Modern Management or the Command System?

[sean]

This is an interesting issue. It's a valid point that Masters often don't know enough about engineering. The training usually just isn't there. There isn't time for it, especially considering all of the training requirements now in place for a Master's license.

In respect to pollution, the Master and Chief Engineer share the responsibility for meeting the requirements and regulations. Most MARPOL violations are the direct fault of the Chief Engineer though. Incorrect ORB entries, unauthorized modifications to the OWS, etc. If the Master had the time and training to monitor this, some of these types of violations would be reduced. The Master is busy meeting all of the other regulatory requirements, even the useless ones.

Division of responsibility and cross training in the modern regulatory environment certainly deserve discussion. This should occur at the level of the IMO though. A company cannot make a unilateral decision to give the Chief Engineer complete executive power.

[Kennebec Captain]

From Manu's Scripts - Undermining overriding authority.

"In practice and in my experience, the “Master’s overriding authority” is often a hollow term selectively used by managements."

Master's overriding authority is an ace up the sleeve, you get dealt one every five years or so, don't try and use it more often however or you will feel the heat. Management can make life very difficult for masters who don't keep the cargo moving on time.

[Allwyn]

Here you have described a Master supervising, which is his job.

Apologies, but the Master is not qualified to supervise just any job on board. There are errors being made on this count. The Master cannot directly supervise a whole lot of things on board. You do not seem to understand the incident: The Master and fitter were together when i found them in he drizzle.

So if your engineer type who is welding in the rain doesn't have enough experience to stop the job

The fitter was under the mate. Captain hired him and since no signature is above the Captains, he felt a 5 minute arc welding job could be done in the rain. Wrong, it should not have been done. There was no tearing hurry to install he LRIT frame support anyways.

This may be one of the most important concepts of this entire discussion.

There is no concept here. Simply the management rightly concluded that Masters at our disposal do not have adequate knowledge to supervise such work. Their signatures though mandated by law, hold little guarantee for our Management against casuality prevention and hence claims. So we had to rope in Engineers to sign HW permits, since they understand the risks involved and the chances of such errors would be minimized. This incident was documented internally by he company.

A critical piece that is missing in your understanding of the nature of command authority is the fact that you've never held it.

Command Authority systems of management are obsolete everywhere. Command authority works under exremely close supervisory tasks. Not remotel controlled ones. Dictators like Saddam were full responsible and in full command. They ran a bad ship. Transparency, so essential to good operations and management systems runs counter to the Command Authority that you refer so subjectively, and has been pointed so by some posters here. However, on the same vein i can counter question how, you as a Master would support a Chief Engineer and his team working on trouble shooting a crane where a situation from an intermittent failure to complete failure in luff/slew operations is underway. Since the crane serves 2 hatches, if it fails we incurr costs over $300,000 getting a sore crane to discharge the rest of cargo.

Such instances we pressure the Chief, not the Master. So question again, what would you do as a Master? How would you assist the Chief in the troubleshooting or otherwise? Do you have experience in troubleshooting engineering systems under a time frame? Or would you use your command authority to get it done somehow?

They've got plenty to keep them busy and they are delegated an enormous amount of responsibility and authority by the master anyhow.

The Master is not delegating any authority to the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer comes armed with that authority and responsibility over all ship machinery and equipment under the ISM code. He wears the same number of stripes on his shoulders that the Ship Master does. You certainly are not comprehending the pressures that troubleshooting engineering systems entail on the Chief.

[Allwyn]

Many deck officers on this board deal with equipment more complicated than what's found in their engine rooms ( Dynamic Positioning Systems, LNG cargo, Heavy Lift ballast systems, many others).

Domer, Deck Officers operate these equipment. Operating eqquipment is very different from being able to understand the processes involved and troubleshooting them. Ship Cranes are operated by people with a few days/ weeks course, some experience. Troubleshooting problems that arise in these is a different ball game.

Bolded part: You have to know what you just stated is subjective, generalized and something you don't have adequate skills/ knowledge to back up with. So whats more complicated in the systems you mentioned than any other system in the ER? he physical principles involved, technology, handling skills, the electronics? I am curious how you understand the word complicated.

You simply can't do this on the cheap. You NEED to make the difficult choice of spending money to fix the problem.

Extremely good point. This is where we are in a fix. We also work under budgets and constraints. In this recession there are commodit markets that are hit. We try and manage within our means. And yes, there are not thousands of people available. Our biggest shortage are Engineers. They seem to be leaving fast and retiring early from sea life.

