Modern Management or the Command System?

[Allwyn]

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.

But the fact is most indications and historical records show clearly that the apartheid was followed and implemented by the Deck department. Was'nt a link provided here itself? Surprising thing is why have these suspicions and distrust not been broken in more than 100 years since Engineers entered shipping? The deck department has held the absolute power all along. But you want to fault Engineers? You have had everything you could have professionally asked for.

[seadog!]

I think most Chiefs are too smart to want the headaches that go with command.


Anyone that's sailed awhile and gotten any good at it knows it takes the whole crew to get the job done.

[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?


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.

No were in the above did I even inference that any officer should be micromanaging, but I knew that's were you would take it. The whole reason that an engine dept was put on board was because it was becoming to much for the Master to keep up with. Now you essentially what to go backwards and saddle a guy with enough responsibility already with even more responsibility that was deemed to much for one guy.

Maybe this is were my experience from just running small boats in the oil fields, but who's job is it to makes sure all this clerical stuff is done at the end of the day?

Who's job is it if it isn't the captains to make sure that all the T's have been crossed and the I's dotted?

Are you saying that when any of the above that you listed doesn't go off as planned you're not calling the master to at least know who you should be talking too, and if he goes "I don't know" it's a perfectly acceptable answer?

And still at the end of the day when something does go wrong and the CG has to be called the first person they want to talk to is the Master, and I can tell you from personal experience that pointing at someone else and saying they were in charge of that particular activity doesn't absolve you from what happened.

I think that you forget that even the laws are written that run completely contradictory of what you are proposing.

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

Congratulations you got lucky. 99% of the time nothing happens, but that 1% is the one that fucks you over. That 1% is only lowered by having experienced guys in charge.

Whats even more telling is this.

i can conveniently put a much lesser qualified, but situationally aware person also in charge of actual operations as far as rope handling

You would rather pay for the bare minimum instead of stacking the odds in your favor of everything running more smoothly and pay for experience.

Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. Your company is suffering from bad communication, and what sounds like some bad hiring decisions and policy's from H&R. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why not try and fix it first?

I'm sure your not the first to come up with your idea, so how come it hasn't been implemented? The big reason is that at the end of the day there are thousands of things that can happen on the open water were the command system works best and is proven to save lives. So while even if you're system could save your company money, is it worth the risk to human life that it could impose?

As much as I dislike your idea, I will give you props for bringing it here were it can be vetted by those who it would impact most. I just wish some of the engineers around would way in on this.

[Kennebec Captain]

I think perhaps Allwyn has been putting us on. There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don't call lines ropes.

[todd.harter]

I have seen no laws that would prohibit one of these highly-skilled, well-educated Engineers from obtaining a Third Mates License and working their way to Master. I know there are some who have, and would be very interested in hearing from them, rather than an Engineer who has carried such bitterness, born of ignorance to the overall operations of the vessel, into a shore-side management position.

[Mr 100-ton]

Originally Posted by Kennebec Captain

I think perhaps Allwyn has been putting us on. There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don't call lines ropes.

You might be right,,, has THEMANOVERBOARD come back to haunt us using a different name???

[Allwyn]

There are too many errrors in his writing for an experneced engineer. The crew list is not a chain of command for example, mariners don't call lines ropes.

Easy, a simple google on "mooring ropes" will tell you how many manufacturers, mariners use the term rope. Look at the ISSA catalogue (International Marine Purchasing Association) look up the section under which these lines are classified: Mooring ropes. So much for cracked conspiracy theories.

[Allwyn]

I have seen no laws that would prohibit one of these highly-skilled, well-educated Engineers from obtaining a Third Mates License and working their way to Master. I know there are some who have, and would be very interested in hearing from them, rather than an Engineer who has carried such bitterness, born of ignorance to the overall operations of the vessel, into a shore-side management position.

This assessment is not right. I do not carry bitterness and cannot afford it in my job. The fact is i work under a status quo management structure on board, and all sorts of relationships and improvements have to fall under the guidelines of this rigid structure. There are some further improvemens on board that could be introduced, but it is being impeded by rigid status quo's. I was trying to approach that, but it becomes difficult with a mindset thats immediately aggressive when one even barely starts questioning the present command structure on board.

