There is was too much fake sea time and this is how the IMO have asked the NI to address it.
The NI will also check randomly in the background with your company that the 2 people in the book have actually been on the same vessel at the same time.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;71749]I don’t know what the right answer is, but I once had to use a method that worked.
I sent a “final request” for a sea service letter to the operations manager (with a copies to the company president, and the in-house counsel) by certified mail saying that it is an implied term of every employment agreement o with a seaman that a sea service letter will be provided and that this right is every bit as important as payment of wages. I further stated that if I did not receive the sea service letter within 10 days I would be left with no choice but to ask the USCG to conduct a hearing and subpena the vessels log book and the company’s records to determine the nature and extent of my sea service with the company. I also pointed out that type of company that would not honor its obligations to issue a sea service letter was probably the type of company that does not adhere to USCG regulations either, and that if such a hearing had to be held, it might come to light that the vessel was not always in full compliance with USCG regulations. I attached a copy of the letter that I was going to send to the USCG requesting the hearing. I promptly received an angry call from the operations manager saying that my sea service letter was on its way. I got the impression that the president of the company had just dressed him down for not doing his job and exposing the company to unnecessary risks and expenses.[/QUOTE]
NICE!!! Great job Tugsailor.
[QUOTE=dgillum214;71286]how do you ensure that the roustabout turned DPO would understand everything we do.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect, but how do you ensure that you, with your license, know more than the “roustabout turned DPO?” My point being is that the academies are not training for DP Operations. DPOs started out as mostly electronics techs and have done a fine job from then until now. As long as there are proper “watchstanders” on the bridge while in DP, then this should satisfy any requirements needed. How many vessels that you know of have multiple OICNWs on the bridge at one time. More often than not, you have one OICNW and a helmsman. No different than having one OICNW and one unlicensed DPO (helmsman) while in DP.
When your DP room has no windows just what skill would a STCW-95 watchkeeper be bringing to the table?
Good point…
Touché
That would really be tough not having windows, haha. IMHO, I’d consider the way it’s been done in the past to be fine as long as you’d consider the rig to be stationary, fixed to the sea floor… etc… In that case you have a Control Room Operator who can operate a DP system. Frequently in these installations you will have separate BCOs, Barge Supervisors, and OIMs in charge as well as one of the DPOs acting as OICNW, usually for the same pay just being more responsible. Actually having to pull a bit of double duty seeing how they are probably the only one in the ‘control room’ with Radar, ARPA, and ECDIS. You wouldn’t ask an ET to take an amplitude to check the gyro error or correct the charts and pubs. Yeah, don’t forget the “weather” captain, man I want that gig. To me this arrangement doesn’t seem to be the most efficient. Yes, I’ve been there. Anyway, an ET is different that the hypothetical roustabout in the previous post.
I’m seriously not advocating that we just get DPO trainees from marine academies. There are plenty of routes to becoming competent. Some just take longer than others.
I see my job as a navigation officer on a ship underway at sea with a dp system as part of its navigation equipment. I don’t see flag states continuing to allow classification of DP MODUs as fixed units very much longer.
I see a paradigm shift in thinking when looking at MODUs as vessels, self propelled underway vessels. Vessels not on a coastwise voyage less than 200 (or whatever distance) that allows for reduced watch standing requirements. This is why most if not all drillships have all oicnw dpos. This is happening, I’m not alone in my opinion. As discussed earlier you must have a license to enter the scheme after Jan 1, 2012.
ETs are still an important part of a drilling vessel’s compliment. I don’t know very many (I do know a few) marine DPOs that understand fully the workings of the PLCs and networks of systems that bring all the needed parts of the dp system together. IMCA has noted ET officers as valuable and DP critical positions. They are encouraged to keep a DP logbook. Nav Officers with electronic backgrounds are rare and it would be hard to put the two disciplines together as a standard. We need both positions.
Operating a dp system is not in any way equivalent to steering a ship from the helm. I don’t see any reason to use that argument unless you want to have a one man 12 hour DP Nav watch with a extra guy on the bridge that the watch officer now has to babysit. Yeah I said babysit, bring it!
[QUOTE=dgillum214;72078]Operating a dp system is not in any way equivalent to steering a ship from the helm. I don’t see any reason to use that argument unless you want to have a one man 12 hour DP Nav watch with a extra guy on the bridge that the watch officer now has to babysit. Yeah I said babysit, bring it![/QUOTE]
Babysit?!?!?!?! Man, you are delusional. How, in any way, shape, or form, would a OICNW need to “babysit” a trained and qualified unlicensed DPO. More often than not, I have seen those “unlicensed” DPOs train these “I have a chip on my shoulder because I have a license” mates. That piece of paper means nothing when it comes to running a DP system. Zero. Nada.
I agree, due to minimum manning requirements that licensed officers are needed on the bridge. I wholeheartedly disagree with a requirement to be a licensed mariner to operate a DP System. Eventually, due to attrition, unlicensed DPOs will be a thing of the past. Until then, all unlicensed certified DPOs should be grandfathered and be able to continue operating DP systems with mates on the bridge fulfilling the manning requirements for officers.
Guys, c’mon. Start a new thread about this argument! This is the never ending argument, the merry-go-round of the DP world! I for one have worked with very competent unlicensed DPOs, and feel bad that the industry is basically fazing them out, but thats the world we live in and it sucks for them. I have worked with academy guys who think they deserve or have the right to certain positions and have been promoted or moved up way to fast, but once again, thats the industry and it sucks for the people who have put in the time and deserve the positions. So, it doesn’t really matter what your qualifications are, its what the companies are required to have, what the industry says you should have, and regardless of your expertise or your knowledge, they are just filling the position with a warm body and hoping nothing goes wrong!
[QUOTE=“PDCMATE”]Guys, c’mon. Start a new thread about this argument! This is the never ending argument, the merry-go-round of the DP world!
Thanks, I agree and am done. I’d probably have a different opinion if I’d have worked at TOI or Ensco and shared the desk with the good DPOs you guys are talking about. My experiences have just been different that’s all. My arguement was referring to not the well experienced hands but the recruiting of the new. Maybe this is where new thread should continue the topic.
My reply was put in the quote box on the last… iPhone app…