[Allwyn]

In respect to pollution, the Master and Chief Engineer share the responsibility for meeting the requirements and regulations. Most MARPOL violations are the direct fault of the Chief Engineer though. Incorrect ORB entries, unauthorized modifications to the OWS, etc. If the Master had the time and training to monitor this, some of these types of violations would be reduced.

This is a good point and i mentioned it earlier. As far as the IOPP and IAPP goes, Masters have little idea of what goes into it. They cannot possibly know that there are ways even without magic pipes one can discharge illicitly overboard. Even experienced USCG or AMSA officers cannot know. I have seen and supervised OWS system installation on board ships as late as 2008 fall. It took less than a few minutes to twitch the sysem. Nothing is fool proof. It is a SIN to make a Master sign an ORB and hold him equally responsible to a C/E in the case of an IOPP violation. There are techniques to countercheck, but that takes time to follow. Every ship is a bit different. Chiefs who get saddled with ships made before 95 types, have incinerator systems that require an engineer burning waste all the time to cope with sludge production. This is not possible in case of older ships. I personally try and make a case for shore disposal on such ships, but again all ports don't have these facilities.

IAPP is another thing thats already in. But if yyou have time go through the technical files. There are going to be real headaches in the implementation of these. Keeping track of nozzles, spindle guides for fuel valves, exhaust valve seat/ spindle interchanges...a whole lot of paper work and documentation that is going to come soon as an avalanche for the Chief Engineer. Again it will be criminal to hold the Master responsible. The management cannot chase the Master on these issues.

We face a number of problems on these matters an example, called some of the Master/ Chief Engineers for briefing on implemenation of experimenal condition based monitoring systems insallation and their suggestions: The Masters did not understand what condition based monitoring sytems were or what they did, or how they were enhancing anti pollution efforts by the company. These things we put forward and bring in responsibility to those who actually can understand, comprehend and yet make willful or otherwise errors. Our intention is not to blame Masters for everything, but to keep him focussed on his core competencies. We don't want Masters to be held responsible for pollution incidents specially concerning IOPP and IAPP. We want the Chief Engineer to be.

We must share responsibility and yes power too for proper functioning on board.

[Capt. Fran]

You know the problem I really have with this thread is that Allwyn is painting with an extremely broad brush. Generalizations seem to fly from your fingertips Allwyn, and that might just be the core issue of your management theory and the systemic problems piling up around your fleet.
In addition to sailing as Master, I have also spent time working on shore as a Director of Marine Operations. So believe me when I say that I have seen a lot of really good and really bad communication, leadership and management techniques both inter- and intra-vessel / shore.
However, I've typically found that when crewmembers are treated as individuals strengths are emphasized, weaknesses are addressed, and training gaps are identified and dealt with. Does this take a lot of time, effort, energy and money? Oh heck yeah. Is it worth it? Most definitely.
Operations that don't invest in their human capital and look for shortcuts instead of investing in training and communication are what I call "Gillette Ops". Treat your people like a disposable razor and they all get pretty dull pretty quick.

[Capt. Fran]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

We must share responsibility and yes power too for proper functioning on board.

So this is about power? Ah, it is all beginning to make sense, now. We have a bit of envy, don't we, Allwyn? (And when I say "we", I mean you.)

[Allwyn]

You know the problem I really have with this thread is that Allwyn is painting with an extremely broad brush. Generalizations seem to fly from your fingertips Allwyn, and that might just be the core issue of your management theory and the systemic problems piling up around your fleet.

The assessment is incorrect. I have not generalized anything here. I am talking about the rule here, not the exceptions. My posts have been backed with singular examples. Not generalized ones.

So this is about power? Ah, it is all beginning to make sense, now.

Ok assume you are correct, why should this come as some sort of revelation? I mentioned the need for C/Es to feel freer in contacting the company for example. My first post is about executive role on board ships. Nothing difficult to comprehend there. And once you understand that, you understand i mean that Master signatures taken for example granted on ORBs and Hot work permits must cease for safety sake.

Why do Masters want to sign on something they cannot possibly certify as correct?

PS: No signature of the Chief Engineer is compulsorily required on the ORB.

[sean]

Allwyn, out of curiosity, where are your vessels flagged?

[Capt. Fran]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

[/i]The assessment is incorrect. I have not generalized anything here. I am talking about the rule here, not the exceptions.

After re-reading the entire thread, I disagree. But, it seems like you already had your conclusions before you began your first post.

Go start gEngineer.com, Allwyn.

