Response to LNG Crewing Agreement Post

June 19th, 2007 · Comments - by John -

Print This Post Send To Friend

I have received a few emails regarding Sunday’s story about a DHS agreement to crew one quarter of LNG ships with American mariners. In a post titled Could American Officers on LNG Ships Stop Terrorists From Using Them as WMDs?, Hunt of the Sea Wolves sums up the contrary opinion stating:

Of course, this is all conjecture, but so is the thought that a few American officers aboard an LNG ship could possibly stop armed killers intent on destroying a city and all who live in it.

My Response? While I agree that American mariners are probably not any more capable of preventing a determined terrorist, they do have the ability to harden the target. I have many reasons for this opinion but here are the ones of greatest importance.

They know the system - American mariners are well versed in U.S. Coast Guard regulations and the manner in which they operate. They are therefore better equipped to be a liaison between the ship and the port security forces.
They know what is normal – A foreign port is just that, foreign. Having grown up in America the U.S. mariner knows what to expect and what deviates from the norm. Subtle differences in humor, manner of dress and accent… are often the best cues a person has to trigger warning and increase awareness.
Vetting - U.S. mariners are required to submit character references, take drug tests and agree to extensive FBI background checks prior to receiving a license. When they arrive aboard ship they are more of a known entity than a crew of foreigners.
Once issued the Coast Guard has more power to suspend or revoke a U.S. license than that of a foreigner. As the old saying goes “A person only does what a boss checks and has the authority to correct”. The USCG frequently checks U.S. mariner’s qualifications and has the authority to take corrective action against them.
September 11^th – Every U.S. mariner remembers how he felt that morning. To us the threat is real and ship/port security is more than just another job requirement. This doesn’t mean that foreigners will disregard the threat but unless you have lost a loved one from (fill in your reason) not wearing a seatbelt you may not understand a police officer’s seemingly excessive action when you fail to buckle up. Unless you have felt the pain of 9/11 it is difficult to take some excessive ISPS regulations seriously.

Some will paint this opinion as xenophobic or protectionist but again I disagree. Take all references to “U.S.” out of the story and you’re left with sound policy. There is no reason ¼ of all ships going to Australia, India, Japan… shouldn’t be crewed with local mariners. LNG ships are primarily on liner runs, if they were tramp ships my opinion might differ.

For a good insider’s perspective on this topic view this MaritimeLinks posts:

Security Farce: Holes in Maritime Security

About The Author

Captain John Konrad is co-founder of Unofficial Networks and Editor In Chief of this blog. He is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage and, since graduating from SUNY Maritime College, has sailed a variety of ships to ports around the world. He currently lives in Morro Bay, California with his wife and two children.
Full Profile: John

Enjoy this story? Subscribe to or feed

OR Send to friend

Viewing 2 Comments

John Chadwell 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I realize U.S. mariners are well trained, but are they trained in hand-to-hand combat? Are they prepared to literally fight to the death?

I served 20 years in the Navy with several tours aboard combat ships and a couple times with SEALs. I know from personal experience that U.S. Navy men and women, though highly trained to fight long distance with sophisticated electronics and weapons, are not trained to fight terrorists close-in.

While carriers might have armed marines onboard who have been trained to fight, most ships have very limited ability to fight or even repel boarders.

There might be heightened awareness because of the U.S.S. Cole attack, but if the enemy happened to be a crewmember who snuck explosives or weapons aboard, there would be little defense.

This is a highly unlikely scenario on a Navy ship and I'd hope it would be the same on an LNG or or other tanker, but with 3/4th of the crew still being foreign nationals, the remaining 1/4th would be at a tremendous disadvantage.

I really hope I'm wrong, but I remember U.S.S. Pueblo's capture by the North Koreans and I remember the attack on U.S.S. Cole. There's a lot of time between the two events, but the Navy still was not prepared to fight off attackers.

