Modern Management or the Command System?

**anchorman** · July 8th, 2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by injunear

"Our biggest shortage are Engineers. They seem to be leaving fast and retiring early from sea life."

This is the same old "pecker measuring" I've witnessed for the past 39 years.

The reason I and many others have opted for early retirement is the shrinking engine room crew with an exponential increase in office personel, increased work load, piles of new regulatory record keeping, ongoing audits and vettings taking up valuable port time for maintainence and repairs, (my favorite) elimination of overtime because we're not supposed to exceed 36 hours in 72 and when this is pointed out to management, we're admonished and told to learn to manage our time better.

Now, I've finished my rant and have to clean the morning's catch. You all can go back to your measuring...Maybe my first pension check will come in today!!

It's all in good fun.....and pointless, but I like playing the game when one comes along and lands in the sand box.

**Allwyn** · July 8th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Ships are too big an investment (historically and legally trusted to the Master) to let conflict interfere with the authority and responsibility of command.

OK. However, you hit the crux here. Those who invest, are least interested in historical reasons and legal reasons that arise on those traditions of 'Command'.

How do you know there does not exist a better, safer, environmentally more saner way to operating vessels at sea? How do you guarantee/ be sure that the historical trust granted by law to Masters is inviolable and indispensible?

On a final note, I have to write a little bit about the comment that deckies merely "follow the line" on the GPS.

Oh yes, This was atributed to me, i never said it anywhere though, even remotely.

**kzoo pilot** · July 8th, 2009, 11:59 AM

I understand you didn't mention following the line, my response was a general comment toward that attitude from others that feel that way.

As far as command vs. management is concerned, I am not particularly interested in what those with a "business" background feel or understand about shipboard life. Mariners are paid for what they know and may be called on to perform. An MBA does not, as a regular course of their job, deal with really big pieces of moving equipment that can seriously injure or kill someone. This is the old argument of the military; you don't manage your troops up a hill, you LEAD them. Can maritime schools do a better job of teaching "management" to potential officers? Sure, but management is a function of the business side of sailing, not the leadership side. An understanding of ship's business is important to an efficient operation, but leadership and command are still essential.

How do you "manage" people in a shipboard emergency? There is no time to do a power point on fire fighting; you step up to the plate and LEAD your crew in your efforts to protect your men, save the ship, and then the cargo. NOTE: Crew, ship, cargo. Because of the nature of seafaring, it is not practical to manage a ship and crew one moment and command it the next. Management skills are a subset of leadership, the converse is not true. Maritime command is one of the last great independent jobs left. YOU are it, the master; it is all on you. Down the chain of command it is the same, a young deck or engine officer needs to be the direct line to the ultimate authority of the Master. As a young third I learned that lesson very well when I botched a mooring operation and had to stand in front of the captain and explain my actions. I will never forget his words, " YOU are the officer, YOU are in charge, NOTHING will take that responsibility from you on this ship until you sign off, quit, or I fire you. You don't take suggestions from the crew in critical spots because if it is wrong, you are STILL responsible."

Am I saying that we all act like Horatio Hornblower and say nothing to the crew but "ahems"? No, but the responsibility and burden on an officer to his crew and owners are far more precious compared to the day to day work of someone ashore. Money can be earned again, but a man's life is far more valuable. I am veering off topic here but it frustrates the heck out me when it appears as though office staff are more concerned about paperwork instead of keeping a happy crew which then means an efficient ship, which leads to satisfied charterers/customers, which finally leads back to a good record for the fleet and more work. That seems so simple, doesn't it?

Ships are not, by their very nature, the place to run a democratic form of leadership. The Master is in command and until the shoreside management of every fleet running can convince the regulators that responsibility for incidents will be equally divided among all involved from the galley utilityman to the Master, I can see no other way to run a vessel than by the absolute authority and under the command of the person in the pilothouse with the four gold stripes.

**Kennebec Captain** · July 8th, 2009, 01:12 PM

The argument made is that the engineering is very complex, dealing with people is a skill as well. Is there any machinery in the engine room as complex as a single human being?

**Allwyn** · July 8th, 2009, 07:28 PM

" YOU are the officer, YOU are in charge, NOTHING will take that responsibility from you on this ship until you sign off, quit, or I fire you. You don't take suggestions from the crew in critical spots because if it is wrong, you are STILL responsible."

