Training

[Saltine]

Guys,

My company has been trying to come up with ideas and ways to do some practical training that engages the shore based personnel and our mariners. We're not talking about fire fighting, CPR, etc.... but more hands on type stuff that would benefit green horns and old salts alike. Things like diesel mechanic basics, navigation, crew managment, ISM and many others. We haven't really had any ideas that sparked much interest from our mariners or shore staff. I personally like to get our mariners thoughts and involvement because a top down implementation of procedures/ideas doesn't always work. Without buy in from our employees great ideas will just be ideas and nothing more.

We have talked about taking an older boat and using it just as a training boat. All employees would be required to complete a course by the appropriate engine rep's, basic seamanship and any other topics we decide on. We have also talked to a local technical school about putting together a curriculum for us that everyone would be required to take whether you are a new hire or current employee. Note: the local technical college has lots of marine courses such as BRM, STCW, etc.....

I would like you guys thoughts from a mariner's point of view. The whole idea is to raise the knowledge level of our employees, retain employees which in turn should help out our entire operation. Would this be something that you guys would appreciate or think would be beneficial?

Thanks

[cappy208]

Sounds like you are trying to copy the SIU piney point class. Once you have the crews trained what are you going to do with the training equipment and instructors? Unless you have hundreds I mean like 500 or more, I don't see how this would be affordable. This is why companies send new hires to established classes like you mentioned at the local college.

[seadog6608]

When I worked for Seabulk, they started a program. I was one of the first. They grabbed me, a Mate, and put me in the crewing office for a while. To give a feel for the other side of the business. I thought and still think that the shore side people, every single one of them, should have to ride a boat for a week. they could ride as "persons other than crew" and would be required to pitch in. That will give them a better appreciation of the operational side of the show. When I mentioned that, I thought every woman in the place was going to kill me. You should have heard their objections. "We have children"!! Uh huh? Cry me a river. Plenty of sailors have children.

[Saltine]

Sounds like you are trying to copy the SIU piney point class. Once you have the crews trained what are you going to do with the training equipment and instructors? Unless you have hundreds I mean like 500 or more, I don't see how this would be affordable. This is why companies send new hires to established classes like you mentioned at the local college.

We have enough vessels that taking an older one out of commission will not be a problem and we have a few former diesel mechanics, electricians and HVAC techs on our operations staff. So theoretically we don't have any more equipment or personnel to acquire. Plus, i think with the turnover rate in our industry this training would continue indefinitely if wenget the desired results. We are mostly trying to have our guys get the knowledge level to perform all routine repairs without the need for a vendor so much.

And yes I agree that all of the office staff should ride a boat for a couple of days. At my last company I rode severa vessels periodically but had mounds of paperwork and emails to catch up on when I got back. I think the office personnel that refused to ride at least one day should be on the chopping block. Of course, that is my personal opinion.

[cappy208]

Plus, i think with the turnover rate in our industry this training would continue indefinitely if we get the desired results. We are mostly trying to have our guys get the knowledge level to perform all routine repairs without the need for a vendor so much.

I suspect the unsaid portion of your post is that you are 'tired' of hiring, training, getting them up to speed, then they quit. making you rehire to try it again.

Although we may be thinking in different terms, I believe the issue is prevalent at many companies who are stuck in a 'old fashioned' mariner mentality. If I were a betting man, I would suspect you were part of management at a tug company, who is sick and tired of hiring people who just want to call for shoreside help to replace a starter on a Cat! (for example!)

My office used say the same thing ALL the time. This is still said occasionally as a engineer is determined to be an 'Oil change engineer' as opposed to being an actual competent seagoing troubleshooter, responsible 'all around repair' engineer, and Watchstander.

As a corporate culture the management ashore has had to rethink their position on hiring, promotion and licenses. A while ago, almost every engineer at the company I work for was unlicensed. I am talking between 30 and 40 engineers! About half were/are competent mechanics, who have an interest in doing the 'good' job that is expected. Unfortunately it has taken about 10 years to weed out the bums. Humorously, The last two took care of themselves, when they got DUI's, and somehow thought they would be able to get their MMD's back without a background check (since they were NOT officers, but lowly OS's!!

