gCaptain.com

Where are the Inspectors?

By John G. Denham

Each day I read articles in newspapers, see TV clips and peruse blogs featuring maritime accidents. My computer’s “favorites” has a list of bad news reporters that keep me informed of the casualty ” de jour.” Why so many?

In November 1942 I arrived in Honolulu in the Territory of Hawaii. I was 16. I arrived on USAT Ernest Hinds, an over the hill cargo passenger ship. In a moment of extreme patriotism I had shipped out with the Army transport Service (ATS) while I waited to be 17 and join the navy. Unemployed and a high school drop-out I joined Ernest Hinds late one afternoon with the plan of getting seaman’s papers the next day. I woke early to find we were passing under the Golden Gate Bridge. The Chief Mate, Charley Shaw informed me not to worry, I could get papers in Hawaii.

Standing in front of a stern appearing, elderly uniformed USCG officer I answered his query “How did you get here, if you reside in San Francisco?” My response created “My God boy, you were shanghaied! Do your parents know where you are?”After a call to San Francisco ( Mom indicated no concern) and some discussion, then a phone call to USAT Hinds, I was issued a Certificate of Service certifying I was now an Ordinary Seaman and signed by the concerned Merchant Marine Inspector in Charge.

Since 1942 I have faced a number of USCG officers, but none since about 1950 had any idea of who I was, why I was there and what I had been doing; that was established by a petty officer following a guide-sheet. My licenses state, ” “having been duly examined and found competent” I was licensed to be, whatever?

To be a licensed Master I underwent hours of training, months of rehearsals, and years of qualifying experience at sea. I wrote pages of answers and was reminded that “no one gets out of here is less 10 days.” After 10 days having been duly examined and found competent I was handed a Master, unlimited License signed by a U.S. Coast Guard Captain, as officer in charge.

Federal Pilotage endorsements in Washington and California were accomplished without any demonstration of ability or skill and 100% on written responses to printed questions. Route knowledge was accomplished by listing all navigation aids etc., on formatted blank charts. Although a number of day and night trips were required, certification could easily be circumvented. Advancing to state pilotage, although experienced and capable was a political process requiring no tests or examinations and certified on a pocket sized card. Special ports pilotage was similarly accomplished. It’s understood that a better system for state pilotage is now effective and enforced, however the certification for qualification is subjective. In most cases, a pre-requisite for state pilots is a federal endorsement.

However there are bigger dichotomies in the maritime process of marine transportation. A vessel is a man made structure operated by humans, mostly guided by computer manipulated equipments. The engineering competence of the ship builders is verified by the elements and the tenacity of the crews. However most non-environmental induced failures are produced by poor ship management: collisions, allisions, groundings are mostly caused by the lack of a proper lookout, inadequate BRM, and or failure to observe the ordinary practice of seaman.

Licensing, operational practices and procedures are functions that require knowledgeable supervision. None of those can be properly accomplished without properly experienced supervisors overseeing their conduct. For some time there has been a recognized decrease in the quality and effectiveness in the process responsible to provide and maintain certified competency in maritime skills.

Accidents occur and will continue to happen as long as people and equipment are tested by nature. However a significant reduction in such mishaps can be accomplished if the faults are identified and quickly promulgated as “lesson learned,” even though some are repeated.

A process of timely investigation by knowledgeable, experienced maritime qualified experts is needed to resolve technical questions involving accidents that may influence the public safety and interfere with commerce.

The ordinary practice seaman is a term that has endured over two centuries. It is not just a catch-all clause but a professional reminder by others that view the mariners work, they expect good sense to prevail, apply due diligence and follow through in all tasks and duties and verify with certainty that Neptune’s laws are obeyed.

The ordinary practice of seaman implies a knowledge of proper seamanship and experience that is disappearing in our mariners and being by-passed by otherwise concerned managers. The instinct and inquisitiveness of a practiced mariner to know proper from not, compliance from disregard and error from slovenly practice is essential to improve. Is it time to revisit the need for a dedicated, professional cadre of “Steam Boat Inspectors” and a mandated management process that verifies our vessels are competently managed. The opposite of the ordinary practice of seaman is unskillfulness, a term from the past, that is reappearing.

John Denham is a retired USN Captain, Licensed unlimited Master and Pilot, maritime academy teacher,and author with extensive experience as a marine consultant. He is also author of The Assistant and DD 891.

BYM Marine and Maritime news is reporting:

A federal grand jury has returned an indictment charging John Joseph Cota, a U.S. Coast Guard and California licensed ship pilot, with making false statements to the Coast Guard concerning his medications and medical conditions in 2006 and 2007. The false statements arose from annual physical examinations that pilots are required to complete every year to maintain their pilot’s license.

