M/V Biscaglia and her security team. Via the Dailymail

In a well researched article titled Mercenary Guards Jump Ship as Somali Pirates Remain Undeterred Bloomberg exposes private security efforts to protect ships in the region. What is not well researched however, is the title incident aboard the M/V Biscaglia.

In last week’s edition of Maritime Moday, Fred Fry posted the wired magazine article Sonic Blaster Firm Disputes Pirate Tale which shares LRAD’s investigation into the failed attempt to use of non-lethal weapons aboard the Biscaglia. Specifically Fred asked the question “I wonder if this explains why some stories mention that the attack lasted forty minutes and others mention that it was all over in ten?”. Finally, Bloomberg gets an answer straight from the French Navy:

“As the Biscaglia attack was under way, its distress signal was picked up by the Nivose, a French frigate escorting 18 merchant ships 40 miles away. When a Panther helicopter from the Nivose arrived 15 minutes later, the pirates were already in control”

APMSS, the security firm protecting the Biscaglia, did not respond to Bloomberg’s statements but said in a statement that its crews have prevented three hijackings recently. Regardless of their response, which has been inconsistent, it’s clear to us that the LRAD was not deployed in time to be of much use which leads to the question “Are alternatives to armed guards still a viable answer?”    Master Mariner and friend of gCaptain, Kennebec Captain, recently commented:

I can anticipate what the armchair gunners response to this incident is going to be – the British guards should have been armed. A couple of weeks ago I would have agreed. Now I am not so sure.

A lot of people dismiss the argument that it is unwise to arm merchant ships and mariners, the argument being that doing so will simply raise the level of violence.

I think it would be wise to give some though as to whether or not we want to increase the volume, velocity and weight of flying projectiles around my ship and crew in hopes of mitigating the pirate problem.

Disagreement over this issue has been widely published by gCaptain and the broader media with BIMCO spokesman Giles Noakes leading the doves and the US Navy (among others) leading the hawks. Here are the contradicting statements:

“There are about a dozen companies providing security teams and many others trying to jump on the bandwagon,” said Giles Noakes, head of maritime security at BIMCO, the world’s largest ship-owners’ association. “While I understand the temptation, placing armed guards on board creates a severe risk of escalation.”

And

“Shipping companies have to understand that naval forces cannot be everywhere,” said U.S. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, commander of naval forces supporting coalition military operations in Afghanistan, in a Nov. 17 statement. “Self- protection measures are the best way to protect their vessels, their crews, and their cargo. Ships should use security teams.”

gCaptain readers have also weighted in on this topics both before and during (here and here) the current crisis but I take a slightly different view than either side. In today’s upcoming issue of The Maritime Executive Newsletter (delivered free to gCaptain readers via this link) I take a different view… We need to identify and fix the root causes of the problem then back up your efforts with armed security personnel that are part of the vessel team (i.e. not just guns on deck).

What are the root causes?

Somalia Itself

The primary cause of the problem is suffering in Somalia that lead to acceptance of risk by desperate fisherman followed by greed. In a recent email to gCaptain Fred Parle, hostage aboard the MT Svitzer Korsakov (Incident LINK), explains:

Wake up and listen to those who ” have been there done that ” not listen to people in soft comfortable beds who wonder which paper to write to with inane and deadly suggestions. I’m angry , right ,as I see after all these years of chaos in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere that results to improve Safety at Sea have been a big ZERO. Pirates in Somalia are after CASH to feed their families only, no politics, no religion, just old fashioned gnawing empty bellies at home that drive most of these marine bullies to Piracy. I repeat its all about money and food , education, health , the lack of things we take for granted every day of our lives. There are agencies spending BILLIONS every year on wasteful items, WAKE UP and listen to the VICTIMS who will tell you the truth and the full story. A hungry family will not tell porkies they know it as it is in their homes .

Manning

The above statement from the French navy makes it clear that watchkeeping has suffered and we believe low manning levels are to blame. There are simple too few eyes on the water.