I don't know what sort of training merchant seamen go through, but I doubt it's much better than what the average sailor experiences in eight weeks of bootcamp, which is little more than learn how to march in step, fold their uniforms, PT, history, fire fighting, a run through a tear gas chamber and more marching. This was bootcamp in 1964 for me and it's still that way http://www.navy.com/about/during/bootcamp/. So, please forgive me if I doubt a mariner's ability to defend himself and his ship if the enemy is already onboard.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.huntoftheseawolves.net/blog

Capt. John 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

John,

Thanks for responding!

My post was more direct than usual but that's because the subject matter is closer to my heart. My father worked the FDNY’s Rescue 3 in the Bronx (with a Navy SEAL) and died of cancer from Agent Orange exposure in '99. Also I presently work on a ship with crude oil and natural gas capabilities and as Chief Mate I'm the designated Security Officer aboard.

The fact is I agree with 90% of your post. I went through bootcamp with both the Navy and a maritime academy, they are very different. Also my roommate from the navy is now a SEAL platoon leader. I have discussed the matter with him and you’re post is correct in implying that we do not have the capability of defending against a direct attack…. but do we need to??

Mariners are not professional firefighters but we do fight fires, we are not medics but need to take care of our own sick/wounded, we are not Coast Guard rescue swimmers but do need to rescue others. What we are good at is using our available resources to work through problems and be self reliant when resources are not available. This is our expertise.

My problem with your post is not questioning our lack of qualifications to defend against a direct attack it’s your questioning our ability to prevent our ships from being used as WMD’s. If a ship was attacked at sea we would send a piracy distress signal, take measures to disable the ship and those not on duty could hide for days without being found. The ship might be detonated at sea but would never make it into port.

If the ship was attacked in port then that’s the responsibility of the professionals; the USCG, FBI and local police but an American mariner in a US port will be able to sense trouble and sound the alarm faster than a foreigner, they will also have a better idea of who to call and how to direct operations. The same goes for a “sneak” attack. It’s the responsibility of the port to prevent unauthorized people from getting to the ship we are only the last line of defense. If you think this scenario is credible then you need to shine light on the people whose job it is to defend ships, namely the Port Authorities and USCG, not us.

The threat of internal attack is a different matter. Our strongest defense against this is in our numbers. The average complement of a merchant ship is 21-25 people, that’s it. We eat meals, watch movies, work on deck and live in very close quarters together for months at a time. For this reason being on a merchant ship is very different from being on a navy vessel. In the navy you are in similarly close quarters but does the navy captain know the middle name of each crew member? Does he know that Seaman Frank’s baby had a cold this week, that the galley hand has a gambling problem or that the wiper’s first cousin is in jail? A merchant ship is like a small rural town while a navy ship is the big city… which do you think is easier to defend from sabotage?

Prudent seamanship is the captain’s core guidelines. Regardless of country of birth, religion, position… the Captain must know his crew and address concerns. Timothy McVeigh was no less of a threat than any foreign terrorist but both would have difficulty hiding their beliefs aboard a 24-person merchant ship.

When the next big war comes we are going to need qualified mariners we can trust. The US merchant fleet has been in decline for many years and now with burdensome USCG training requirements cutting into family time the number of Americans choosing this profession is rapidly diminishing. We are being attacked by our country’s apparent need for high consumption at a low cost. Until that changes LNG and other ships will be needed. Another problem; Due to ports being located in high population areas our state’s representatives in congress have bigger problems than helping mariners and can not defend us to the extent that a Midwestern Senator defends agriculture. So while the content of your blog post is mostly accurate the conclusion is false; American mariners do have significant means of preventing this scenario if not by physical means…. and while you correctly assess that the situation is not ideal I can honestly say that it is a big step forward not only in preventing terror but keeping American merchant mariners employed on ships and trained in the event of a larger war.

I enjoyed your article and appreciate your response. I hope you continue to shine light on this important issue but not expect the average mariner to be Coast Guardsmen, Navy SEALS or super-cops… that’s what we have them for our job is simply to give them as much help as possible.

-John

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://gcaptain.com