Trust me if the industry finds solutions tha can run ships safely without marine engineers and /or simple mechanics would do, i'd be extremely glad and working overtime to get that done. That was why i initially started focussing on core competencies as opposed to the several onerous simple, clerical tasks mandated on the Captain today. I even tried to reduce his liability on pollution resulting from IAPP and IOPP regulations and pinning them down on the Chief. Masters should NOT sign ANY documents based on trust, as was the solution offered here by one Captain and certainly not important ones related to IOPP and such. Try telling senior management in your company, you sign IOPP docs based on how you trust someone, they'll be in a state of shock.

[Allwyn]

Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. Your company is suffering from bad communication,

Fair enough, but then a background of what we've been doing to address this. I did make a strong pitch here on the necessity for increased transparency. Good communication does translate from transparency. Increased transparency is the result of good communication. I am sure you will agree this?

First thing between shore-ship. We made it understood that all communication from the office will be addressed to both Master and Chief Engineer. There is no secret communication and no secrets to hide. All telephone conversations in which the Office management suggests something to the Captain or the Chief will not carry weight unless there is a written confirmation: We are carrying out this..blah blah..as per our telecon on so and so date. This is extremely important if you realize. I cannot tell the Master or Chief Engineer something on the phone and leave hhim holding the baby if something goes wrong, while i hide behind plausible deniability.

But guess what, the maximum opposition to the 'end of secrecy' came from which quarters? No prizes, and it was not the Chief Engineers. We also have very smart Captains, who do realize and moan the fact they are being held responsible for IOPP violations. If you are hauled up in a court in South Korea on an IOPP violation, what are you going to tell 'his honor'? I trusted my Chief wrongly, plead guilty? No you are going to say, 'i should not be signing this. And do so only because it is mandated by law/ flag state requirement etc. The person ruly in charge and responsible for this is the Chief Engineer and he is paid for this'. But guess what the Chief does'nt have to sign on the ORB.

Some of this responsibility stuff is good on the golf course and it does awe the uninitiated. But in brick and mortar terms it means little. Even the Exxon Valdez Master got back his license and was full absolved. The pitch in the court house is always a different take. And should be rightly so.

If i try and focus on core responsibilities and take away minor, clerical jobs that take critical focus away, i should be encouraged in this task. Critical redundancy factors are mandated by class on some basic stuff. Operationally over the years, the scope increases over and above the basic minimum that the class recommends. Some engine rooms are difficult to run. Engineers are saddled with sometimes very poor ship designs, radical revamps on these machinery will cost most companies money they cannot afford. The moment ou run those DC ward leonard type cranes, you're talking 100% load on all generators. Charterers don't want delays. On such vessels i am totally dependent on the Chief to keep things moving. Not the Master. If the cranes have to be stopped due to breakdowns, we don't blame Masters. Target the Chief, not ask Master to ensure that breakdowns don't occur. The older a ship gets engineering reliability factors come down drastically. These don't effect the Master on board, they do entail more hardsip and understanding on the Chiefs part. Ofcourse a Master can say i ran a 30 year old ship for 4, 6 months without problems at the end of the day or contract. Looking through the subjectivity of 'running a ship" and identifying who is how critically responsible for what across the board is essential.

Look at it this way, if the Master is caught by law on IOPP, and the Company holds he C/E responsible there is a conflcit. I don't want the Masters signature on the ORB because i don't want him to be responsible for that. The Company cannot fire the Master in case the ORB is not maintained correctly. Masters questioning C/Es superficially on the ORB breeds onboard resentment. And no ship Master can monitor ever IOPP transfer record. Chiefs also cannot, but because he monitors the system extremely closely he is in the right position to be absolutely sworn responsible in the act.