Experience

How many of gCaptain readers or anti-piracy decision makers have experienced a pirate attack? We believe the mariners do keep lookout do not have the experience to quickly identify threats. In last week’s Maritime Monday Fred Fry also asked: “This update makes me wonder, did the ship’s crew defer their anti-pirate lookout duties to the security detail? Shouldn’t the LRAD have been deployed and ready to go from the start?” I would like to pose another set of questions: Was the security detail maintaining a proper lookout? Were they working as part of the bridge team? Who identified the pirate vessel and were they qualified to asses it as a threat prior to the engagement?

Training

Prior to becoming Vessel Security Officer, assigned along with my other duties as Chief Mate, on my previous vessel I was required to take ISPS (International Ship Port Security) training and apply for an endorsement on my STCW (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) certificate. The training consisted of two days in a classroom environment…. is this enough? Would a month of training better prepair me or is ISPS like shiphandling where training is good but experience counts?

Security

We have explored this issue in partnership with a security provider we trust; Global Rescue. As I’ve tipped my hat in stating the level of my security training I will not speak to this issue directly but contact us if you are in need of security in pirate waters and we will put you in touch with Global Rescue directly.

This is just a preview…

This post is just a preview of the article I wrote for Maritime Executive so be sure to sign up for their newsletter (offered free to gCaptain shipmates) to read the full spectrum of our thoughts on vessel security in the Gulf Of Aden.

UPDATE:

My article titled “A New Solution To a Pressing Problem: gCaptain Gives Another Perspective” has been made available online. You can find it by CLICKING HERE.

Editorial Note: Being actively sailing mariners, the editorial team at gCaptain is concerned by recent changes to US Coast Guard policy on the licensing of mariners. We feel this is a topic of importance to mariners worldwide but questioned our ability to write on this issue objectively so we sent a note to someone we trust; Joe Keefe of The Maritime Executive. This article is reprinted with his permission.

Charlotte, NC: When you are trying to re-qualify your marine license as your 50th birthday looms large in the Radar hood, it doesn’t hurt to improve your cardiovascular footprint in preparation for the impending physical examination. Accordingly, I was going to go for a quick run this afternoon at my favorite Municipal Park, but all of our service stations are out of Gasoline today. Note: If anyone can help the Colonial Pipeline get primed up with some much needed RNL for the mid-southeastern corridor, everyone in Western North Carolina will really appreciate it. In any event, and in the absence of wheels to get me to a softer running medium, I said, “What the heck: I’ll just get rolling on this week’s column.” And, so I did.

On Monday, the Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center’s (NMC) July 2008 one-page TWIC Alert arrived in the mail. Immediately following that, NAVIGATION and VESSEL INSPECTION NAVIC NO. 04-08 hit the WEB. The contents of both documents gave my ongoing effort to qualify as a true-blue STCW mariner new urgency, as well as a little bit of dread. After all, I had no idea that the TWIC thing would kick in until I actually had gotten my license into compliance. Beyond this, the Coast Guard NAVIC contains no less than seven documents and countless pages of supporting information. So, and at the risk of offending the greener side of our readers, I downloaded and printed every single one of the latter documents. To my defense, I didn’t realize that the section entitled “MEDICAL CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW” was 32 pages long. The entire printout has – and I am not making this up – decimated an entire hardwood forest in the Pisgah National Wildlife Area.

This is a good time, in the interests of full disclosure, for me to come clean about my medical history. In 1984, I was discharged (READ: removed) early from a chemical tanker in Beaumont, Texas, after a particularly painful two day run from Tampa. This involved a two day stay at MidJeff County Memorial Hospital in Beaumont, where they decided (after a thorough kidney scan and determining that the seaman patient was NOT afflicted with a social disease) that I had a kidney stone. Not knowing what else to do (apparently), they bought me (and I am absolutely not making this up) a twelve-pack of LITE beer and gave me a cup with a screen with which I was to produce evidence of the calcification. Eventually, my roommates arrived and whisked me back to Houston. A happy ending.