Anyway, At least at my company the management had to come to the realization that three things needed to change when considering a new hire:

1. A License. (Not a QMED, or an 'experienced' guy who just hasn't gotten around to 'get' a license.)
2. Realizing that even though a huge majority of the companies vessels don't require a license as engineer, they should hire them anyway! and
3. they had to actually PAY a living salary to attract competent help.

IMHO, there are PLENTY of experienced deck AND engine help ashore who can fill these openings. But I suspect there is more to your question that you can admit. My experience has told me that it is often not simply a one sided problem, but a two (or more) sided issue. Just my $.02 worth :-)

[Capt. Phoenix]

My company insists on using vendors, even when it is a job the engineers can and want to do themselves. (We have quite a few experienced deep sea engineers.) I believe their reason for this is liability. If they use a vendor and something goes wrong they can make the vendor fix it free. If it causes a major incident they can sue the vendor.

[seadog!]

If you want an "Intruduction/Theory" class on diesel, electrical and HVAC...be prepared for some serious breakdowns, electrocutions and hot, steamy boats.

A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

It takes years to get the experience needed to run an engineroom.

[cappy208]

As an example, last trip the potable pump died. ( electric end). My chief had it out, replaced and repaired in 3 hours using the spare motor we have abd. No downtime, no extra trip to the yard, no need for an outside vendor. No liability issues, just expeditious, prompt complete repairs. It is up to the company to decide whether to send the motor out to get rebuilt. But at the cost in grainger I don't see how it worth it not to just chuck it and buy another for standby. Of course he knew how to troubleshoot it, make a determination what was wrong, and made appropriate repairs. To me this seems to be a real issue. Some guys just call the office and cry for help for the mundane.
As far as a starter, I have rebuilt one or two over the years installing new vanes, getting it working to get us started and home. I have worked with a few gumbas who have no idea. No insult to those who can, but there are still a lot who can't, don't, won't.

[Bump]

Since your company likes to use vendors...think about the "mid-size" training organizations and either use their stock courses or get a customized one. This helps to standardize the training and may also help you to control the curriculum and turn the concept into a "development" training. I've both worked with "graduates" of Pacific Maritime (in Seattle...they are partnered with MITAGS), Mid-Atlantic Maritime in Norfolk, STAR center (Dania, Florida...it's an AMO school, but they offer non-members to attend), and GMATS (very loosely associated with USMMA, their stock courses are aligned to USNR rating training, but they do a lot of customized training courses and recently have partnered with NASSCO for crew-specific familiarization training and Old Dominion in Norfolk for Project Management, Root Cause Analysis, and things like that) as well as having taken several courses, customized and "stock", from them as well. MITAGS and GMATS are really expanding in to the "management" and "ISM/regulatory" courses as a supplement to their hands-on trade training.

GMATS will travel to your location to help keep logisitics costs (airfare, hotel, etc) minimal as well. I'm sure the others will as well if you ask All have labs on-site, and most have good engineering labs (PLC simulators, engine console/automation simulators, etc). But if you use your vessel(s) for any hands-on stuff, whether it be diesel maintenance or line handling or ship handling, your course customization can be even more specific.

There's a bunch of other schools in Florida (Ft. Lauderdale, Ft. Pierce, etc), but I've not dealt with them at all.

[cmakin]

I suspect the unsaid portion of your post is that you are 'tired' of hiring, training, getting them up to speed, then they quit. making you rehire to try it again.

Although we may be thinking in different terms, I believe the issue is prevalent at many companies who are stuck in a 'old fashioned' mariner mentality. If I were a betting man, I would suspect you were part of management at a tug company, who is sick and tired of hiring people who just want to call for shoreside help to replace a starter on a Cat! (for example!)

My office used say the same thing ALL the time. This is still said occasionally as a engineer is determined to be an 'Oil change engineer' as opposed to being an actual competent seagoing troubleshooter, responsible 'all around repair' engineer, and Watchstander.