Cota, who was the pilot of the Cosco Busan, was previously charged with negligently causing the discharge of approximately 50,000 gallons of oil in San Francisco Bay from the 65,131-ton container ship when he caused the ship to collide with the San Francisco Bay Bridge on Nov. 7, 2007.

The grand jury’s indictment supersedes and includes charges brought previously by a criminal information that charged Cota with violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Oil Spill Act of 1990, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by causing the death of protected species of migratory birds.

The full post is here.

___________________________

This post was written by Richard Rodriguez, Rescue Tug Captain, and US Coast Guard approved instructor for License Training. You can read more of his articles at the BitterEnd of the net.

Four weeks ago, I had my original TWIC enrollment experience. The post is here.

Today I picked up my TWIC. Last Thursday I went online to see if the card was ready and the info said yes. I printed out the form and made an appointment to pick up the card for Monday at 08:15.

On Friday, I was close to the enrollment office (very close the $3.32 per gallon gas on the reservation - the lowest in town) in my hometown of Anacortes WA and decided to stop by to see if I could pick up the card. There was one person being processed and one person in line. Cool, I figured. The clerk asked if I had an appointment, I said no. When pressed to see if anyone had an appointment after the guy in the que, she said they didn’t know and I’d have to take my chances. What? A computerised system and the local office didn’t have access to the data base of appointments. Correct.

This morning’s experience was much better than I could have anticipated:

08:00 Arrival for 08:15 appointment

08:07 Seated for processing

08:16 Out the door with TWIC in hand

It is interesting, that they used my fingerprint to call up my record. I never gave my name.

You can check the status of your TWIC and make appointment to pick it up, if it’s ready, here.

Editorial Note: For an audio account of the TWIC experience click HERE

Photo by Oneeighteen

In October of last year the Shipping & Transport College of Rotterdam held the International Maritime English Conference. A key topic of debate was the IMO’s current review of the STCW Convention and its focus on global assessment goals for non-native english speakers. This is of particular concern considering the growing shortage of qualified mariners combined with the unusually high incident rate seen in recent months.

Clive Cole of World Maritime University and Peter Trenkner of Wismar University have proposed implementing a Yardstick “against which student performance can be measured while at the same time providing goals for the tasks and requirements of the seaboard ranks”. Here is the plan as laid out in their position paper:

>The Yardstick >

>When developing the Yardstick below the authors deliberately did not include the identification of Maritime English communication requirements of the different shipboard rating ranks, i.e. the STCW95 Support Level, but restricted themselves to the personnel covered by the STCW95 Operational and Management Level educated and trained at higher MET institutions. >

>The shipping industry, however, may wish to have a Yardstick available for shipboard rating ranks, too. In this case an appendix would need to be developed together with the industry as the Maritime English requirements set out in the STCW95 (Part A, Chapter II, Table A-II/4 and A-III/4) regarding ratings are comparatively vague and need to be considered in the review of STCW95. >

>Furthermore, requirements concerning general English language proficiency have not been included > >expressis verbis > > as in the authors’ understanding a certain command of general English is a basic prerequisite in this respect (cf IMO SMCP 2002). >

> >

> > >

Click HERE to download the full report.

(Ed. note: This entry is reposted in it’s entirety with permission from Red Right Returning. Doug Gould is a fellow tower from the East Coast.)

Are you aware of the concept of license creep? When you renew your USCG license, the new license will expire exactly 5 years from the date of issue of the renewed license. So, if you renew 5 months before your current license expires, you will loose 4 or 5 months of the fee you paid when you got the previous license. If you are on your 4th or 5th renewal, you may have lost over a year’s worth of user fees.

Say you got your first license on January 1, 1980. You would have been required to renew in ‘85, ‘90, ‘95, 2000 and 2005 to be current today. So, you should be on the 6th issue of your license. But, if you always tried to be a good scout and renewed 6 months early each time, you would actually already be on your 7th issue rather than your 6th.

Here is the deal: you pay about $100 in fees to get a 5 year license, but you can only use all 60 months of that if you wait to the very last day to renew. Over the course of your career, you end up getting cheated, because you’re paying fees based on a 60 month renewal cycle, but you are forced to “surrender” some of those months when you renew.