[Stareed]

Sir,
I am appalled that you think that the wheelhouse crew is made up of morons that follow a line on the GPS. You keep referring to our lack of mental capacity compared with that of the engine room personal, there is much more to navigation than following a line on a screen. The art of navigation requires more than a modicum of intelligence. At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with "average" intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program? I dont know how your officers are tested on this subject for there license, but the USCG makes us prove that we can accomplish this task with a simple calculator and a pencel. Wheelhouse personal have every bit the same mental capacity as Enginroom personal, it is about personal choice not mental aptitude that seperates the two professions.
If the engineroom makes a mistake the boat stops, if the wheelhouse makes a mistake... the boat sinks, the environment is ruined, and people die!
Also I would like to add, Google is not the place to prove your knowage of Maritime terms. A line is a line and has been since the begining of time, regardless of what the geniuses in Seattle think.

[anchorman]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

Again it has been said by Capt. A, Capt. Fran, my self, and others. Your company is suffering from bad communication,

Fair enough, but then a background of what we've been doing to address this. I did make a strong pitch here on the necessity for increased transparency. Good communication does translate from transparency. Increased transparency is the result of good communication. I am sure you will agree this?

First thing between shore-ship. We made it understood that all communication from the office will be addressed to both Master and Chief Engineer. There is no secret communication and no secrets to hide. All telephone conversations in which the Office management suggests something to the Captain or the Chief will not carry weight unless there is a written confirmation: We are carrying out this..blah blah..as per our telecon on so and so date. This is extremely important if you realize. I cannot tell the Master or Chief Engineer something on the phone and leave hhim holding the baby if something goes wrong, while i hide behind plausible deniability.

But guess what, the maximum opposition to the 'end of secrecy' came from which quarters? No prizes, and it was not the Chief Engineers. We also have very smart Captains, who do realize and moan the fact they are being held responsible for IOPP violations. If you are hauled up in a court in South Korea on an IOPP violation, what are you going to tell 'his honor'? I trusted my Chief wrongly, plead guilty? No you are going to say, 'i should not be signing this. And do so only because it is mandated by law/ flag state requirement etc. The person ruly in charge and responsible for this is the Chief Engineer and he is paid for this'. But guess what the Chief does'nt have to sign on the ORB.

Some of this responsibility stuff is good on the golf course and it does awe the uninitiated. But in brick and mortar terms it means little. Even the Exxon Valdez Master got back his license and was full absolved. The pitch in the court house is always a different take. And should be rightly so.

If i try and focus on core responsibilities and take away minor, clerical jobs that take critical focus away, i should be encouraged in this task. Critical redundancy factors are mandated by class on some basic stuff. Operationally over the years, the scope increases over and above the basic minimum that the class recommends. Some engine rooms are difficult to run. Engineers are saddled with sometimes very poor ship designs, radical revamps on these machinery will cost most companies money they cannot afford. The moment ou run those DC ward leonard type cranes, you're talking 100% load on all generators. Charterers don't want delays. On such vessels i am totally dependent on the Chief to keep things moving. Not the Master. If the cranes have to be stopped due to breakdowns, we don't blame Masters. Target the Chief, not ask Master to ensure that breakdowns don't occur. The older a ship gets engineering reliability factors come down drastically. These don't effect the Master on board, they do entail more hardsip and understanding on the Chiefs part. Ofcourse a Master can say i ran a 30 year old ship for 4, 6 months without problems at the end of the day or contract. Looking through the subjectivity of 'running a ship" and identifying who is how critically responsible for what across the board is essential.

Look at it this way, if the Master is caught by law on IOPP, and the Company holds he C/E responsible there is a conflcit. I don't want the Masters signature on the ORB because i don't want him to be responsible for that. The Company cannot fire the Master in case the ORB is not maintained correctly. Masters questioning C/Es superficially on the ORB breeds onboard resentment. And no ship Master can monitor ever IOPP transfer record. Chiefs also cannot, but because he monitors the system extremely closely he is in the right position to be absolutely sworn responsible in the act.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the above statement in RED?
That is about the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

[Allwyn]

At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with "average" intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program? I dont know how your officers are tested on this subject for there license, but the USCG makes us prove that we can accomplish this task with a simple calculator and a pencel.