As a corporate culture the management ashore has had to rethink their position on hiring, promotion and licenses. A while ago, almost every engineer at the company I work for was unlicensed. I am talking between 30 and 40 engineers! About half were/are competent mechanics, who have an interest in doing the 'good' job that is expected. Unfortunately it has taken about 10 years to weed out the bums. Humorously, The last two took care of themselves, when they got DUI's, and somehow thought they would be able to get their MMD's back without a background check (since they were NOT officers, but lowly OS's!!

Anyway, At least at my company the management had to come to the realization that three things needed to change when considering a new hire:

1. A License. (Not a QMED, or an 'experienced' guy who just hasn't gotten around to 'get' a license.)
2. Realizing that even though a huge majority of the companies vessels don't require a license as engineer, they should hire them anyway! and
3. they had to actually PAY a living salary to attract competent help.

IMHO, there are PLENTY of experienced deck AND engine help ashore who can fill these openings. But I suspect there is more to your question that you can admit. My experience has told me that it is often not simply a one sided problem, but a two (or more) sided issue. Just my $.02 worth :-)

I know that when I worked for Crowley, their policy was to hire licensed engineers for their tugs, even though it was not required. I do believe that it paid off for them. That, and their boats were (are) well designed and simple. They also went out of their way to make sure that every tug of each class was identical. Some of us being a little creative would make certain changes to our boats, only to have to return them to their original condition once we arrived back at the main terminal. I know that we did use some shoreside vendors, but that was to mainly to make sure that all of the work that needed to be done could be in a two to three day turnaround. With the main engines, anytime that there were more than three power packs to change, we would call bring a vendor in. Three or less, the engineer was expected to do himself. All of the engineers also attended the EMD school in LaGrange, IL for training.

I also know that when I started working on an early ITB/ATB, the company that I worked for then (not Crowley) would hire "oil change" engineers. They didn't last very long.

[seadog!]

It seems to me that there are "Watch" engineers, "Operating" engineers and Engineers.

The company, and crew, soon figure out what kind is on the boat.

[Saltine]

At my previous company the majority of our vessels did not require licensed engineers and for a long time we crewed them accordingly. After many years of frustration I suggested that we hire licensed engineers and tried 2 boats on a trial basis. We went thru a couple of engineers until we found some good ones and boy did it make a world of difference. The amount of vendor calls dropped drastically and the boats were in much better working order. But, you have to give those guys the tools, parts and freedom to make repairs as needed and expect a mistake here and there. I can live with guys making mistakes that are giving 110% to do their job to the fullest. What I have a hard time accepting is guys who make mistakes going 50% and don't give a darn that they did either.

If I had it my way I would hire some ex-engineers that I know and send guys to them for on the job training and evaluation. If they get a stamp of approval they move onto another boat and start jockeying for a lead or relief position. And if you let the average guy be an "oil change" engineer that's what he will be. You have to let those guys know from the get go what is expected and be ready to take action. But one guy can't try to enforce this by himself, it has to be a company's stance and an accepted way of doing things.

We had a few more discussions and think we will move forward with some Intro Electrical/HVAC and diesel mechanics courses and see how it goes before we jump in with both feet. We will monitor the results and make a decision accordingly. Lots of guys out there would love to have the freedom to make repairs without calling a vendor, we need to get them the knowledge, tools and parts to let them succeed.

[cappy208]

You have to let those guys know from the get go what is expected and be ready to take action.

It has to be a company's stance and an accepted way of doing things.

Bingo But it is hard to make a new policy and enforce it. The old curmudgeons take a while to get the picture!

[brjones]

Its not just a liability to have vendors do the work, but look at the manning scale nowadays. I have 3 engineers in the ER Myself, a 2nd and a 3rd. Both my chiefs will throw on a pair of coveralls and get dirty when needed. Our company says that the 1st and the Chief need to be in the ER during maneuvering. So we maneuver the 12 hours up the Miss river. Now we are OPA 90'd out. If this takes place in the middle of the night, then the next day is pretty much shot. Now If I needed to do a piston pull, I cant because the charter say we can not disable the engine while at the dock. So we load and make the 10 hour trip down the river. 24 hours later we are in Tampa. Again 6 hour maneuver in with a 6 hour maneuver shift 24 hours later. My point is that with less manning and OPA 90 it is very hard to do a lot of the work outside everyday maintenance and operating. I have had to send vendors down the gangway because they were taking too long and we could not move cargo until they were done. With short turn around and less manning, sometimes redneck engineering takes effect. But if something absolutely has to be done then the port engineer may just order a vendor out anyway. Now for pumps, purifiers, boilers and what not we do it our self's all the time. Basically it comes down to the ME when a vendor is needed. Also a lot has to do with warranty work as well. I have work on a few brand new ships and if its under warranty then the vendors are always called out.

