Modern Management or the Command System?

[anchorman]

"Is it possible to have a team of people on board with total responsibility to implementing and enhancing the SMS and not reliant on the Command System"

Why would you even need a Captain with any authority at all? That's my question? Who will make the decisions that may effect the safety of the crew like rescuing personnel in the water from a sinking ship? Would that be a decision of the "team of people" you mentioned, the Chief Exec, the navigator, or the deck engineer? I would expect there would have to be a decision made and authority to make sure that decision is implemented. It seems to me that there will always have to be a person in command of a ship to make decisions outside of the bulwarks.

[Allwyn]

What responsibilities and liabilities are being shifted around here? It almost reads as nothing at all.

Anchorman, valid points however, just take one of the examples on a simple 10 year old bulker, with cranes and grabs running on a critical commodity market: Replacing the Mates work on deck and instead installing a Cargo Engineer, responsible for all the work that a mate does on deck, including Cargo handling operations, Deck Machinery inventories. I immediately free up the Mate to concentrate on other work at port. We don't need 2nd and 3rd mate doing 6 on 6 off during Port operations, which they do presently in most fleets. In addition we give an extra trouble shooting hand to assist Chiefs in case anything goes wrong in the systems on the Deck (and also in emergencies at Sea). I can give him additional responsibilities on IAPP and IOPP equipment and their tracking, freeing up people in the E/R.

However before i continue, i would like to ask you if you consider this a big/ significant change in the way Shipping ops are conducted?

[Allwyn]

Not true, the master is appointed by the owners and act as an agent for them. The master is responsible to the owners for the safety of ship crew and cargo, his authority is derived by law from the owners.

Owners don't have a choice. The law is already there. He has to get his investment/ profit back under what the laws lay out for him. Since Management Companies cannot tweak the law or experiment around, we function under the same banner of command. And sell or convince owners we can run their vessels effectively under the present system. Almost everything we say in the SMS manuals are mandated by law to be in compliance with Class/ SOLAS/ MARPOL etc..

For a Management Company the margins are getting slimmer by the day, unless we innovate. Cutting fat is important, whether on Ships or in the Office. Whether Chiefs or Masters or Deck or Engine. Nobody should be above that consideration, specially if we can provide for safety, environment.

When we talk cutting fat, it is indeed a topic that can get controversial and cause heartburn. And someone may ask why us, and not them? And i have attempted that.

[Allwyn]

A second point, calling the operation of a ship "navigation" and implying that is all done by GPS is misleading. The term navigation is much broader then that. For example likely one of of the first questions I am going to be asked upon joining the ship is will I require one tug or two upon departure. There is no button on the GPS that will help with that decision. This is a question of seamanship yet fall under the definition of safety of navigation. Same is true with decisions about when and where to anchor, which route to take, as so on. These are all considered navigation of the vessel but have little to do with the gps. Also beyond navigation the master is responsible of the management of the ship, security, budget, etc.

I never said a lot of what you ascribed on me. As for tugs, Port authorities the world over do not ask that question and simply supply tugs depending on the size of the Ships and requirements. All that is included in Port charges.

Anchoring again, most safe anchor areas are well marked on Charts and information on lost anchors routinely supplied and updated. Busy anchorages in Japan, Singapore, they'll tell you the specific location of the anchorage, or as in the case of Singapore and inland ports in Japan, the pilots will compulsorily come and drop the vessel to her assigned anchorage.

Also beyond navigation the master is responsible of the management of the ship, security, budget, etc.

This is what we have been discussing, the management of the ship part.. Do you think ship SSO's can be Engineers? We've put C/Es in our fleet as SSO's and 3/M as Dy SSO. They're doing a fair job. We've not had an problems so far..

The Budget, yes. Now what is that? Crew cash accounts, provisions? Responsible job, yes. But a clerical one so far. You're not doing anything close to financial decision making, something which i wanted to approach here at a point of time, but very different from what you talk on budgeting.

