SWZ Maritime's November 2014 edition contained an article by Captain Kanellopoulos on “Seamanship, the Forgotten Factor”. Interesting comments have been received on that article, which were summarised in SWZ Maritime's February edition, but can be read in full here on SWZonline.
In the article we published last November, Captain Kanellopoulos defined seamanship as the practical art of operating a ship based on a combination of experience, knowledge, professionalism, safety culture and performance ability, transferred from one generation of seafarers to the next. He argues that due to the immense volume of bureaucracy ships’ officers are now pestered with, seamanship as defined above tends to be obsolete.
At the end of Kanellopoulos' article, we asked our readers to respond and express their views on the subject. SWZ Maritime editors Willem de Jong and Hein Roorda gathered these responses and summarised them in an article titled "Seamanship, the Forgotten Factor – How Ships' Officers Think about It". This article will appear in our February issue (to appear this Friday, 20 February), but you can also download it here.
However, to give you full insight into the responses we received, we decided to publish them in full on our website. We have not altered the responses we have received (so the text below is a mix of Dutch and English) and the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of SWZ Maritime or its editors.
1. Frits Stakelbeek, MSc, Register Maritime Psychologist, Van Riebeek Institute
In his review, published in SWZ Maritime November 2014, Captain Kanellopoulos is concerned about the loss of the character of seamanship by the immense increasing bureaucracy. Previously, the captain had one or two folders on his desk, nowadays there are forty. The process to handle this sea of paper, suggests Capt Kanellopoulos, undoubtedly has a negative impact on the safe operation of the ship and cargo.
The ISM era has brought a level of quality in the shipping industry, however, Capt Kanellopoulos pleads for restoring the work traditions that are simple, safe and above all practical. He also pleads that we reduce, as far as possible, uncontrolled bureaucracy and the associated “paper kingdom”.
I think these arguments do not point in the right direction. The world around us is constantly changing at an ever increasing pace. Not only in shipping the complaint is that rules and accompanying paper are still growing. This is generally the case, in all work situations and even in private situations. It is expected that everybody is within reach the whole day and can provide answers to questions.
In this development there is no turning back, except perhaps to slow down a bit. Of course one should always be looking for the right balance. A lot of the paperwork, for example the required port documents, can be done with the assistance of the company headquarters. Inaccurate workload and fatigue should be avoided.
However, if you want to continue to participate in this society, it is imperative that you keep anticipating the changes that will continue to occur. A plea for the way back is not the answer. Look ahead and continue to anticipate the demand for new skills.
What does this mean, for example, for the present captain of a merchant seagoing vessel? Some skills he has learned and applied are of lesser importance. Other skills are required. Calculating, with a pencil on paper, the ship’s position by sun´s altitude, making stowage plans, making stability calculations, have become less important, because we have instruments which do the calculation.
More important is the computer programming knowledge of the ship´s officer so if he puts the correct data into the computer, he will get the ship´s position right, load data, stability data etc. Proficiency with the computer, radar, VHF radio, electronic map, are the new practical skills for today's seafarers.
And not to forget the skill in the English language, both spoken and written, especially if it is not his mother tongue. It is also important, more than ever, to deal with other cultures, due to the fact that almost every ship's crew consists of several nationalities. It is also important to deal with other forms of leadership. The captain is no longer on a pedestal, but is the leader of the ship's team.
To summarise, the captain as a leader must:
- command and motivate his crew;
- be capable of teamwork and ‘be hands on’;
- show enthusiasm and effort;
- grow in his vocational skills;
- have good communication skills; and
- contribute to a pleasant working atmosphere.
2. Erik, Engineer on Tankers, Who Loves to Be at Sea, But Thinking to Resign, With All His Experience and Willing to Work, Getting Dirty Hands
I almost fully agree with mister Kannelopoulos. Good seamanship has almost disappeared, if it has not already.
This day, we are forced to do the paperwork, if not, you are a bad seaman. “As long as the paperwork tallies” (als het papiertje maar klopt) is our motto. Even, with an inspection we see it, only checking the papers, 90 per cent of his time on board.