[mtskier]

Allwyn,
You've made a lot of blanket statements that I have feelings about, but I am not going to try to address them all. Your firm is hiring deck officers that have completed the minimum STCW requirements to obtain a license in their flag state, but hire engineers from 4 year institutions - true? Does this reflect a cost savings for your firm? Does it present a source of contention between the folks that have invested 4 plus years in their education and the folks that did the STCW in 6 months - or less? Do you pay the entry level engineer the same as an entry level deck officer? Are they actually able to communicate or do they "meet" the standard for English as a second language?
It sounds as if you are a proponent of management by committee - something that I abhor. Your contention that the command system isn't viable in this "new management era" seems based in safe, run of the mill, every day operations where nothing is going wrong. By wrong, I mean WRONG! People are about to die, period.
These incidents aren't going to be prevented by the typical safety manual, etc. Best practices can be standardized, but in the end when the unexpected happens, having a chain of command helps to eliminate indecision in those critical moments when action MUST be taken.
If your C/E needs to phone home for technical advice, great. Your example of trouble shooting a crane is not an emergency - it is the job of the engineering department. Now if the crane was on fire, the fire plan is going to be implemented, and this is now an emergency. Input from the C/E is going to be expected by the Capt. in order to make the best use of available resources in order to extinguish the fire. This is all about Incident COMMAND and span of control - not management by committee.
If you need an example of the highly successful use of this organization look into the Incident Command System that evolved within wildland fire fighting and has now been adopted (some would say co-opted) by various emergency services agencies. The Incident Commander is the shore side version of a Captain.
I would suggest that you would be better served by seeking out the successful crews that man your vessels and build upon their interactions, rather than support those that are performing poorly through a shoreside crutch...
As some background, I just received my deck license, have a B.Sc, a AAS in engineering, US Navy training in basic electronics and electricity, can weld, wire, pipe fit, rebuild the motor or tranny in your car, truck (or Unimog) - or for that matter fix your crane! Sadly, I am going to struggle to find employment in this market....
MTSKIER

[Jemplayer]

Allwyn have you talked to any engineers that want to take on the day to day running of a ship along with running the engin room?

[seadawg]

Originally Posted by seadawg

Allwyn,

Sir..I am surprised anyone bothered to respond to your babble..it is far from worthy of comment!!

it is with great glee that I digress..I suspect this gentleman is a Emmett Kelly wantabe who imagines he can steer a vessel from behind a desk over the phone as well.

[anchorman]

Originally Posted by Capt. Fran

After re-reading the entire thread, I disagree. But, it seems like you already had your conclusions before you began your first post.

Go start gEngineer.com, Allwyn.

That's funny. Never realized that anyone actually expected the Master of the vessel to know how to rebuilt a diesel or troubleshoot a PLC, and on top of that assume some mitigation of responsibility as a result.
That's makes about a much sense as mitigating the responsibility of the Presidency because the President knows less about finance than the Federal Reserve Chairman and less about military tactics than the Chiarman of the Joint Chiefs.

[Kennebec Captain]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

Why do Masters want to sign on something they cannot possibly certify as correct?

It is required that the master signs it - With this ring I do thee wed.

My take is that that Port State Control is telling me that if I can't trust the chief I have to do something about it. I had a chief who I didn't trust. Now I have one that I do.

[john]

Originally Posted by seadawg

Allwyn,

Sir..I am surprised anyone bothered to respond to your babble..it is far from worthy of comment!!

As the forum moderator I won't jump into this discussion with my opinion (as much as I'd love to!).

I, however, simply can't resist giving opinion on one comment I view as misguided... but it's not Allwyn's, it's seadawg's.

Seadawg, I can see your point and I initially agreed with you but... the fact is I have learned a lot from this discussion. While some comments on this thread are from left field, it's this kind of out-of-the-box thinking discussed by our fellow mariners that is of real value to the industry as a whole.

Allwyn, whether or not your idea has merit, this discussion certainly does and I appreciate your provocation as it gives us an opportunity to discuss new ideas. I only wish every vessel manager had the guts to run their ideas past a forum of professional mariners before taking action.

[albertpachino]

Good point John but I think Allwyn's profile says it all...

[anchorman]

Originally Posted by albertpachino

Good point John but I think Allwyn's profile says it all...

lol.

You're not right.

[Allwyn]

Allwyn, whether or not your idea has merit, this discussion certainly does and I appreciate your provocation as it gives us an opportunity to discuss new ideas. I only wish every vessel manager had the guts to run their ideas past a forum of professional mariners before taking action.