I would caution you against taking that attitude.

Firstly there may be crew, who've been in the situation and know that the decision you're making could be wrong. Or they may know a better or simpler way of doing it, than you are aware of.

Secondly a crew member may get hurt or worse die, since you took the 'wrong' decision and were arrogant enough not to to consider their experience or suggestions in that situation worthy of taking into consideration.

Thirdly while you make the decision, i'll always advise, it's prudent, less arrogant and good leadership to consider the opinions and suggestions of our juniors/ colleagues and crew members.

**Jeffrox** · July 8th, 2009, 07:40 PM

"I will say that I have enough engineering knowledge to know when the Chief is blowing smoke up my ass, and that alarm just went off."

Good one Anchorman, me too and mine went off about 3 days ago.

**Allwyn** · July 8th, 2009, 10:43 PM

Oh, by the way, airliners can navigate using "old-fashioned" methods as well as GPS. There's not an airliner flying that's not equipped to do so. In fact, the final phase of flight uses ONLY conventional navigation. Ever heard of an ILS?

I don't know why you separated the ILS approach from the flight or what you wanted to prove. But it seems you're unaware that the Airfrance Airbus A447 flight that crashed recently did not have a GPS unit onboard.

**Allwyn** · July 8th, 2009, 11:06 PM

The argument made is that the engineering is very complex, dealing with people is a skill as well. Is there any machinery in the engine room as complex as a single human being?

It is a well known fact that Engineering is a complex task. Troubleshooting problems in Engineering/ Systems/ Plants requires use of extremely good nerves and good logical and analytical abilities. Engineering management also require people skills. It's not as if people in the ER don't have any. I read the very interesting 'Dredging' article posted here on interdepartment apartheid with separate accomodations and stuff. Do you think it would be easy on the Engineers dealing with the Deck Deparment in thosse times? Do you think you need people skills when you deal with insulting and condescending people? Yes you do.

Today most Companies prefer hiring Marine Chief Engineers as Superintendents and Fleet Managers. Is there a reason why? So you think a Marine Manager does'nt know 'people skills'? Even on the commercial/ Chartering side Office we have retired Marine Chief Engineers striking business deals and maintaining Business relationships with clients. No people skills?

We also have several new buildings in construction in several shipyards across Asia. Guess who makes the specifications, equipment requirement and oversees the build up of the entire ship? Right, Marine Chief Engineers. They sign owners behalf, every bit of stiffener and piece of steel fitted, welded on the hull/ deck. They also deal/ liason with the Yard Machinery/ Hull supervisors, Class, Owners, the Technical Management HO. No people skills?

**sean** · July 9th, 2009, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Allwyn

The argument made is that the engineering is very complex, dealing with people is a skill as well. Is there any machinery in the engine room as complex as a single human being?

Today most Companies prefer hiring Marine Chief Engineers as Superintendents and Fleet Managers.

Guess who makes the specifications, equipment requirement and oversees the build up of the entire ship? Right, Marine Chief Engineers.

Most fleet managers are Masters, not Chief Engineers. I presume this is because a Master knows what it takes to run a vessel day to day. The same is true of DPAs, CSOs, vessel managers, safety managers, etc. This is a fact, not supposition. I deal with these people every day, from some of the largest shipping companies in the world. 95% are Masters.

These companies do have technical superintendents that deal with technical specs, equipment requirements, shipbuilding etc. These are engineers and naval architects.

**Allwyn** · July 9th, 2009, 12:43 AM

Most fleet managers are Masters, not Chief Engineers. I presume this is because a Master knows what it takes to run a vessel day to day.

Sean, i don't really want to take this up. But what do you mean by day to day ops? Personnel or crew hiring? Why don't you just open up and check on available shore jobs in the Industry. Just a google, will confirm whats the market like. I can't fix percentages like you are sure about..but here's a random sample on 'wanted current shore vacanies" and they seem the opposite of what you say:

http://www.marine-jobs.co.uk/vacancies.asp#gnmtc_2

Look at the openings, even your day to day stuff:

To have responsibility for the efficient operation of the fleet vessels and supervise Ship Management Team operating to Company procedures and best ship management practices whilst giving absolute regard to safety of life at sea and protection of the environment at all times.
Key Tasks and Responsibilities include:
Planning, controlling and execution of all activities related to maintenance, repairs, survey and certificate requirements, dry-docking, conversion or modification of fleet vessels.
Formulating a dynamic work plan and action list with the vessel's command, to ensure that the vessel is maintained in accordance with the Owner's policy and to receive regular reports as to its progress.