If you want to reduce the authority of the master, start with that, no master in his right mind will surrender authority while retaining responsibility

I am absolutely with you on this and i have been consistent on this from the beginning. I have talked about equitable sharing of authority and responsibility. Not blindly by law making the Master responsible for 'everything'. The law also must be consistent with the realities and it should be changed/ amended to keep it consistent.

[Capt. Nemo]

It's slightly off topic. I just got interested about a couple of posts ( capt. nemo and allywin) that mentioned that modern airlines don't carry GPS on board. I asked my brother who's an airline pilot (delta) and it's true. Most airliners today don't carry GPS relying instead on a much inferior system called IRS. Hard to believe.

What a crock. Most, if not all, of Cessna's trainers are equipped with CRT's and GPS. Anyone that thinks that a relatively new airliner isn't equipped with GPS is WAY out of touch.

Most airliners don't carry GPS? Everything Boeing, Embraer, Canadair or Airbus has built in the last ten years has been equipped with it.

IRS? Inertial Reference System? Are you talking strapdown gyros and AHRS? You're blowing smoke, but not much. In other words...BULLSHIT.

You're somebody's troll. Who's remains to be seen.

Nemo

[Seacowboy13]

actually I think its a radio system that the FAA uses, that has been in place for over 50 years, and the cost to change the entire system would cost the commercial industry an insane amount of money(united, delta...) and would be crazy. along with the cost to the FAA, which directs the traffic just like VTS in our line of work. the commercical airline industry still uses the IRS or whatever their system is to travel thru their air highways. the paths that commercial airliners follow is for sure not the direct route which would be the most economical, and is a serious drawback of the industry. but yes your probably right that most newer airplanes have a GPS, but it is for better position fixes and navigation, it is not the way they navigate their route. so I say no BULLSHIT to the previous mentioned post.

[electro]

actually I think its a radio system that the FAA uses, that has been in place for over 50 years, and the cost to change the entire system would cost the commercial industry an insane amount of money(united, delta...) and would be crazy. along with the cost to the FAA, which directs the traffic just like VTS in our line of work. the commercical airline industry still uses the IRS or whatever their system is to travel thru their air highways. the paths that commercial airliners follow is for sure not the direct route which would be the most economical, and is a serious drawback of the industry. but yes your probably right that most newer airplanes have a GPS, but it is for better position fixes and navigation, it is not the way they navigate their route. so I say no BULLSHIT to the previous mentioned post.

Seacowboy you're absolutely right. That's exactly how things stand.
Capt. nemo. In my previous post I said MOST not all. Planes built in recent years do have GPS but if you consider that most airliners is service are much older than that I say again most airliners don't have GPS on board.
Capt. nemo I'm just curious. Do you have tourette syndrome? It looks like you can't write a single post without calling people names.

[anchorman]

What responsibilities and liabilities are being shifted around here? It almost reads as nothing at all.

Anchorman, valid points however, just take one of the examples on a simple 10 year old bulker, with cranes and grabs running on a critical commodity market: Replacing the Mates work on deck and instead installing a Cargo Engineer, responsible for all the work that a mate does on deck, including Cargo handling operations, Deck Machinery inventories. I immediately free up the Mate to concentrate on other work at port. We don't need 2nd and 3rd mate doing 6 on 6 off during Port operations, which they do presently in most fleets. In addition we give an extra trouble shooting hand to assist Chiefs in case anything goes wrong in the systems on the Deck (and also in emergencies at Sea). I can give him additional responsibilities on IAPP and IOPP equipment and their tracking, freeing up people in the E/R.

However before i continue, i would like to ask you if you consider this a big/ significant change in the way Shipping ops are conducted?

I don't see anything wrong with adding another person to the crew on the deck.......if it's a deck engineer, fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to free people up to do other things by adding man power, I would say this is a significant change being that the industry has been working in the opposite direction. I'm not sure how this will help your bottom line though. I'm not sure how this has anything to do with command structure on any ship either.