Ok let me assume you're correct.. Tell me then, why the USCG wants merchant mariners to be skilled at CN, while the US Navy, Airforce and the rest of the world airlines don't follow it anymore or teach it anymore. Or do you think the GPS would be switched off selectively only for Merchant ships. I am cerain there are thousands of planes in the air too any moment relying on GPS data.

Also I would like to add, Google is not the place to prove your knowage of Maritime terms.

Google is not the place to improve one's maritime knowledge, i am aware. But it is a tool used by people all over the world to learn and gather information about any subject. A tool. Like your sextant. Incidently google is not based in Seattle which is the MS HQ but in California.

[Allwyn]

Anchorman, please go ahead and explain why you consider it the dumbest thing you read in a long time. I would have appreciated if you could ask me phrase it better or something, but i will now wait for your explanation, why you consider it so 'dumb'.

[Allwyn]

I am appalled that you think that the wheelhouse crew is made up of morons that follow a line on the GPS.

I don' think so one bit. Reminded me of a quote by Peter Drucker:

“No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”

Achieving a Management Sysem that does that effectively is the big task. The ideal for shipping management is a layman should be able to enter he bridge and safely navigate the vessel or to be more PC..a non-Engineer should be able to come into the ER and able to operate and run the Engines. The present ultimate ideal thats not going to be achievable in the near future is boot out all kinds of Mariners. Masters or Chiefs.

So the next best workable ideal is Druckers, that we organize things on board in such a way, that even if an Incompetent Master or Chief Engineer finds his way and slips through, the system makes it sure that the Silvermans paradox holds sway over Murphy for the period they are their. When people override the system with misuse of command authority or other means, all the plans go for a six. Murphy's laws will override Silvermans..

[anchorman]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

Anchorman, please go ahead and explain why you consider it the dumbest thing you read in a long time. I would have appreciated if you could ask me phrase it better or something, but i will now wait for your explanation, why you consider it so 'dumb'.

It needs explaining? I don't think experience can be explained, but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board. I have been in situations like this......obviously you have not. Neither has many Chiefs.
I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

I'm starting to wonder if you're one of those office jockeys types that think you can read about practical experience.

Some of your statements are valid - I'll give you that. I'll also admit the ones that have merit are so blatantly obvious that my first thought is "no shit".

[Stareed]

In times of a National Security Emergency the government can disable the commercial GPS signal. That is why the USCG requires it, also if there is a major electrical problem onboard that causes the electronic navigational equipment to malfunction it is still necessary to find your way home. I am sure such a major problem would not happen or be unable to be resolved with your mentally superior Engineering staff that you employ on your vessels.
As to why the US Navy does not require it any longer is not a subject that I can speak of, as I am not in the Armed Forces

[Allwyn]

I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

Fair enough, Anchorman. It's really great you worked through with lesser capability than what a given for those circumstances.

but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board.

There was a reason why i gave the example of the crane breakdown. Because i wanted you to appreciate the trouble shooting and analytical abilities essential to solve some problems which many take for granted and easy quick fixes.

I am a bit surprised how easily you think the C/E has the "luxury" of getting things running, while without propulsion you're doing some heroic maneovers avoiding reefs and pirates to save souls. Come off it. There are established procedures in every company for such events very clearly laid out in checklists. In case the vessel is indeed hitting reefs, rocks and Engines are unavailable, there is you or anyone can do if you cannot use your anchors or Engines. Your best bet certainly lies in the Chief and his team being able to sort the problem out before you some how ground or hit. And if you're mid ocean. Relax, have a beer or soda while he Chief goes about his thing.

[Allwyn]

also if there is a major electrical problem onboard that causes the electronic navigational equipment to malfunction it is still necessary to find your way home. I am sure such a major problem would not happen or be unable to be resolved with your mentally superior Engineering staff that you employ on your vessels.

I would like to honestly ask you if you are aware of the redundancies built in to the GPS unit on board you operate? Have you checked what voltage it runs on in the first place and where it's emergency supply is from? Do try and take/ consult the Chief Engineer in case equipment on bridge fails. My honest request.