John, appreciate the leg up. I raised this issue here precisely the reason you mention, because it is dominated by lots of extremely professional Mariners who gather here to primarily share and exchange ideas.

One of the big handicaps we face is trying to manage and bring in improvements based on management systems that do not change the nature of onboard relationships or Shore-Ship. This is a difficult task and i shall bring up some examples later to illustrate this. Changing mindsets rooted in status quo is a challenge when we endeavour to bring in any change. This is one reason that the shipping Industry lags far behind it's shore based counterparts and sea farers get a raw deal. Ultimately the onus of savings in the trade is translated/ shifted to longer working hours, strained and tense work loads on crew.

Changes in management structures that will bring in new Technology and improvements while enhancing safety on board and maintaining costs is a big challenge. This is beyond the scope of Marine Engineers or Masters to accomplish individually. Even getting ship saff to implement the ISM code has been no small deal. Without the active participations of PSCs and the damocless' sword of heavy fines, no management on the planet would be enforcing it with vigor. The mechanics would not work out.

I am trying here to approach that there might be solution and it just might be quite simple though not so simplistic. Thats why i broached focus on core competencies involved in the operational trade. Rennaissance did not occur by making and maintaining the Church sacrosanct. No leadership can be unquestionable. No leadership can claim a monopolistic position forever, specially in the 21st century based on religious piety or tradition. The Industry is beyond that piety, beyond the tradition.

[Allwyn]

Allwyn have you talked to any engineers that want to take on the day to day running of a ship along with running the engin room?


Jem, if you are referring to provision management, accounts, accommodation housekeeping, presentation of documents to CG/ Immigration etc frankly no. Neither i think Chiefs would be interested in this stuff. IMHO the Captain also should not be doing this. This is clerical stuff. Most company procedures manuals lay out quite clearly what is expected in daily running of ships. Any executive position should expect to be competent to macromanage and not micro manage such tasks delegated to someone.

Allwyn, out of curiosity, where are your vessels flagged?

Sean, mixed, FOC, Singapore.

[Allwyn]

Your firm is hiring deck officers that have completed the minimum STCW requirements to obtain a license in their flag state, but hire engineers from 4 year institutions - true? Does this reflect a cost savings for your firm? Does it present a source of contention between the folks that have invested 4 plus years in their education and the folks that did the STCW in 6 months - or less? Do you pay the entry level engineer the same as an entry level deck officer? Are they actually able to communicate or do they "meet" the standard for English as a second language?

We're not exactly headhunting on college campuses that churn out BS Engineers and look out for Deck Officers without a degree. As i mentioned earlier we do have a multinational set up. Within that set up we do have a large percentage of Engineers who have a BS in Marine Engineering or have done a BS in Mechanical or Electrical with further 9 months specialization in Marine subjects. They join as Junior Engineers.

Most Deck Officers in our Company have started as Cadets after high school and finish requisite time to appear for 3rd mates. The 3rd Mate (entr level Deck Officer) earns more than the J/E (entry level Engineer). J/Es translate to 4/Es after time and clearing a Class 4 examination. The 3rd Mate and 4/E salaries are equivalent, like 2/M and 3/E. Or the 1/M and 2/E. 2/E =1st Engineer in nomenclature expressed differently across the spectrum. The C/E and Master have equivalent salaries again.

Yes all are able to communicate in English. That is mandatory.

It sounds as if you are a proponent of management by committee - something that I abhor.

I nowhere mentioned i am proposing that. I don't want things managed by some sort of consensus management. If you're translating my statement on increased transparency, then you did not get me right.

Your example of trouble shooting a crane is not an emergency - it is the job of the engineering department.

I just gave an example. Did i mention it is an emergency? Do you really think it is the Chief Engineers job to be able to troubleshoot every thing in every different crane model? From what i gather you don't think that the Master could contribute anything to the vessel getting delayed in this case. The Company is bothered MOST primarily about the commercial aspect. BECAUSE Safety hit's out at Company bottomlines by law, it is the reason why Company's invest in it today. The Master is not going to display even in your instance (fire on the crane), any higher specialized fire fighting skills than that a C/E or Mate (all do the same AFF course) is going display under the circumstances. Instead of directly doing the firefighting, he going to be reporting the circumstances to appropriate authorities for info/ support etc on numbers listed above the Inmarsat terminal on the basis of information being supplied if needed and going through established checklists to confirm if FF procedures are going smooth. He is assigned that role because of his executive position and not necessarily superior fire fighting abilities.

