# Hours of Work at sea



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

From today's Fairplay email news

Study makes fatigue recommendations
CARDIFF 30 November – Excessive working hours continues to be a problem for the shipping industry, a major research study has concluded, but there is no simple solution. The six-year study found that almost half the seafarers who took part were working 85 hours or more each week; that working hours had increased over the past 10 years despite regulations intended to combat fatigue; and that one in four admitted to having fallen asleep while on watch. However, a range of strategies will be needed to prevent or manage fatigue because of the different profiles of fatigue risk factors in different working groups. Recommendations included looking again at how working hours are recorded because current methods are not effective; building fatigue awareness into established health and safety training courses; and developing a checklist-style auditing tool that would help to assess work characteristics known to be risk factors for fatigue and subjective experience of these factors. Brian Orrell, general secretary of officers’ union Nautilus UK called for “a radical and urgent response from the government”, while Mary Martyn, head of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency’s health and safety branch, commented that the agency agreed that a co-operative approach is needed, involving regulators, shipping companies and seafarers. The study was co-sponsored by the MCA and the Health & Safety Executive, with support from Nautilus UK and the Seafarers’ International Research Centre, and was carried out by a team from the Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology at Cardiff University.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

A lengthier article and the actual report is on the NAUTILUS (formerly NUMAST) website.
It confirms what all Seamen have known for a long long time.
What will the Government and IMO do about it?
Nothing of course.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

And how you address things like adverse weather? I've been on ships where you catnapped for days on end. That is after the 12-14 hour days.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

This has nothing to do with exceptional cir***stances like adverse weather or fog.
This has all to do with complete inadequate manning onboard, on ships with 2 or 3 ABs, on tankers in and out of port every day with the 2nd and 3rd Mates on constant 6 on/6 off with mooring ops and PMs on top of that, and doing the same thing for 4-5 months (and longer at a time).
This applies to all ships and companies. It is a major problem. Much discussion of late has been about the Emma Maersk with 13 crew. That's ok if ports are weeks apart (which they are for her), but that's the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

I guess I didn't consider the N Atlantic and fog exceptional cir***stances. 

I was dumbfounded when I read that about the new Maersk boat.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

"A " Articles . 
Sign On - Stay On - Sign Off ( No overtime ; but we did get a days leave for each Sunday at Sea .

Oh Happy Days 
Derek


----------



## Geoff_E (Nov 24, 2006)

James_C said:


> This has nothing to do with exceptional cir***stances like adverse weather or fog.
> This has all to do with complete inadequate manning onboard, on ships with 2 or 3 ABs, on tankers in and out of port every day with the 2nd and 3rd Mates on constant 6 on/6 off with mooring ops and PMs on top of that, and doing the same thing for 4-5 months (and longer at a time).
> This applies to all ships and companies. It is a major problem. Much discussion of late has been about the Emma Maersk with 13 crew. That's ok if ports are weeks apart (which they are for her), but that's the exception rather than the rule.


Well said James, that's pretty much the root of the whole problem! It's more than a bit disingenuous to be setting up studies etc. when the shipowners are constantly trumpetting on about the need to "reduce manning costs". That translates exactly as cheaper, more compliant personnel, which brings all sorts of other problems in it's wake.(See the threads on criminalisation etc.)

I see NUMAST have re-branded themselves as Nautilus and are still making the same ineffectual splutterings as they've been for the last 20 odd years! The IMO was quick enough to bring in ISPS (ineffective as it is) when the US started shaking the tree. They don't seem to have a mind to address the basics properly. Do I smell vested interests somewhere?


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

When Occupational Health and Health Psychology is involved I always worry. No disrespect to my professional colleagues, but it takes neither of these professions to work out the bleeding obvious in other professions nautical or otherwise.  The best people to do this are those who work in a particular profession. But of course they would be seen as biassed because the object of this exercise is to save money and that is the same in all professions from nautical to the NHS. Certainly in the NHS when our department was researched by time and motion studies the people wandering around with their clipboards knew nothing about the workings of my department. We spent years learning the basics then had to listen to some unqualified twit telling us how we could do it quicker, or with less staff.

Sadly things will go wrong if governments ignore the true experts, and a ship will be in trouble if it has not already happened. Indeed, it has been happening in the NHS for some time due to reduction in staff, many highly qualified being made redundant. People are already dying as a result, but it rarely makes the headlines.