On board, you don’t see a deck mate on deck during port stay or watchkeeping at sea anymore, they only have eye for the screens, even with their back to the front window, in the opposite way, nobody looks outside. In the engine room only Control Room, screens and pushbuttons. A "computer screen culture”.
Knowledge, experience and familiarisation with the ship, does not exist anymore, “seamanship”. A deck mate really doesn’t know what’s behind the buttons, no engineer really checks if the thermostat valve is correctly functioning. And if we have a problem, a service engineer will be arranged.
Still, we have to be present, otherwise you’re not interested in the vessel… If there is a night watch during pilotages, we are busy with Seagull or Videotell to have our Overview  Green. And the list grows every year.
Take a look at the new SECA policy. On paper it looks easy, if you read it quickly, but in real life it costs a lot of hours and a lot of extra checking and work, and don’t forget the consequences, but it is not allowed to have “Red Hours” in WatchKeeper, and a 3rd engineer is too expensive. We have seen and read several times already that most people don’t fill in WatchKeeper truthfully. But on paper it will be correct.
Common Sense is prohibited to use, because you only get accidents from this expression. But the outdated Seagull with all their knowledge, must be done and Overview  Green.
So I almost fully agreed with mister Kannelopoulos. Training on board for example, training like the program Seagull. It is better not to do this during your watch, in my opinion is better not to do it, but finally, you finish your watch, and you have to do the outdated Seagull, again looking at a screen, instead of old fashioned reading a book how something is working and get familiarisation with the ship like in the old days. Drawing a pipeline scheme. In my eyes the old fashioned way is the best way. But if you don’t do Seagull in your watch, you have to do it in your spare/free time, because otherwise WatchKeeper is watching you……
Oil Majors, people behind a desk, at a office somewhere, they are the ones telling you what the seaman is going to do or not. If you don’t do it, or you use common sense, you're exit. “Not according to the company's policy” I understand why things go like this, “Save your own balls”, AND, at the end of the day my desk is clean!! But the truth is this beautiful job is disappearing.
And this never ending mass amount of courses (in your free time), so that you can be a manager. But if everybody is a manager, what to manage then?? And who is doing the job if everybody is a manager??
Through all these things, experienced people disappear to the shore or to other companies, and it is even more difficult to get the young ones to sea. Why is that? Because pushing buttons, watching screens and following company policy with a decent salary is possible ashore, and as bonus every evening at home, opening a nice cold beer…
3. Jozef A.M. van Zadel – Seamanship – A Lost Tradition by Design
I was very relieved seeing the article about Seamanship in SWZ Maritime. A subject daily discussed on the vessels I sail on with various officers of different cultures and backgrounds. I absolutely agree with the contents of the written article and would also like to comment hereby.
As it has been said the tradition of Seamanship has been passed down throughout the ages from the experienced officers to the junior officers. A natural process. This art is now slowly dying due to various reasons. An important part is the paper mill. I agree that paperwork, although very easy to standardise, in most countries is still being kept at the discretion of each member state and therefore different in layout etc. This causes a lot of extra work that could be avoided. In my opinion this is partly due to the protection of local economies and laws. The seaman just has to swallow it.
It is also part of a non responsible society where people are less eager to take responsibility and law systems demanding an increase in bureaucratic systems. Another part is the technology that is estranging us from natural behaviour and therefore dictating us in a lot of cases how and what to do. Common sense and natural instinct apart from seamanship is then lost. This is our ability to understand the situations on board in the easiest way. Crew being lost in the abundance of technical instrumentation not knowing how to use it rather as a means of support, but regarding it as fundamental. A good balance between nature and technology is of utmost importance.
Another aspect often encountered is the education of young officers and especially cadets. They should be treated with utmost care showing respect and giving them the information from each experienced officer and master gained throughout his or her career. In this matter, the Nautical colleges are of the highest importance to assist herein. STCW 95 is clearly not proven enough but rather very basic.
It is true that masters are allowed each and every time less and less, but are obliged each and every time to more regulations. This is a wrong programme in my opinion but dictated from the higher institutions such as SOLAS and world governments.
