stupid. It is up to us to make most of this work. No one is gonna create the perfect training program for any license.
If someone could work through all the insurance hurdles of this idea I’m sure a lot of people would be glad to pay for it. You cannot train away fear on a simulator because there is no real fear of failure on a simulator. In todays world its just another video game.
As for Cadets, I have 2 of them on board now and it sucks trying to train them while keeping your own blade sharp. However if you want them to be worth a shit when they come back to you train them now. Teach them something! Maybe they won’t come back to you in a year or two feeling entitled to a position that they are not ready for. To me the 2 that I have are immature College KIDS, the last thing they are ready to learn is how to drive a boat. They have quite a few other things to learn first. Like a little humility. Then if they grasp that then they can learn some of the cooler things.
Ok! You are correct their is only one TOAR and in that one it says you have to maneuver tug and tow in good weather and high winds!! If you can’t do that you should NOT be a mate!! If someone don’t know how then someone pencil wiped their TOAR.
The cadet model or perhaps the pilot model; a channel pilot’s apprenticeship where the money is shit for years and then they step into a rotation at the full rate. The apprentice model gives the DE making the evaluation a longer term to look at the candidate. How quickly the candidate completes his/her TOAR will be limited by the time it takes to complete all the required assessments, realistically a tugboat doesn’t do “everything tugboat” everyday.
I don’t see this working as a independent operation, more like a policy shift within each towing company to accommodate a more pro-active succession plan. I’ve had a couple of guys who stepped down from Tankerman/PIC to a deckhand’s position in order to get on a conventional tug, spend the time training and getting signed off. They bit the bullet for a year or so and were rewarded with what they sought. The money lost during their temporary demotion will be earned back in the first year as a mate, and then some.
Prior to Policy Letter 11-07 this statement would only be true for an Inland License.
My point is that the toar is supposed to be all encompassing but every different sector of towing has its owen unique demands. You can’t expect a guy who toes barges across the pacific to have the same skills as a guy who works ny harbor.
Why not? Do they push barges out west? Do they take barges alongside out west? Do they tow barges out west? The concept is the same, the practical application is the same. The individual practices and details are probably different but I’ve seen that going from on boat to another within NY Harbor. The same factors that one would evaluate when dealing with a barge in the east would be the same as the west. Sea state, weather, and navigational hazards. The ONLY sector that would require adaptation is as I stated before, the Mississippi River, because I don’t believe they actually tow a barge behind them. The Columbia River may be similar to the Mississippi. Otherwise you are dealing with environmental differences, not towing differences.
[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;53106]True, but how does that prove my statement wrong? Last I knew there was only one nc/ocean toar, not one for the northeast/gom and one for the pacific.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. However unlike most other vessels, a towing vessel has a more ‘lively’ handling envelope. Different barges, bow first, stern first, light, loaded, alongside, in push, on the wire, and above all transitioning between these modes.
Some people (mistakenly IMHO) feel that they should be ‘signed off’ to just go work on a tug. That is not the intention or the need. You mention in your experience towing to/from Hawaii that you only stand a sea watch. How about if the ‘Old man’ has a heart attack? or otherwise becomes incapacitated? What do you do then? You must be not only prepared but competent to take over. With your docking, and boathandling experience limited by you going out on deck, you have lost the opportunity, time, and instruction to be able to do the necessary job fully. THAT is NOT acceptable. ANYWHERE!
There is a huge difference between saying: “If you can’t do your job, pack your bags” and saying" “When you are done training to acceptable standards you will get a shot.” A Mate standing watch on a towing vessel MUST be more than a ‘Just learning’ and when it comes to maneuvering, the Captain takes over for the Mate.’ This 30 day wonder program is NOT to professional standards for gaining enough experience to stand your own watch.
You assume that just because the old man makes and breaks tow once every 12 days, that it is OK for you to not be a competent Mate. Not true. Neither does the NY harbor comparison make sense. Just because someone works in NY harbor, and makes and breaks tow several times a watch does not mean they need a ‘different’ TOAR either.
PCF mentioned the need for ‘real stress.’ That is key in training. I don’t agree that ANY simulator time is realistic for stress. The ability to handle stress is what separates the good from the average. But, good is not required in all portions of the industry… only average. There is NOTHING like having the pressure of real life, actual situations to give the training necessary. I don’t feel (like a simulator) that signing on to a ‘pay for play’ TOAR session is valid, useful or what is intended. However others (USCG, Academies) may not agree; the limited, simulator based, towing an empty barge around your own dock, no pressure, no responsibility, no fear of failure idea is not going to correctly train or influence a candidate. Although an educator or a recent graduate would not agree, failing a course is NOT the same pressure as failing to safely dock, or make up to a barge anywhere, anytime, under any conditions.
[QUOTE=chemcarrier;53110]If we continue to bitch about what the industry or the USCG has created they will just come up with something new and equally stupid. It is up to us to make most of this work. No one is gonna create the perfect training program for any license.
If someone could work through all the insurance hurdles of this idea I’m sure a lot of people would be glad to pay for it. You cannot train away fear on a simulator because there is no real fear of failure on a simulator. In todays world its just another video game.
As for Cadets, I have 2 of them on board now and it sucks trying to train them while keeping your own blade sharp. However if you want them to be worth a shit when they come back to you train them now. Teach them something! Maybe they won’t come back to you in a year or two feeling entitled to a position that they are not ready for. To me the 2 that I have are immature College KIDS, the last thing they are ready to learn is how to drive a boat. They have quite a few other things to learn first. Like a little humility. Then if they grasp that then they can learn some of the cooler things.[/QUOTE]
I agree except on the sharp blade. I’ve found that being in a constant and active training mode keeps my blade pretty dang sharp. Not that it isn’t challenging, especially with some of the academy kids. Humility definitely helps, if you can convince them to go there.