Heading Technical Supt. wanted.

Look a the reality. What a owner wants. I feel some people here are being more romantic than realist. The Tech supt is your vessels supervisor. Your Master has a problem, he has to ring up and inform the Technical Supt, who is normally designated the PIC.

Thats how most fleets around the world function.

**Capt. Nemo** · July 9th, 2009, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Allwyn

Oh, by the way, airliners can navigate using "old-fashioned" methods as well as GPS. There's not an airliner flying that's not equipped to do so. In fact, the final phase of flight uses ONLY conventional navigation. Ever heard of an ILS?

I don't know why you separated the ILS approach from the flight or what you wanted to prove. But it seems you're unaware that the Airfrance Airbus A447 flight that crashed recently did not have a GPS unit onboard.

What the hell is an Airbus A447? And, if you're referring to the one that was enroute to Paris from Brasil, show me the documentation that says it didn't have FMS...meaning GPS.

And I didn't "separate" the ILS from the flight. I was pointing out that conventional navigation (old fashioned ground based VHF radios, not GPS) is still used routinely.

Are you an aviation expert as well as a naval arcitect and engineer and master? Damn, you are a valuable commodity. It's a shame you don't realize the value of others. You don't seem to be aware that there are decisions that frequently have to be made by someone in command that can ONLY be safely made based on knowledge and experience.

You truly are an idiot. Crawl back under whatever balance sheet you out from.

Nemo

**Allwyn** · July 9th, 2009, 07:32 AM

A reported electrical system failure aboard Flight 477 likely would have knocked out any GPS devices even if the flight had been equipped with that technology. But under a satellite system, rescuers would have known the aircraft's precise location when the failure occurred, presumably making the search area much smaller and helping authorities locate the wreckage faster. That timeliness can also be crucial in determining a cause of a crash.

"It's a crude system they're using now," said Robert Poole, an aviation expert with the free market-oriented Reason Foundation. "For 100 dollars, you can run down and buy a GPS system, put it in your car and know exactly where you are. But planes don't have it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31103065...h_and_gadgets/

Maybe the are referring to tracking, and aviation experts are confusing the thing?

Any yes, indeed if you have to discuss anthing, you can stop the name calling and be civil. You've been at it for sometime, including in my PM box. It does not speak of your 'peoples skill' very much.

**cmakin** · July 9th, 2009, 07:42 AM

This has been one of the most interesting threads that I have followed anywhere. It certainly presents some interesting ideas. I do find that the responses speak for themselves. I also know that when the name calling starts, the discussion is over because that particular party has no more ideas to support their argument, or at least their side of the debate.

I do a fair amount of marine investigations, and have for some time now (over 20 years). Trust me, you don't want to know where I get the information that I need most often, and who seems to have a better overall awareness of vessel operations.

The point that I see being made in the original post is that just because one works in the wheelhouse does not necessarily mean that one automatically is better suited for "command" and leadership. Each job on a ship has its own challenges. This is sort of like the old arguement that only deck officers are "true" officers.

Also remember that, for the most part, vessel crew members (masters and chiefs included) are being replaced with what is most economically reasonable in the world market. Now, this may not necessarily be a good idea, but it is a fact. I also recall some time ago where there was talk of replacing all shipboard personnel and just having the ships cross the ocean unmanned, picking up the pilot and line handlers at the sea buoy.

Well, enough said. I am going to sit right back and keep reading and enjoying. It makes me remember both why I liked about going to sea when I did, and what I didn't like about it. Ironically, it was often the same thing.

**Allwyn** · July 9th, 2009, 07:56 AM

Cmakin, there's a parellel conversation on the Marine Engineer thread. On similar lines. The one John started on Murphy's law. Very interesting Wiki linked article. In case you missed it, it's a good read. Won't say much about he rest of the conversaion down there though.