Well, the Coast Guard calls this license creep. They recognize that it happens, and they have put in place system to keep it at a minumum. Here is a link to the official Policy Letter that explains to the REC how to deal with the problem.When I renewed in December, I asked about this issue, but I didn’t have this Policy Letter in hand, and the license examiner didn’t seem to know anything about this policy and just kinda shrugged his shoulders and said “too bad”…If your renewal is coming up, print this out and request “delayed issuance” of your next license.

_____________

This post was written by Richard Rodriguez, Rescue Tug Captain, and US Coast Guard approved instructor for License Training. You can read more of his articles at the BitterEnd of the net.

 Rules, who needs them?

by Captain John Denham

A frequent situation popping up, expectedly in many areas in Asia and popular fishing grounds is to find oneself approaching a multitude of small boats and maybe even a steamer or two. I routinely encountered a similar situation when entering from the Golden Gate on weekends into San Francisco Bay: a mass of white sails and some patches of blue water. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, France and England all have at least one such congested night mare.

As you know, the steering and sailing rules apply to you and only one other vessel at a time. It is perplexing because most of us are faced with a common problem; make the ETA. The courts have proclaimed: No vessel has the right of way through another vessel; therefore that eliminates an option. The person directing the navigation of the vessel is faced with many situations and only one solution for each problem. Therefore one must have a plan; a survival plan. The most important element in developing the plan is to determine who is the executor? My recommendation is, the Captain. To delegate, or assist, supervise or advise another is to further complicate a difficult situation. As captain I do not want to see how Jim or Harry will resolve a situation, I want it safely managed and with as little confusion as possible. Training juniors in such cases is best done by them watching and learning, and if perchance one errs, well, they may be a friendly witness.

Radar is useful in determining the path of least opposition and can also provide useful information as to the wind effect and sea conditions (watch the sea return). I would not attempt to maneuver with an opponent using radar information alone. An approaching vessel’s maneuvers may not be indicated on radar until well after his green light has turned to red. A proper ship handler will have knowledge of his vessel’s maneuvering characteristics and engine performance, i.e., at what speed does one lose steering capability? How long does it take to go from ahead RPM to astern RPM?

My plan is:

1. Captain will have the conn

2. The engine(s) are prepared to maneuver

(a) understand the operating procedures for obtaining emergency orders and how to stop propeller rotation.

3. A proper lookout is posted where he can best see, hear and report and has been instructed.

4. Communications (lookout reports, phones and radio) will be handled by another officer.

5. Illumination is available

6. BRM is informed and involved.

When towing, or in large ships one must consider the entire length (LOA) and be aware that any risk of collision (steady bearing and decreasing range) applies to the entire length of the vessel and or flotilla.

I have observed some experienced ship handlers reach for the ship’s whistle and irritatingly sound the danger signal as a warning (Lookout you dumb S.O.B.), whereas Rule 34(d) implies “failure to understand the intentions or actions of others, or is in doubt.” Nothing else. The courts have many times found: if one is in doubt, proceeding is not an option. However there is also support for: to do nothing displays unskillfulness. Therefore my practice was to sound a long blast on the whistle to attract the other’s attention and thereafter if needed, as advised by an old river pilot, “Sir, I suggest you back your engine smartly.”

Timely arrivals are “job keepers” and managers love old “On Time Joe” Also, pilots can not make up two hours in the bar channel, and, maritime lawyers love Rule 6, specially the congressional language in Senate Report 96- 979: ” it means that speed in any condition is intimately related to the immediate circumstances at hand.” And, “vessels are to proceed at a safe speed at all times.” The inference and language relates to visibility but the law as argued and accepted includes wakes. The courts have found that speed must be safe at all times under all conditions for everyone, which includes that 32 foot yawl, safely moored near Rincon Point that you passed 20 minutes ago 15knots.

Captain John Denham is a veteran of 66 years maritime experience in seamanship, ship handling, navigation, piloting, and education. he is also author of The Assistant and DD 891 .

MS Wilhelm Gustloff, 9,000 lives lost in 1945

With a death toll six times greater than the Titanic, new light has been shed on MS Wilhelm Gustloff, as a result a TV series that aired on Germany’s ZDF Channel last night.

The Independent is reporting:

“There was this sea of adult heads floating all around me, but alongside them there were hundreds of children’s legs half sticking up in the air. Their heads were under water,” Mr Schön, now 82, said. “They all drowned. Nobody realized that a child’s head is heavier than its legs.”

The Independent post is here.

An estimated 9,000 passengers and crew, fleeing East Prussia, perished (5,000 children) as a result of the the sinking of MS Wilhelm Gustloff back in January, 1945. Gustloff was carrying 10,000 refugees packed into every corner of the ship. Struck by three Soviet torpedoes, she took only 70 minutes to sink.