To ask permission for lowering a lifeboat has become almost impossible in a lot of countries, but at the same time the master is obliged to lower a rescue boat every month. Here we find a barrier laid down by the same governments and SOLAS because if SOLAS is really about safety, they should push for allowance of lowering and launching rescue craft.
The same counts for PSC. In order to achieve real time safety, the master has to study carefully the opportunity to find time and space. As a master on general cargo vessels, we are able to find the time and place at sea where I regular exercise boat drills when conditions allow (sometimes in port, risking fines). This is according to the crew’s experience and is for each vessel different. A master of a container vessel will perhaps have more problems with this as part of a sailing on time policy, but should not be hindered by this. Company policies are again of vital importance in the safety of ship and crew (so called ISM).
So it is hard to pinpoint the cause of the decline of seamanship, but it will be obvious that the master is still the only law on board and should realise this when making decisions concerning safety of crew and vessel. In this respect, the overriding clause found in most regulations and policies is important as it gives the realisation that the master is not just a puppet. The saying that every ship is as seaworthy as their crew is once again very true.
4. Peter R. Dalemans, Captain m.v. Altena
Op dit onderwerp heb ik in 2007 geloof ik, al een keer uitgebreid en ongenuanceerd gereageerd wat weer behandeld is in het blad waar er naar mij is gerefereerd als “de kapitein” en gezien mijn ongenuanceerde schrijven vond ik dat niet erg.
De kern was:
- Meer regels = minder motivatie = meer ongelukken. Of
- Meer regels = meer overtredingen = minder motivatie.
Je kan het niet meer goed doen, dat is niet mogelijk. Hoe meer regels er door vlaggenstaat en Imo gegeven worden, hoe groter de stok is die gegeven wordt aan, al dan niet, corrupte havencontroles. Hoe groter de kans is dat je als criminele zwakzinnige wordt weggezet. Hoe minder goede mensen hier zin in hebben, hoe groter de uitstroom van goede mensen, hoe meer druk op de personeelsmarkt, hoe groter de kans dat je een zwakzinnige aan boord krijgt, hoe groter de kans op ongelukken, hoe meer regels dat er volgen.
Voorbeeldje?
De stranding van een CFL-boot bij Engeland wordt aangrepen om Ecdis-cursussen te geven. Er waren kaartlagen uitgezet en daardoor was de navigator niet op de hoogte van de gevaren, dit is correct.
Alleen hij passeert ook een boei over de verkeerde kant. Dat had hij zonder Ecdis ook moeten zien en hij loopt omhoog. Ook waren de navigators op een reis van Zuid-Amerika naar Engeland en dus hadden ze minimaal veertien dagen de tijd om naar de werking van de Ecdis te kijken. Er wordt gegeven dat de root cause is dat er onvoldoende kennis was over Ecdis, niet correct. Hij beschikte over onvoldoende goed zeemanschap (hij was zwakzinnig) en een cursus lost dit niet op.
Nog een?
Een schip vaart een sluis binnen en de voorspring wordt vastgezet (terwijl het schip nog vaart loopt) en een matroos wordt geraakt door de brekende tros. Root cause: er staat aan dek niet aangegeven wat veilige sectoren zijn bij het aanmeren. Werkelijke reden, slecht zeemanschap, de spring had niet vastgezet mogen worden. Met die snelheid.
Helaas kan ik wel door gaan. Het is een utopie om te denken dat alles zo geregeld kan worden (voor alles regeltjes) dat alle situaties ondervangen worden. Voorheen waren we op het punt dat alles een menselijke fout was (ook niet leuk), nu zijn we op het punt dat alles een regelfout is, wat je kan ondervangen met meer regels.
Hou me te goede, elk ongeluk is er één te veel. Maar onthoud ook, dat waar gewerkt wordt, worden fouten gemaakt of: mensen die veel werken maken veel fouten, mensen die minder werken maken minder fouten. Ik ken mensen die geen fouten maken. En ook dat slecht gemotiveerde mensen meer fouten maken als goed gemotiveerde. En van welke categorie is de grote uitstroom?