The TWIC thing is a little more troubling; certainly it is more immediate. I also confess to not having actually formally applied for my STCW ticket yet. With a full time job, I fit the courses in as I can, but I am making progress. It is my intention to do the Bridge Resource Management (BRM) and the Vessel Security Officer (VSO) refresher course in November; back-to-back. This will augment my new BST and Crowd Management endorsements and, with a little luck, I’ll fit it all in before the Azaleas bloom at Augusta. I had better, since the TWIC requirement has thankfully been extended to April 15th. The good news is that I am still in “continuity” status, hence it does not become an issue, apparently, until I have all of my STCW certifications.” Remember, failure to get the TWIC card, with or without the STCW endorsement will – and I quote here, “Result in the suspension or revocation of your mariner credentials.” Not much more to say about that.

In all, the new medical rules contain 65+ pages that detail the myriad of ways that any mariner can be disqualified from sea service. The document is staggering in its complexity, confusing in its terminology, and likely to further exacerbate the chronic shortage of mariners in the domestic, Jones Act markets. What it does not do, however, is also regulate the worldwide mariner population which dwarfs the U.S. workforce that it hopes to police. And, while no one doubts the importance of this type of effort – especially in the wake of the COSCO BUSAN debacle – the implications of the latest Coast Guard NAVIC threaten to eclipse the advent of STCW as a driving force in the elimination of American mariners from the global seagoing workforce.

On page 2 of the main document, the NAVIC (04-08) states (4d.) that “The Coast Guard recognizes the need for qualified mariners and the potential shortage of mariners in the U.S. and worldwide. The NAVIC should not result in higher rates of disqualification for service, or in increased processing time for credential applications with physical and/or medical issues.” I’m not so sure about that, quite frankly. In an age where the criminalization of mariners seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, I find myself poring through the labyrinth of medical requirements and rules in search of a place where I might drop the ball. Will someone level charges against me if I do? And, what if I do so honestly, but without malice?

I have, then, gone through all 201 “Medical conditions subject to further review.” There’s good news and bad news: In the “EYES, GENERAL” section, I didn’t find anything particularly troubling. However, this mariner who used to be able to read road signs before other people could even see them now has to wear drugstore glasses in order to digest 8 point pica text. Section 107 (GENITAL, URINARY SYSTEM): tune out here if you are at all squeamish. Yes, I endured a cystoscopy at 34. Beyond that, you’ll have to torture me for more information. Section 115: Nope, no history of gender reassignment (I’m not really sure what means, though). Section 186: I had one glass of wine; my wife drank the rest of it. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. OKAY: I’ve read the entire “Medical Conditions” section twice, start-to-finish; I think that’s it.

My drive towards STCW compliance continues and I have absolutely no doubt that I will succeed. And, when it is all said and done, I will then pursue a seagoing berth, preferably on one of those car carriers with the squash courts. Don’t get me wrong; I loved my three-plus years on the chemical carrier, but you gotta keep active, especially with NAVIC 04-08 lurking about.

This week’s flurry of heightened awareness in terms of what it’s going to take to qualify has given me real pause. But, that’s not the half of it. More than one mariner over the age of 50 who has already done exactly what I am trying to accomplish has told me that their biggest challenge had nothing to do with getting qualified. Instead, the effort to get shipping companies to hire the older mariner was far more difficult. In a world where qualified mariners are supposedly at a premium, that’s just wrong. And, it is a waste of experience and talent.

We live in a world where maritime academies are producing fewer and fewer mariners. This, exacerbated by the new medical standards and the rush to obtain a TWIC Card from a less-than-reliable source (whose deadline seems to be a moving target), is also ensuring that the problem of recruiting and retaining qualified mariners is only going to get worse in the short term. All of which reminds me: my NC driver’s license also expires in about two weeks. And, I think there’s some sort of test involved. * Sigh * – MarEx.

Joseph Keefe is the Managing Editor of THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE. He can be reached with comments or questions on this article or any other aspect of this e-newsletter at jkeefe@maritime-executive.com. This article was originally published via The Maritime Executive Newsletter. Free subscriptions to the newsletter can be found here.