[dwong]

Originally Posted by Allwyn
Takeover crews we only call C/E, 2/E and sometimes E/O around 2 months before. The Master and mate we bring in around 15 days before. A few days before sea trials.

If the company plans to have a lot of new builds, she should send some junior engineers as well, a good on the job training opportunity.

[Allwyn]

Anchorman, i mentioned this earlier, i am not for cost cutting at the expense of safety, environment. The present system is only allowing for that. I am in favor adding say even a Doc and making that sort of mandatory. There could be tie ups with institutions in developing countries to supply docs out of Colleges to do a 6 month stint on board before going for shore practise.

I actually asked this of some young medic grads/ students, and many said they would'nt mind doing it for a fair stipend, that i would look good on their CVs. With the massive increase in required documentation, would'nt mind again a post that looks after all aspects of documentation whether Engineering or Deck. dealing with the paperwork/ provisions management on board/ accounts/ immigration and stuff..etc. These 2 are not going to be high paid jobs, and probably be carried out by youngsters. But this would take away a lot of load, increase health and safety on board.

If that comes about people will end up focussing on their core competencies more. It's when people focus on that, real effective cost cutting can be got in. These people will be attracted to work under a modern mangament system and not the conventional Command system on board, where a Master may use these people for Winch operations or as a Radio operator. Moment we have that, we cannot attract people and in order to do so, we will have to pay out more than we can afford.

Will continue on this and will welcome your comments etc. Will also be thinking aloud on some improvements and special responsibilites and decision making that can be shifted from the Office to onboard, specially when internet connectivity is going to be available much more cheaply even on ocean going ships.

[Allwyn]

If the company plans to have a lot of new builds, she should send some junior engineers as well, a good on the job training opportunity.

You know what, i had suggested the same idea to some superiors a year or two ago: Sending a Junior Engineer 3 months prior. Bringing in the Chief much later. I totally agree with you, it's much more essential to have a J/E much before a C/E is needed in the Yard. Chiefs usually don't make themselves fully familiar on the operating systems, Juniors do so. Chiefs are also dependent on how well conversed J/Es are in transfer operations and their understanding of the various systems on board on new deliveries. I am absolutely with you on this one.

[dwong]

Decades ago, I read something about having a ship totally unmanned, i.e. dropping the crew onboard only when she approaches coastal water to bring her in port. Of course, technically it is totally unreal to me. Had not thought about the legal implications then. Just wondering if it works, (most of us will lose our jobs ), the computer will probably be held responsible for incidents.

[Allwyn]

Decades ago, I read something about having a ship totally unmanned, i.e. dropping the crew onboard only when she approaches coastal water to bring her in port. Of course, technically it is totally unreal to me. Had not thought about the legal implications then. Just wondering if it works, (most of us will lose our jobs ), the computer will probably be held responsible for incidents.

They did manage to run ships unmanned, that in the 80's. However they overdid automation to get the results and it's too expensive a model for replicate for owners.

However, i will remind you that ALL modern planes are built to fly on computers. They fly by wire under defined flight envelops under which the aircraft controls react. All modern fighter jets 4G onwards to modern Civilian aircraft are designed under this concept.

[dwong]

As for Deck Engineer and positions similar to that, it happens all the time depends on the type of ships and the companies. When I was working on tankers, we had "Pumpman" heping the C/O loading and unlodaing cargo oil and taking daily care of pump room and deck machinery. Every now and then, he assisted E/R for major repairs if needed. Working on refri containerships, we have Refrigeration Eng. onboard taking care of hundreds of refri containers. Not to mention, to my understanding, that on cruise ships, they have specific engineers for the specific hotel services.

[dwong]

Decades ago, I read something about having a ship totally unmanned, i.e. dropping the crew onboard only when she approaches coastal water to bring her in port. Of course, technically it is totally unreal to me. Had not thought about the legal implications then. Just wondering if it works, (most of us will lose our jobs ), the computer will probably be held responsible for incidents.