[seadog!]

Are you running a school or a workboat company?

Back in ancient times, when I was in the Navy, Basic Electricity and Electronics was 6 weeks of 8-hour days.
I still wasn't an Electrician,
Advanced Electronics was 17 weeks of 8-hour days.
I still wasn't an Electronics Technician.
3-years of OJT after all that schooling and I finally new a little bit.

After I got out, I took a 2-year Diesel Engine course on my GI Bill.
That was part-time, 4-hours each night, 4-nights a week.
I worked 8-years as a diesel mechanic, 8-hour days, 6-days a week, during the same time.
I learned a little bit.

Then I took a 1-year welding course, again using my GI Bill.
That was the same thing, 4-hours, 4-nights.
I still only new a little bit.

Somewhere along the way I took a 3-day HVAC course.
Then I worked on a Fish Processing Vessel for awhile with an ammonia refrigeration system.
I learned a little bit.

You can "move forward with some Intro Electrical/HVAC and diesel mechanics courses and see how it goes before we jump in with both feet" or you can just hire Engineers that have spent a few years learning a "little bit".

[captbbrucato]

If I read your question correctly; Are you looking for shore side personnel to be familiar with ship board operations and not to be half-assed qualified to judge the professionals doing the job? I would think that sending the office folks through a "ride and see" program may be the better and less expensive option and have the greatest impact. The office support staff should have a clear idea and understand what we face on a daily basis. Riding along allows them to do the drills, help with a repair and stand a night watch. Why duplicate the "training ship" idea?

[PR-9]

Saltine I read some of your other post (remember the "bitching mariner" and the "ABs with no education") and I believe that the problem starts there! Most mariner want to move up and upgrade their licenses but they get shot down by office personnel. The idea that mariners are stupid has to change!

As far as the training; Computer training for officers would be great, like the proper use of programs such as Excel and Word. With the amount of paperwork required by Captains and Chiefs anything that helps streamline the paperwork process will allow them to spend more time properly training their crews. Most Captains spend so much time doing paperwork that their years of experience and knowledge do not get pass on to the new generation of mariners.

[john]

A big problem with uscg mandated training is its cookie cutter approach and with so many required course mariners have little time to take "elective courses".

For example, when I worked at Transocean, many realized they needed that crowd mgmt training but it wasn't until the Deepwater Horizon that the office consistently approved that course and that mariners found time in their crowded schedule to take the class.

What I'm saying is that the crews know what they need but not everyone is willing to say it and fewer are willing to fight for the training they need. Some are but they are too often labeled as dreamers, or worse, troublemakers.

Effective managers realize these guys are not dreamers or troublemakers but instead are the ones with courage, brains and a healthy dose of give-a-danm.


Find these guys in your crew and listen... really listen. They will tell you what they need. And the fact that you posted the question here means you already get it because this is the place where those who really give-a-danm hang out.

[Capt. Phoenix]

If I read your question correctly; Are you looking for shore side personnel to be familiar with ship board operations and not to be half-assed qualified to judge the professionals doing the job? I would think that sending the office folks through a "ride and see" program may be the better and less expensive option and have the greatest impact. The office support staff should have a clear idea and understand what we face on a daily basis. Riding along allows them to do the drills, help with a repair and stand a night watch. Why duplicate the "training ship" idea?

No, he is looking to train vessel crews because the office refuses to hire licensed, experienced engineers to begin with. They hire "oil change" engineers then complain when they can't do anything but change the oil.

[captbbrucato]

No, he is looking to train vessel crews because the office refuses to hire licensed, experienced engineers to begin with. They hire "oil change" engineers then complain when they can't do anything but change the oil.

Okay then, got it.