In covering the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge incident I have noticed most (but not all) of the news articles have made a small error in terminology. In describing the incident where the Cosco Busan hit the Bay Bridge many prominent news organizations referred to event as a collision when in fact it was an allision.

For clarification: A vessel collides with another moving vessel…. A vessel allides with a fixed object (unless it is submerged) and is presumed at fault.

Marine Dictionary – Allision

For those interested in learning more about the allision here are some good links;

• San Francisco Bay Bridge – gCaptain coverage
• Ooops! Container Ship Collides with SF Bay Bridge
• Bridge Left Undamaged
• Chief Engineer Underestimates Environmental Impact
• Two Coasts – Two Allisions | MAREX
• Official Coast Guard Cosco Busan Updates (right column)
• Shipping firms to pay for oil spill
• San Francisco Shuts Beaches After Ship Spills Fuel
  

For future articles stay tuned with our Maritime News Discoverer’s Upcoming Links

Here is a photo of the environmental damage;

Kurt Rogers / San Francisco Chronicle

Update:

We received an excellent email on the subject from fellow SUNY Maritime alumni John A. Tylawsky;

Allision is a violent striking (such as in a collision) with a fixed object.
This is in contrast with “vessel contact” with a fixed object such as would
be made with bridge fenders in the ordinary course of say a tug and barge
passing under a bridge.

Bridge owners would prefer to classify all vessel/bridge interactions as
“allisions” when fender systems have not been maintained and simply fall
apart upon incidental contact, or were never properly designed.

The right of navigation generally supercedes the right of the bridge to
obstruct the waterway. Bridge fenders are intended to protect the vessel,
not the bridge. Congress allowed the bridge to be constructed with the
provision that navigation would not be interfered with.

Under the “Oregon Rule” the burden of proof is on the moving vessel to prove
that the allision was the stationary object’s fault. This might be shown,
for example, if the fender was encroaching upon the navigation channel
either from damage, or in some cases because it was not built or repaired
according to the permit.

John A. Tylawsky, P.E.
Consulting Marine Engineer
Board Certified Forensic Engineer
www.marinesafetycenter.com

Thanks John for the clear explanation.

Gathering that he was earning well in excess of $100,000 per year with about six months vacation, I chided him for complaining about a job situation that a lot of people would kill to obtain. My comments were NOT well received.

Well had Keefe called any member of gCaptain’s staff we could have gently clued him in on the likely response. The reason? Well he lays out all the major points but let us add a few minor ones. Mariners currently in top positions aboard ship are loyal to their profession. We have seen tough times and stayed at sea to the protest of loved ones and in doing so have payed the price. From high points to low a mariners life is one of hard misses. Personally I’ve sacrificed being with my family on the day of my father’s death and missed the birth of his namesake, my first child, Jack. Mine is one of the least troubling stories but the hardships are not the primary reason for the discord; it’s the rewards, or lack there of. To show my point I offer some examples;

• Mariners in the first Gulf War bravely supplied the troops in countless runs to the war zone and in return received “all you can eat” overtime pay and handsome bonuses. For my wife’s 30 days in the war zone she received little more than a medal.
• Mariner’s salaries are just recently breaking above the levels (not adjusted for inflation) of those in the same position 30 years ago.
• Sailing 30 years ago was an enjoyable experience that did not entail constant communication with management. Email and “real” phone service didn’t exist.
• Port time is currently non-existent.
• The U.S. mariner has historically come at a premium to their foreign conterparts but the gap is closing fast.
• With the decline in the dollar we are suddenly being recruited be European companies that are offering considerable bonuses. U.S. companies are not following suit.
• Specialists in support roles, mostly from Europe, freely share their salaries which can be considerable higher than an American Captain’s.
• The majority of mariners live in areas (New England, Florida, California) of skyrocketing housing expenses.
• Mariners are now getting arrested for incidents that, as CAMM (The Council of American Master Mariners) put it, “were at one point considered mistakes”.
• Today civilians are more likely to ask you how you can work for an Oil Company than reply with a statement once heard often; “Wow, what an interesting job”.