As to why the US Navy does not require it any longer is not a subject that I can speak of, as I am not in the Armed Forces

Ok convenient. Civilian Aircraft?

While i do acknowledge there is no equipment not capable of failure, it is important to understand redundancies built into it. If you're not using sexants, CN and have not used them before. How big a deal is it to learn using the equipment for the first time? One day? Two days? Months? The big deal is not the complexity involved in using it, but the accuracy of the plot. Am i right? Ready to stand corrected though.

[anchorman]

Originally Posted by Allwyn

I have also lost thrusters that could not be fixed at sea and I was forced to work with less while the C/E was drinking his coffee waiting for the part to arrive.
I can go on and on, but you should get the picture.

Fair enough, Anchorman. It's really great you worked through with lesser capability than what a given for those circumstances.

but using an example of a crane breaking down at the dock is a luxury compared to losing a main engine while underway. If you think mechanical break downs don't effect the master, maybe you know nothing about being a master. While the C/E has the luxury of concentrating efforts to get things running, the master has the burden of saving the ship and those on board.

There was a reason why i gave the example of the crane breakdown. Because i wanted you to appreciate the trouble shooting and analytical abilities essential to solve some problems which many take for granted and easy quick fixes.

I am a bit surprised how easily you think the C/E has the "luxury" of getting things running, while without propulsion you're doing some heroic maneovers avoiding reefs and pirates to save souls. Come off it. There are established procedures in every company for such events very clearly laid out in checklists. In case the vessel is indeed hitting reefs, rocks and Engines are unavailable, there is you or anyone can do if you cannot use your anchors or Engines. Your best bet certainly lies in the Chief and his team being able to sort the problem out before you some how ground or hit. And if you're mid ocean. Relax, have a beer or soda while he Chief goes about his thing.

No heroics, just a little experience.
You really have no idea. There is no debate there. You really don't.

Check list? What checklist? There is a checklist for experience, or every event that could possibly happen? If you had any sense at all, you would know that an Engineer is provided with equipment manuals that are far more useful in their profession than checklist are for the Captain. Most checklist are CYA documents originating from people like you.

Can anyone provide a checklist (or an engineer with the knowledge) of the correct procedure if you were on an AHTS in 2500 meters of water pulling 210mt of bollard pull while running out an 18mt Stevpris anchor on a PCC wire with approx. 3500 meters of of 4" wire and 1000 meters of 3 1/2" chain between you and the rig and your starboard engine catches on fire. You lose the engine and shaft generator which also sheds your fwd drop-down and bow tunnel?
Who's decision would it be to release CO2 in this space?
Answer.....the CAPTAIN. Only the Captain could make that safe judgement.

[cmakin]

Originally Posted by Jemplayer

As much as I dislike your idea, I will give you props for bringing it here were it can be vetted by those who it would impact most. I just wish some of the engineers around would way in on this.

We are too busy. . . .

[Allwyn]

Anchorman, i am not disagreeing with the fact there are decisions like CO2 release that the Captain has to make. But you also must realize that if you have critical decisions to make regarding safety and running of he ship, so does the Chief. You cannot absolve that fact. And you can never win a subjective argument that a Captain has more critical decisions to make than a Chief Engineer, simply because every critical piece of equipment that you intend to use is in service because the Engineer is in charge of it. Including testing of the CO2 systems.

I want to bring this on track with the management issues. Shore crane operators work at times on cranes. Being operators they are in 'command' when they are operating this equipment. However on a particular occassion it came to our notice they were not using the normal 'close grab' function but a test button for closing the grab in air, without load. We requested them not to use that. But they continued, since we do not have policing facilities and they insisted that it is for normal use. Since the manuals said nothing, but engineers deduced his would burn the motor at a future point of time for certain, we consulted the maker. It was indeed, prohibited for such use. We then disconneced simple wiring for preventing use the next time. This is a simple example. Indeed if the wire snaps, the cargo/ grab/ jib is about to fall onto someone and the operator takes action, he does so based on his judgement alone. No questions there. But the tendency of some crane operators as in this particular case to undermine advise given by Engineers can lead to a major problem.