We zij op een punt aangekomen waar schepen al eigenlijk niet meer kunnen varen. Hoeveel tijd heeft een bemanningslid nodig om zich de procedures van het schip meester te maken? Moeten we verplicht gaan stellen dat de mensen nieuw aan boord daar de tijd voor krijgen, zitten we met een overdracht van drie dagen minimaal, in de tussentijd gaan de scheepsoperaties door dus kan de afgaande bemanning niet de tijd maken voor allebei de werkzaamheden, inwerken en het normale bedrijf, dus moet er een derde bemanning geregeld worden die of het inwerken doet of het normale bedrijf.
Helaas gaat dit ook niet en dus hebben we altijd dat mensen aan boord niet goed op de hoogte zijn van procedures en regels (al dan niet scheepsspecifiek), en wacht er dus een non-conformity, non-compliance of een ongeluk gevolgd door jawel meer formulieren en regels.
Goede en slimme mensen hebben dit snel door en hebben geen zin in zo’n systeem te blijven en dat verklaart ook de grote uitstroom. Slechte en “zwakzinnigen” mensen maakt dit niet uit. De enige motivatie is "more days more dollars", en als ik er hier afgeschopt word, zit ik morgen weer op een ander schip. Is het niet zo dat volgens ILO er geen slechte referentie meer gegeven mag worden? Dus gemotiveerde mensen eruit, ongemotiveerde blijven. Zou het gevolg misschien zijn dat er meer ongelukken gebeuren? Dan kunnen we meer regels maken.
Moet er nog even bij: Als iemand het in de branche heeft over licht aan het eind van de tunnel, of dat nu financieel, marktgerelateerd of regelgevinggerelateerd is, die persoon heeft gelijk! We zijn in een tunnel en we zien een lichtpuntje, alleen nu moeten we nog even kijken op het spoorboekje van de nieuwe regelgeving om dan tot de conclusie te komen dat het niet het eind is van de tunnel, maar een nieuwe treinvracht van nieuwe en misschien wel verpletterende regels en ze zijn op schema.
5. Marek
Ik ben het volledig eens met het hele stuk. Ik denk dat iedereen maar één procent van al die regels kent. Er ontstaat ook gewoon een cultuur dat je helemaal niet al die regels hoeft te kennen en niet hoeft te houden. Er is namelijk op een hoop gebieden geen enkele handhaving. Is ook onwenselijk en ondoenlijk. Al deze regels voegen dus ook niks toe. Plus dat de aandacht van wel belangrijke regels, wordt ontkracht.
Minder regels zal leiden tot meer veiligheid. Zoals het kantoor veiligheid ziet, wekt alleen maar onwil om hier aan mee te werken. Het bedrijf doet vaak mee aan de poppenkast, die klanten graag willen zien. Het voldoen aan eindeloos veel iso-normen, maar dit is vaak alleen op papier.
Quite possibly, shipping would be drastically improved (vanuit commercieel oogpunt ook buitengewoon wenselijk) by embracing and restoring the lost traditional ideals of being SIMPLE, safe, straight forward and above all: practical. This is not feasible without reducing, as far as possible, uncontrolled bureaucracy and the associated "paper kingdom". Mooi samengevat.
Ik heb weinig toe te voegen dan dat ik het er heel erg mee eens ben.
6. John Stoop
Het lijkt wel alsof de tijd rijp is voor een bredere discussie over kwalificaties van operators in een hoog technologische omgeving. Een vergelijkbare discussie over Good Airmanship speelt in de luchtvaart naar aanleiding van een aantal ernstige ongevallen en de druk in de richting van procedureel vliegerschap en crew-kwalificaties.
Kort geleden heb ik dit verhaal samen met Eric van Kleef ingestuurd naar het Special Issue of International Journal of Performability Engineering on Transport System Safety, Risk and Asset Management. Het is nog niet gepubliceerd, maar u kunt dit artikel hier downloaden.
Picture: So long as the paperwork tallies….?