They did manage to run ships unmanned, that in the 80's. However they overdid automation to get the results and it's too expensive a model for replicate for owners.

However, i will remind you that ALL modern planes are built to fly on computers. They fly by wire under defined flight envelops under which the aircraft controls react. All modern fighter jets 4G onwards to modern Civilian aircraft are designed under this concept.

Sorry for off the topic.

I am aware of that and I agree that it can be done (I should have typed "it was totally unreal to me") but I am still not feeling comfortable about "fly by wire". I had worked on UMS ships since mid 70s, Motorships and Steamships. I had worked on ships with double double redundancy but mishaps still occured. Look at NASA . Maybe becuase of these experiences, I find that if something could fail, it will fail, sooner or later. I know I have a very negative attitude.

[Allwyn]

As for Deck Engineer and positions similar to that, it happens all the time depends on the type of ships and the companies. When I was working on tankers, we had "Pumpman" heping the C/O loading and unlodaing cargo oil and taking daily care of pump room and deck machinery. Every now and then, he assisted E/R for major repairs if needed. Working on refri containerships, we have Refrigeration Eng. onboard taking care of hundreds of refri containers.

Over and above an specialized Engineer/ pumpman as you mentioned above, i was talking about the Deck Engineer doing all what the Mate does on Deck. Loading/ Discharging/ Ballast/ Deballast operations. That will free up the Mate, reduce inter departmental squabbles. All Deck ABs and crew will report to the Deck Engineer. Between the 1st Engineer and a Chief Engineer, possibly Maritime authorities can consider a year sailing at such capacity mandatory before applying for a Chiefs License.

[Allwyn]

For all those following this thread:

Think about a recent conversation on the Marine Engineer thread:

Your point is, I think ,that:
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> The ideal for shipping management is a layman should be able to enter the bridge and safely navigate the vessel </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
But:
Quote:
MODERN tankers are too sophisticated for vessel crews and officers

Navigating is just what it is: NAVIGATING. It is different from operating a Tanker. And operating machinery on a tanker is different from undersanding the processes involved and ensuring they work appropriately. Those who ensure it's working also understand the operations.

Introspection is the key to understanding what and where this thread will lead to. For me too this is applicable. And i thank a lot of people here who have contributed so positively. Travelling a bit at the moment, but will get back on this. But would request we think, if we can detach navigation and ship operations..and not confuse both as above.

[anchorman]

For all those following this thread:

Think about a recent conversation on the Marine Engineer thread:

Navigating is just what it is: NAVIGATING. It is different from operating a Tanker. And operating machinery on a tanker is different from undersanding the processes involved and ensuring they work appropriately. Those who ensure it's working also understand the operations.

Introspection is the key to understanding what and where this thread will lead to. For me too this is applicable. And i thank a lot of people here who have contributed so positively. Travelling a bit at the momen, but will get back on this. But would request to think if we can detach navigation and ship operations..

I would have to say you hit the head of the nail with the hammer on that one.
"navigating is navigating"

Knowing and learning the programming of modern IBS, ECDIS, and Dynamic Positioning Systems is no different than understanding the processes of PLCs, Relays,and Machinery. You have to have knowledge of the functionality and ability to troubleshoot the system as an operator. Without it, your useless.

[kzoo pilot]

OMG! I post a few times, go on time off, drive 4 hours north and fish my a** off for a week (slow hatch but made up for it with nymphs and wooly buggers by the way), come home, log on, and this thread is still active? What is so hard for this office type to understand?

I guess if any office staff worked as hard at improving problems brought to them by marine personnel as the originator of this thread does in shooting down the opinions HE solicited here, things would be rosy all over.

I need to refill my fly box . . . off to the vise.

[caps]

My own opinion on "captain's overriding authority" : see http://www.theartofdredging.com/overridingauthority.htm

Regards,

Caps