During her life, MS Wilhelm Gustloff saw many incarnations: Cruise ship, Hospital ship, Navy ship, and Rescue ship.

The sinking (from Gustloff website) Sometime before 8PM , the first officer on the S-13 spots lights in the distance. Marinesko promptly makes his way to the conning tower. When the snow clears for a moment he spots in his words “the silhouette of an [enormous] ocean liner, even [with its] lights showing”. Over the next two hours, Marinesko shadows the Wilhelm Gustloff, fine tuning his plan of attack. His crew on board begin to sense that their luck is about to change.

MS Wilhelm Gustloff in better days

Her history is well chronicled here.

_________________________

This post was written by Richard Rodriguez, Rescue Tug Captain, and US Coast Guard approved instructor for License Training. You can read more of his articles at the BitterEnd

Seven Seas Mariner in Skagway, Ak

…not really, the cadence actually sounds more alluring than the job. I’d like to see the old Love Boat series glamorize this position. Come to think of it, the love boat engineers were never seen or heard from.

The State of Alaska has legislated that large commercial passenger vessels entering the marine waters of the state is required to have a marine engineer licensed by the United States Coast Guard hired or retained by the department on board the vessel to act as an independent observer for the purpose of monitoring state and federal requirements pertaining to marine discharge and pollution requirements and to insure that passengers, crew and residents at ports are protected from improper sanitation, health and safety
practices.

Here’s an excerpt from MarineLink.com’s post: Alaska Selects Crowley to Monitor Cruise ShipsThe contract, valued at up to $4 million per fiscal year, directs Crowley to recruit, hire, train, and organize the logistics of placing up to 35 Ocean Rangers on board cruise ships this season to monitor their wastewater discharges and compliance with other pollution requirements for the state. Ocean Rangers are required as part of a new law adopted by the citizens of Alaska - the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative- in 2006.

_________________________

This post was written by Richard Rodriguez, Rescue Tug Captain, and US Coast Guard approved instructor for License Training. You can read more of his articles at the BitterEnd

The Contra Costa Times article “Critics Fear More Barge Disasters” of February 19, 2008 and the KGO TV Channel 7 report on tug boat licensing presented eye opening views on the crewing and operations of harbor tugs. Although in excellent detail the views expressed and the comments made by active tug operators presented a deeper problem than just the shortage of qualified people. It illuminated the government intervention into unfamiliar fields using academic research techniques. Such data gathering processes are excellent in determining sales, production and pedestrian patterns but when dealing with people’s, livelihoods and professional experience and knowledge, they are inappropriate.Of concern, in this case, is the process used to publish intentions to make new or change rules. Obviously, by the limited number of reported written responses (14) to a possible population of several thousand the sampling was insignificant.

Therefore to continue further is ineffective. A better and more effective sampling technique is warranted. The USCG criteria “to make a good case” is certainly not convincing or professional.

There is no doubt that the tug people, like so many other transportation occupations need to improve their safety, education and training. An example of an acceptable level of effort put forth is the airline industry; however, the public pays. In my experience, I have found tug people, inland and off shore, to be concerned about the petty bureaucratic confusion of government officials, but angry about managerial mis-management. The law relating to tugs and tug operation as capsulated in ” Parks on the law of Tug, Tow and Pilotage” is mind boggling but almost essential reading for the guy in the pilot house. Most tug operators are given tasks and provided two options: either do the job, or some one else will. Few will support them in confrontations with management involving risk, safety and lawful precedence, mostly it is: up to the tug skipper to decide. A tug operator has little choice in task, crew, time or condition although the laws hold them accountable.

It is appropriate, under the circumstances cited above, that the USCG reconsider their position based on the little response previously acquired and conduct a series of on-scene visits to the major tug boat areas and determine what is actually needed and how to accomplish it. A small professional. representative experienced team could effectively accomplish a meaningful result in a few months. The result may not be perfect, but the effort should be.

It is not what one achieves, but the effort that prove its worth.

JGD

Captain John Denham is a veteran of 66 years maritime experience in seamanship, ship handling, navigation, piloting, and education. he is also author of The Assistant and DD 891 .

It comes as no surprise that we in the United States are security aware. Possible threats create new legislation on a regular basis. Today, I enrolled for my Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC.) The office was due to be opened at 08:00. Here’s what happened.

07:57 I arrive at the Anacortes Wa. enrollment location, 5 miles from my home.

08:07 Worker #1 arrives and apologizes for being late. [Continue Reading →]