Have you seen massive rig structures being loaded onto empty barges at yards? A delicate operation indeed, Engineers do these sort of things, they design all these too, they troubleshoot on them, define tolerances. Have you seen ships without power being towed into drydocks floating or otherwise? Yard Engineers (many with Marine experience) do these on a daily basis pretty safely. The do not hire Masters for these.

The goal of any management including yours undoubtedly, is to bring about as much standardization as possible. While i admit and fully agree with you, experience is wanted and indeed the market also demands it, standardization is also important. There have been plenty silly incidents, accidents involving very experienced people.

This is why i quoted Drucker on a post to that effect. We're not looking at Genius's and Heroes to run things. We're looking at making our management systems such that the chance of hypotheticals (like those quoted) is reduced to such low probability that Silvermans paradox to Murphy kicks in. I understand it looks absolutely stupid to remind experienced Masters and Chief Engineers to follow procedures for Arrival port and departure, or Economizer waterwashing, blackout, grounding, hot work, working aloft, starting a Generator and so on..but believe me it does make a massive difference.

The management has no guarantee they will get as good a Master as you in handling AHTS vessels, when you leave. So as in our case, specially when there is tremendous shortage in the market, we do our best to get in as much standardization in operational processes as possible.

The moment someone walks into the HO saying " I have 30 years experience as Master/ CE and i don't need your procedures lists, i know this stuff inside/ out" any manager in the right senses will show him the exit door ASAP.

While i agree everything is not standardized, and possibly cannot be. The reason why experience does count is still valid and above par for the course.

[anchorman]

"Anchorman, i am not disagreeing with the fact there are decisions like CO2 release that the Captain has to make. But you also must realize that if you have critical decisions to make regarding safety and running of he ship, so does the Chief. You cannot absolve that fact. And you can never win a subjective argument that a Captain has more critical decisions to make than a Chief Engineer, simply because every critical piece of equipment that you intend to use is in service because the Engineer is in charge of it. Including testing of the CO2 systems."

I already know the importance of the Chief, and I've had some fine engineers, but at the end of the day, it's the master of the vessel that must have total situational awareness of the engine room and the deck to make effective operational decisions. The master must make sure that the Chief is tending to his duties, particularly the one that you pointed out in regard to safety. This in not a two way street and it never will be, for good reason.
There is no reason to exemplify the importance of anyone's duty on board any vessel. Any reasonable and experienced Captain would know that the most important person on a vessel at any given time can be the cook, or the green OS because they may be the person that pulled the general alarm saving everyone.
There is no subjective argument to win, as you put it, there is only decisions based of fact. Your job as Master is to get the facts straight and the fact is you're trying to mitigate the Master's authority with your posts. How do you explain this reaction?

"Have you seen massive rig structures being loaded onto empty barges at yards? A delicate operation indeed, Engineers do these sort of things, they design all these too, they troubleshoot on them, define tolerances. Have you seen ships without power being towed into drydocks floating or otherwise? Yard Engineers (many with Marine experience) do these on a daily basis pretty safely. The do not hire Masters for these."

I know engineers do these sort of things, actual mechanical engineers or naval architects. I watch the Discovery Channel.....and it sure as hell is not a ship engineer. Hell, we can even say that Captain's fly Boeing 747's if you want to start talking apples and oranges.

[Capt. Nemo]

Allwyn,

What are we talking about here? Ship's engineers or Civil Engineers, or Electrical Engineers, or Mechanical Engineers or what?

There's a lot of difference in them, their duties, education and experience.
You seem to equate a structural engineer with a Chief Engineer.

I'm sure glad I don't work for your company.

Oh, by the way, airliners can navigate using "old-fashioned" methods as well as GPS. There's not an airliner flying that's not equipped to do so. In fact, the final phase of flight uses ONLY conventional navigation. Ever heard of an ILS?

And the U.S. Navy DOES use celestial navigation.