**cmakin** · July 9th, 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Allwyn

Cmakin, there's a parellel conversation on the Marine Engineer thread. On similar lines. The one John started on Murphy's law. Very interesting Wiki linked article. In case you missed it, it's a good read. Won't say much about he rest of the conversaion down there though.

Yeah, I just saw it.

**sean** · July 9th, 2009, 10:03 AM

Allwyn,

Technical manager or superintendent is a different job than fleet manager. I think I said that. Fleet manager, vessel manager, DPA, whatever the company calls it, is usually the one in charge of the operations of the vessel. And this person is usually a Master. The technical superintendent is usually an engineer and they are in charge maintenance, Class issues, yard work, and regulatory issues that are technically oriented.

Do you think this not the case in most companies?

**Old Bakelite** · July 9th, 2009, 02:00 PM

**New3M** · July 9th, 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Allwyn

At any time GPS satellites can be turned off, that is why Celestial navigation is still practaced up in the wheelhouse. Have you ever heard of someone with "average" intellagence being able to do Celestial computations without the aid of a computer program? I dont know how your officers are tested on this subject for there license, but the <ACRONYM title="United States Coast Guard">USCG</ACRONYM> makes us prove that we can accomplish this task with a simple calculator and a pencel.

Ok let me assume you're correct.. Tell me then, why the USCG wants merchant mariners to be skilled at CN, while the US Navy, Airforce and the rest of the world airlines don't follow it anymore or teach it anymore. Or do you think the GPS would be switched off selectively only for Merchant ships. I am cerain there are thousands of planes in the air too any moment relying on GPS data.

Also I would like to add, Google is not the place to prove your knowage of Maritime terms.

Google is not the place to improve one's maritime knowledge, i am aware. But it is a tool used by people all over the world to learn and gather information about any subject. A tool. Like your sextant. Incidently google is not based in Seattle which is the MS HQ but in California.

If you bothered to look anywhere on the internet, including what appears to be your favorite sites, Google and Wikipedia, you would see that the Naval Academy does indeed teach Celestial. In 1998, they didn't stop teaching celestial, but stopped teaching the use of SEXTANT's. They still teach celestial. And, you can see a powerpoint from as recent as 2005, teaching celestial navigation to the midshipmen. (http://www.usna.edu/SailingTeam/trai...2005celnav.pdf)

And anyway, please don't compare us up on the bridge to those on the brige of any Navy ship. No disrespect to them, but we don't need 20 people to do the job of one deck officer.

**Kennebec Captain** · July 9th, 2009, 04:23 PM

The point that I see being made in the original post is that just because one works in the wheelhouse does not necessarily mean that one automatically is better suited for "command" and leadership.

What are the duties of the third mate compared to the third eng? Third mate is in charge on the stern during unmooring operations usually shortly after arrival on board. It has been pointed out that this is not technically difficult but it requires being in charge of two ABs and an oiler, all how have more experienced then the new mate. It requires taking command of the stern. In contrast the third eng may be assigned a task that requires skill and may learn a great deal studying the manuals and so forth but it's not leadership. A mate is in charge of a squad during emergencies and drills, a mate is in charge of the life boat. The chief mate runs the deck dept.

There is more to the deck side then navigation, there is weather, safety, regulation compliance, cargo stowage, stability.

I once served as AB on a twin screw harbor tug. We had a captain, a mate and two ABs. It was a day tug, we were tied up at night. I was responsible for filling the day tank, starting the mains and checking the gauges. If there was something I couldn't handle I would ask the captain. Any work that needed to be done was done by a engineer who came aboard from shoreside. Now, if we were at sea for more then a day we would carry the engineer with us. I just don't see how it would make sense to transfer responsibility for the tug from the captain to the engineer on overnight trips and then back to the captain for shorter trips. I just don't see how it would work.

Is the operation of a ship primarily a problem of engineering or a problems of seamanship? Engineering is a specialized field, seamanship is a broad one. Should a ship be run by an engineer while being advised about operations and seamanship by a deck officer or by a deck officer while relying upon an engineer for advice?

**Jeffrox** · July 9th, 2009, 11:39 PM

New3M.
That's a great CELNAV PDF, thanks for sharing! About your ideas concerning who, how many and why folks are on the bridge of a Navy ship, you are confused.