This is all about Incident COMMAND and span of control - not management by committee.

No dispute there. The Master plays out an executive role. That role is given to him.

or for that matter fix your crane!

I just realized you could'nt fix it, the way you claimed you could. The problem in our instance could not be fixed despite 3 days of non-stop work. Do you think the tools available for troubleshooting are universally mandatory and available on board or for that matter ships function on ultimate redundancy? The last thing anyone hiring is comforable with is bravado.

However i do wish you the very best in your quest as a mariner. There is a learning curve, and it is painful at times.

[Kennebec Captain]

From my point of view I see a case of self-fulfilling prophecy, from the point of view of engineering centric management the captain is little more then a glorified second mate who pompously demands full authority over all vessel operations. If management believes that captain's main role is to navigate in a world where navigation has become a simple manner of steering towards a waypoint which has been entered into a GPS then the bar for hiring captains if probably very low. For example it was mentioned that captains don't understand how the cargo equipment work, something that should have been learned long before stepping into a captain's job.

It is my view that in many cases many members of the engine dept fail to appreciate what deck officers do. Consider two young officers fresh out of school with equal intelligence, ambitions and so on joining for the first time, on as third engineer and one as third mate. The third eng goes to the engine room and begins the process of leaning a very complex engineering plant which will take years to master. And the third mate does, nothing, or next to nothing, he is given a radio some instructions to read and is left with a vague understanding that he is to make rounds and keep an eye on things. In other words lean on the rail and bs with the AB on watch. Seen another way however the young mate on watch has taken responsibility for the entire ship and in some case technicality in charge of everyone on board with the exception of the captain and chief mate. Of course no one in the engine department accepts the view that a raw third mate is in charge of the ship so thus begins the education of a deck officer.

When the ship gets underway the third engineer is allowed to do nothing without close supervision, meanwhile the third mate is sent to the stern and put in charge of the after mooring operations. What does that entail? From the point of view of the eng dept the third mate stands around with a radio and relays orders from the bridge to the crew so called rope chockers or deck apes. which then responds by either pushing or pulling on various ropes.

Seen another way however the third mate is now part of a team which consist of three vessels (the ship and two tug) each with its own crew which must pull the ship off the dock in restrcited waters get swung around and started down the channel. An operation whcih has tripped tugs and drown and kileed crews. A good crew makes it look easy but the fact that sometimes something rips loose and kills or injures someone and sometimes it does not is not simply a matter of luck.

Once the ship is at sea the third engineer is given responsibly for the incinerator and so forth while the third mate is put in charge of the navigation watch, which consist of what? Following the big arrow on the gps or something more? Something which can not be seen by someone who does not know what they are looking for?

[Capt. Nemo]

Are you a lawyer? If not, you should be. You are very good at twisting and spinning words to change their meaning and suit your needs.

Your next post will ask me to give examples. Just read the whole thread. That's your example.

I think Capt. Fran hit the nail on the head. This is a power thing for you...and a lot of engineers. It's a classic debate: if the engineer doesn't maintain the machinery, the ship can't perform and therefor doesn't need a captain; if the master doesn't navigate, communicate and otherwise manage the ship, the machinery doesn't matter, thereby obviating the need for an engineer.

I say again, sombody has to be in command. Not a dictatorship, but in a position of authority with the abillity to make a critical decision in a critical situation. If you don't have that ability, you shouldn't be a master. If you can't keep machinery operational you shouldn't be an engineer.

This whole thing is a power play. Your company obviously has captains that won't bend to the corporate objective (doing things as cheaply and as rapidly as possible) and engineers that you think will.

You want engineers to run the show? Let's have mechanics tell pilots where to cut a line of squalls or whether to divert because of a mechanical discrepancy. After all, they keep the thing in good repair (supposedly). They should have a say, too.

And what's your point about the number of stripes on your shoulder boards? Another symbol of authority? Does the number of stripes equal the amount of power and authority one wields?

You must have had a bad experience or two with captains in the past. And I am almost certain there are a multitude of captains that had bad experiences with you. It's good you're on the beach now. Let mariners, whether deck or engine room, do their jobs.

Nemo

[Allwyn]

Seen another way however the third mate is now part of a team which consist of three vessels (the ship and two tug) each with its own crew which must pull the ship off the dock in restrcited waters get swung around and started down the channel. An operation whcih has tripped tugs and drown and kileed crews. A good crew makes it look easy but the fact that sometimes something rips loose and kills or injures someone and sometimes it does not is not simply a matter of luck.

