Page 2 of 2

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:08 am
by JK
and to think my worse problem was an older student who thought he could tell the 2nd and the engineers what and how to do things because he was older and had had a business LOL

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:10 am
by Big Pete
I always liked the story one Old Captain told me about a female deck Cadet who refused to clean the Tea/ Coffee station on the Bridge because it was not her job......

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:12 am
by JK
bet that went over well...

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:40 am
by JollyJack
ERR Exam is either Oral or Written. Did an Oral exam with a graduate of an ERR course (he passed the course, didn't need a written exam, right?) He slouched back and answered every question I asked with a shrug and "I dunno". I failed him, of course, he didn't get the CoC. Well his Daddy came in and demanded to know why he had spent all this money and his precious didn't get what he was entitled to. I was overruled and Precious got his ticket.

Cadets are allowed one crack at 1st Class theory Exams after they graduate. One whizz kid sent me his 1st Class Naval Arch paper with question numbers and the correct answers, No showing how he got it, no workings. The rules say quite clearly "Working must be shown". I failed him and the shit hit the fan again. He was a "Star Pupil" in CCGC Sydney and had used his calculator for all the questions. Honest! He didn't have a cheat sheet (so I was led to understand) he could do all of it in his head! I was overruled again.

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:36 pm
by JK
I did a job interview for engineers once upon a time and a fellow came in unshaved, no effort to dress upwards at all (even a bit of a try would have helped) and no attempt to answer fully. All I could think after 5 minutes is, you're wasting my time and I have so much other work and other people to interview. Since he was older, I had no parents to contend to, but Good Lord at least try to engage the interviewer's attention!

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:54 am
by D Winsor
I just read this article about reexamining Officers to insure proper qualifications & experience from one of Martin's Tweets
However there was an interesting story in the comments on the particular story about a vessel loading Grain in Thunder Bay
http://maritime-executive.com/article/to-reduce-losses-north-pi-suggests-testing-seafarers

The comment shows how Owners are willing to crew vessels according to the Minimum Manning Regulations and expect from them only what the regulations demand. Having the ability to anything else with respect to the cargo operations of the vessel outside that other than punch a few numbers into a computer is not required.

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:28 pm
by JollyJack
Seems that they don't "get it" as regards part II of the MPR. "Minimum Manning" regulations deal with safe navigation of a vessel. Mariners on "Safe Manning" documents are required to take a vessel from a departure port to an arrival port, that's all. It does NOT cover bodies for working cargo, maintaining machinery, chipping, painting or cleaning. It does not, on fishing vessels, cover personnel fishing or, on ferries, opening or securing ramps, tying down cargo vehicles.on supply boats working the deck or the towing winches. Personnel on safe manning documents get the ship from A to B safely, deal with emergency situations and abandon ship. THAT IS ALL!

Every SMD I approve follows these Regulations.

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:08 am
by D Winsor
JollyJack wrote:Seems that they don't "get it" as regards part II of the MPR. "Minimum Manning" regulations deal with safe navigation of a vessel. Mariners on "Safe Manning" documents are required to take a vessel from a departure port to an arrival port, that's all. It does NOT cover bodies for working cargo, maintaining machinery, chipping, painting or cleaning. It does not, on fishing vessels, cover personnel fishing or, on ferries, opening or securing ramps, tying down cargo vehicles.on supply boats working the deck or the towing winches. Personnel on safe manning documents get the ship from A to B safely, deal with emergency situations and abandon ship. THAT IS ALL!
Every SMD I approve follows these Regulations.


That presents an interesting dilemma. If the Ship Owner insists on operating a vessel under the Minimum Manning Regulations and the Crew are not permitted, once the vessel arrives at it's destination to do anything with respect to Cargo or any other such operations. Who's going to be responsible for loading the vessel, with maybe little more than a generic Load Plan sent from some Ship Management Office somewhere else in the world, the Grain Trimmers?

Based on my experience being on vessels loading in Thunder Bay I can see where this can be a real problem especially where Load and Ballast Plans are always being modified or updated due to the availability of various grades of cargoes in a particular elevator, combined with the possibility of having to move the vessel to any number of elevators to get the cargo needed for the load.

If an Owner thinks he can save money by using the Minimum Crew required or what essentially is a "Delivery Crew" to get a vessel fro one port to another. The owner had better be prepared to pay the additional costs, which ain't cheap, especially in a port like Thunder Bay for;
A Crew to prepare the vessel including cleaning the Cargo Holds for the mandatory Health Canada Inspection
Longshoremen to tie up, shift the vessel and operate the deck machinery while loading. Grain Handlers do not and will not handle mooring ropes or wires or operate ship's machinery.
Cargo Surveyors to verify the loading, complete Dead Weight Calculations for Bills of Lading and to insure final vessel Drafts do not exceed the maximum allowable for the Seaway System
A qualified Mate or Captain to monitor the loading progress and adjust the Load and Ballast plan as necessary to facilitate what ever moves necessary in order to load the vessel without jeopardizing the stability or safety of vessel.

I would guess these extra costs, which would be very difficult to recoup from a market set or contracted freight rate, could easily out strip any saving gained by operating the vessel with a Minimum Delivery Crew. If the Owner is unwilling to pay the costs of the additional shore labour or provide the necessary qualified crew capable of preparing and loading the vessel. The vessel simply will not be loaded.

There is a lot of money to be lost sending a ship up and down through the Seaway without any kind of Back-Haul because an Owner wanting to save a few bucks on Crew Costs.

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:25 pm
by JollyJack
MPR, part 3, allows working hours up to 18 hours a day. ILO, on the other hand, says 16. Seems you are safer as a Filipino on a FoC ship than a Canadian on a Canadian one!

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:40 am
by Big Pete
As a Chief Engineer I have raised the issue of what a Safe Minimum Manning Certificate covers with several Superintendents and when I tell them it doesn't allow for any maintenance or Cargo Ops they are all amazed, real or fake I can't tell..

BP

Re: Fatigue at sea

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:48 am
by D Winsor
I just found another interesting article on the link between Crew size and Automation and Fatigue on Martin's Twitter Feed.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/fatigue-fight428341#.WZIdN47v4iw.twitter