In addition to these points the personnel shortage in our industry is not only a concern of company, it’s a concern for the shipboard management. The simple fact is positions are being filled by people who five years ago would not be considered ready for the job. In the past twenty years crew levels have been brought down to record low levels but overqualified crews “stuck” in positions they long ago mastered have kept the ships running smooth. Today an alarmingly high number of vessels list 100% of their officers as short-service employees (in the position for less than a year). This is not only a problem for officers but also for those on shore. Ships rely on a foundation of support from town that increasingly comes from managers lacking experience due to the same stratospheric rise in the number of promotions. These two factors equate to rising difficulties for Captains, Chief Mates and their counterparts in the engine room.

A manager recently asked a good friend of mine if he was ready for the big promotion to Captain, his response angered the boss. I can only assume the anger derived from the fact his statement was both accurate and troubling. He replied, “Hell no, I have no business being Captain. Professionally I’m not close to being ready but if I’m not promoted in the next few rounds you’re making a big mistake because I can run circles around my competition!” Not a good sign for those who need to trust the next man in charge of a 500 million dollar asset.

What he did not tell the manager is also reveling, “Why take a promotion for a few extra dollars and have to sit at a desk filling out paperwork, answering phone calls from town and dealing with petty squables. The captain use to have a stateroom twice the size of a seaman’s and fly to work in first class, now he just gets paid more.”

While the article was impressively accurate the following comments are not entirely correct;

His pay had been augmented three or four times in the past 18 months and his employers had confirmed that pay scales had at least doubled during that period.

While it’s conceivable that the payroll has double I’ve witnessed between 10 and 40% increases in senior mariner pay.

Gathering that he was earning well in excess of $100,000 per year with about six months vacation

“But you get Six Months vacation” is the first thing mariners hear during salary negotiations but it’s a misnomer. I don’t personally know a mariner who took less than 4 weeks of training classes last year and know many Chief Mate candidates who took between 12 and 16 weeks of class… that brings us down to 5 months “Vacation”. Subtract travel days, visits to the Coast Guard and days spent at the union hall and your down to less than 4.5 months (139 days).

The average American takes 15 days vacation, 8 personal days and 10 holidays. Add this to the number of weekends and (if my math is correct) shore side personel have 137 days off or only 3 days less than the mariner. Ever leave the office early on Friday or take a long lunch to visit the dentist? Mariners work 12 hours a day, every day which equates to nearly double the number of hours a “40-hour per week” American works during the year. Now I can begin to understand why gCaptain’s email box gets flooded with shore-side job related questions.

The number one reason for the discord is rooted by Keefe’s statement;

It is tempting to dismiss this as seafarer whining, but maritime executives everywhere had better strap on their hearing aids and listen to what their employees have to say. To do otherwise will only exacerbate the current crisis.

On the return trip for a promising shore-side job a prominent divorce attorney joined the discussion on NPR’s Fresh Air and said he often sits at the arbitration table looking at two people in love who share a life others only dream about and asks himself why. The reason is not that argued by either party, the reason is that neither listens to what the other is saying.

Mariners are being marginalized and management isn’t listening. Captains no longer have the power to solve problems aboard ship without approval from managers who frequently ask “Who died and left him in charge?”. This response filters down to the crew who justly assume their boss can not communicate their problems to distant offices ashore. This problem is exacerbated by the increased regulatory pressures, technological requirements, and industry opposition not to mention burdensome levels of training, paperwork and hands-on management from shore.

So while the “24/7 satellite television, e-mail, voice comms, excellent (but SSDD) food and media room” are nice do something that compensates me for the extra work I’ve taken on lately or double salaries instead of payroll.

What are management’s concerns? Not sure, I’m knocking on the divorce attorney’s door and just not listening!

-JD

This post is in response to Maritime Executive’s article:

Long-Term Neglect of Mariners Continues to Haunt Maritime Employers