I have personally managed spring and breast lines amongst tugs, floating docks and the ship several times without the presence and help of master, mates or deck officers, because none were present. I understand and appreciate hazards involved in pulling and straining ropes. While they require good situational awareness, they by no means require high technical skillsets. Implies a person who's done even very basic school and posseses high situational awareness, can carry out such tasks as competently as someone who posseses a Masters in some field of Strength of Materials. So without altering the risk factor anything, i can conveniently put a much lesser qualified, but situationally aware person also in charge of actual operations as far as rope handling goes.

It is my view that in many cases many members of the engine dept fail to appreciate what deck officers do.

What about vice versa? Did you see the dredging site posted earlier and the apartheid legacy of shipping? Engineers do tend to be more humble, circumspect by education. Your point of view does not hold on this thread. The only person from the Engine dept i know who commented here (Electro, post 2 or 3) supported your dept albeit in a general way.

Seen another way however the young mate on watch has taken responsibility for the entire ship and in some case technicality in charge of everyone on board with the exception of the captain and chief mate. Of course no one in the engine department accepts the view that a raw third mate is in charge of the ship so thus begins the education of a deck officer.

What makes you leave out Captain and the Mate? If the third mate is on watch he is in charge of everyone on board. Same logic. Gregory Cousins got punished more than the Captain remember? The Master got back his license too. Why single out the Engine dept? Don't take more on to yourself than is necessary.

By the way we have cadets in he company. I have a crew list ..one's joined just 15 days ago. 1991 born, first time on a ship. The crew list in front of me prepared by Master shows the Chain of Command..

Master, Chief Mate, 2nd Mate, 3rd Mate, Cadet, Chief Engineer.....

Thats if the first 4 cop it, the 15 day old Cadet takes over the ship. Technically yes. Correct.

Once the ship is at sea the third engineer is given responsibly for the incinerator and so forth while the third mate is put in charge of the navigation watch, which consist of what? Following the big arrow on the gps or something more? Something which can not be seen by someone who does not know what they are looking for?

Ok so operating and interpreting GPS equipment is complicated? I don't get your point.

[Allwyn]

I think Capt. Fran hit the nail on the head. This is a power thing for you...and a lot of engineers.

I asked this before, even if it is. What then? Do you think the Master community will cede legally endorsed power of executive authority easily? Nobody has done that in history willingly. However if the Ship owner community can be convinced otherwise, there is a distinct possibility that traditional status quo structures prevalent in shipping might undergo a change.

Your company obviously has captains that won't bend to the corporate objective (doing things as cheaply and as rapidly as possible) and engineers that you think will.

You want engineers to run the show? Let's have mechanics tell pilots where to cut a line of squalls or whether to divert because of a mechanical discrepancy.

If you read through Company finance sheets, you'll realize that apart from the inadvertant and rare occassion of bumping the vessel here or there, frankly Masters personally don't usually soil the balance sheet. That comes out of , machinery spares, stores, normal salaries, (pollution related fines..scary), insurance and stuff. Just a month or 2 back, i tracked a ship and found that a cat 4 TS was heading down south Barrier Reef on it's way. Sent a message to Master on what he intended to do to avoid this. He'd done a cursory calculation and assumed and insisted it would'nt be on his path. On the net, i had accurate data, and requested him to divert well away. He did heed my request, and as it turned out the storm turned Cat 5..Hamish would have met the ship bang on. Timelines got delayed, but this does not prevent us from spending a bit on safety too and assisting Master in his role. You're way off mark i can assure ou on your above statement.

And what's your point about the number of stripes on your shoulder boards? Another symbol of authority? Does the number of stripes equal the amount of power and authority one wields?

Power and authority alone have never guaranteed good governance or management anywhere on this planet in History. Power and authority are important, and like you mention, "someone must be in Command'. I'd say " someone must be in control" for sure. No questions there. However who do you give the "power and authority"?

If we have a system where we are unable to extract change with the times, it does become a burden and dictatorship of sorts. Without saying that ships should be democracies, i do venture that 'Authority' sructures/ managements can be pulled down in shore companies, democratic Governments and supplemented. Not in absolute command regimes. Like the ones run in the Middle East. Seems a bit like failing Islamic states fighting terrorism demanding more religion to fight terror..does'nt work. There's much more to the shipping industry than maintaining under law 'Navigators only for command'. With management changes only do better technological inputs and savings surface. Status quo rigid management structures whilst good for sometime tend to wear off in effectiveness.