Talk about what you know about, which apparently isn't much.

Nemo

[Allwyn]

The whole reason that an engine dept was put on board was because it was becoming to much for the Master to keep up with.

That is one Gem i will remember always.

but at the end of the day, it's the master of the vessel that must have total situational awareness of the engine room and the deck to make effective operational decisions.

I agree. And the Master can only have very macro type situational awareness of machinery and equipment on board. In the short contracts that are doled out, even the C/E on board rarely have the time to develop complete and total situational awareness of E/R. Forget it, i don't believe that Masters institutionally do so or are capable of it. The Deck is again made up of Steel, Machinery and Cargo or ballast. Again your knowledge monopoly on that is susceptible to questioning.

Leaves the Bridge. Yes that is your core responsibility. Operating the equipment their and safe navigation.

Out of 3 main areas i see the Chief might be possessing better situational awareness in 2, than the average Master. If i introduce say a Cargo Engineer, who does all the mates cargo ops work, the Master is left with the Bridge equipment and operations. 2 Radars, ARPA, a chart table with charts. Core competency back again. Navigation. You get help their once again, as pilots drop off ships to almost deep sea, and then pick them once again well outside in safe posiitons to bring them back to berth.

This is how Industry discussions go. Brutal, i have to show savings. I have to show safety, i have to show results, and i have massive limitations. Don't wave me 'Command'. Wave me competence. Prove me why someone cannot 'command' you as a Navigator only. Don't hide behind laws that were laid down last century as sacrosanct. Prove to me that Navigators in 'command' alone can run ships most effectively. Prove to me that an Engineer (i might install another Engineer, apart from the Chief) in 'command' cannot run a ship as safely as a navigator . And you will have a discussion going.

Don't quote me about 'Command responsibility' when the Exxon Valdez Master can walk free and fully in charge. I've seen dozens of absolutely incometent Masters. I've gone on board and asked Masters about manual release of CO2 followed with blank stares and murmered calls for support. I've asked Masters to show me the Emergency battery room..and they don't know where it is on board. Masters who've made the Bridge chart table a pub at sea. Many of these have so much experience as Masters you will feel ashamed. Yet talk about command, and an idyllic vision permeates and every souls safety comes into the picture, including abandoning the vessel and more. If the reality were not so tragic, it would be amusing. Indusry discussions can be hard nosed. Thats the wa outsourcing works. Can you do this better for me? No you cannot? Sorry different model. No sentimentalism.

I know engineers do these sort of things, actual mechanical engineers or naval architects. I watch the Discovery Channel.....and it sure as hell is not a ship engineer.

We have in our company plenty of people who have been Mecanical Engineers. A few decades ago I have done 4 years of Naval Architecture myself. In my second semester itself i did Naval Arch problems more complicated than you would have for your extra Masters today. And there are many Engineers who are sailing that have more capabiliy than you think they have.

Your poor and insulting opinion on Marine Engineers does not reflect well that you know what goes into the running and operation of ships. If you are in 'Command', i begin again first post: Are you worthy of it? Can we have a better system? Can we enhance safety further? Can we make a better anti-pollution effort? Can we try a different Model?

I believe yes we can. And certainly he solutions do not involve those who feel burdened by Marine Engineers or too enamoured/ romantic by 'Command'. Go ahead, prove me Mechanics can replace Engineers, prove me that Navigators in command are really indispensible.

[Allwyn]

Ever heard of an ILS?

An ILS (Instrumented landing system) has nothing to do with GPS, and is exactly as the name suggests. An Instrumented landing system. With categories and aids. Cat 3 is fully automated, hands off for example. Everything modern and non traditional about it.

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) is a ground-based instrument approach system that provides precision guidance to an aircraft approaching and landing on a runway, using a combination of radio signals and, in many cases, high-intensity lighting arrays to enable a safe landing during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), such as low ceilings or reduced visibility due to fog, rain, or blowing snow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system

And the U.S. Navy DOES use celestial navigation.

Any links. I got one, and it shows they've abandoned it. Even teaching it.