Fatigue can affect different people in different ways. Some thrive on long hours and stress and need little rest before they are back on duty. Others need at least 8 hours rest. You cannot generalize shift patterns with research and time and motions studies etc in order to reduce staff because each individual is different. The same goes for speed. One person in my department may get through more slides under the microscope than others, but that does not mean they are more efficient. So when the slow worker is forced to speed up by the time and motion people, mistakes occur. We do not need a Pscychologist to tell us something that is basic comon sense.

Finally, when I was at sea myself, I was on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the period of articles which was 8 months at one time. It didn't seem to bother me in those days, but it would have not have been so disastrous if I had nodded off than those on the bridge. David


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Legally, when you sign articles today you sign on for 12 months, so it's perfectly legal for them to keep you onboard longer than you're due.
As always in the shipping industry nothing will happen until there's some disaster and a public outcry. However that would never happen on something as high profile as a cruise ship, what with the cast of thousands they have. It's the ships doing the coastal runs where there are always accidents.
ISM does indeed say that the Master can 'stop' the ship any time he likes if there's an issue of fatigue. I've only heard of that happening once after a tanker was cross harbouring in Rotterdam for the best part of 3 weeks.
That is, alongside, discharge for 18 hours, 1 hour passage to anchor, tank clean for 24 hours, 2 hour 'passage' to load jetty, load for 18 hours, 2 hour passage to discharge berth, discharge for 18, then back to anchor to tankclean, and so on and so on.
For that, the Old Man will of course be up constantly for berthing/sailing and paperwork. The Mate up to start/finish cargo and up for all tankwashing. The 2nd and 3rd Mates on 6on/6off, plus call outs for mooring.
More than a few days of that just kills you, and you just snatch any sleep you can.
After a week of this, the aforementioned ship recieved orders to head to Coryton. The Old Man said no, we're going to anchor for a few hours, let everyone have a rest. Result? Taken off the ship hours later and flown to London for a bollocking, he almost lost his job despite quite rightly pointing out the relavent chapter in the Company's own Quality Assurance system.
The worst place to do it was in Singapore where you could cross harbour for months at a time. I did it for 7/8 weeks strait, then we were given a 'long' run to Guam. Manna from heaven!
This isn't a tanker only issue. All those guys on Cross channel ferries, rig boats, small cargo ships and the like where there is no 3rd Mate, or in some cases no 2nd Mate either, just two watchkeepers.
The hours of work legislation does say that you MUST recieve at least 6 hours of continuous rest in any 24 hour period, however if you have to work during that period and provide a reason such as 'mooring' etc, then it's ok and a little red light will pop up on the machine to tell you to rest 'soon'.
If the IMO is still having problems with the Bulk carrier safety legislation almost 2 decades after it was first proposed, what chance is there of hours of work or minimum manning making headway.
Vested interests indeed.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Couldn't they get a Centurion to flog them when they bob off? That would keep the bounders awake.

M. Thatcher


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Reminds of a sign one Old Man had in the Officers Bar.

"Flogging will Continue until Crew morale improves"

LOL


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

The worse part is when you can knock off and trundle off to the sack for some sleep, you end up not being able to because of the amount of coffee you have drank to stay awake..


----------



## Chris Field (Apr 3, 2005)

Dream on, you lot- several times I had to do 24-26 hours on deck with only short meal-breaks in between. Still, I shouldn't grumble as we apprenti were paid 10 quid per month after all! No not in Victorian times but City boats in 1952-53.


----------



## NINJA (May 8, 2006)

*Hour of work.*

Did'nt we work "Chinese Watches" that were "go on and stop on"

Ninja.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

Norwegian watches around here...


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Chris Field said:


> Dream on, you lot- several times I had to do 24-26 hours on deck with only short meal-breaks in between. Still, I shouldn't grumble as we apprenti were paid 10 quid per month after all! No not in Victorian times but City boats in 1952-53.


That sort of thing STILL goes on. We've all done it, and cadets of the future will still do it.
But does that somehow make it right?
An important thing to bear in mind is that we did manic hours like that as APPRENTICES, not qualified, and thus legally responsible watchkeepers. That's the difference.

To paraphrase Monty Python:

"26 hours on? LUCKZURY. Why, when I wert lad we did 3 weeks non stop, had breakfast from a dirt hovel, went to bed for 20 minutes then did it all again. Ah, but when you tell today's youngsters they don't believe you".


----------



## Geoff_E (Nov 24, 2006)

Hours worked now need to be recorded. I've been on at least one vessel, to carry out an inspection for an Oil Company Client (Not BP), which had a strike against it on the Flag State Inspection report (MCA I think) for these records not being up to date.
The written records are merely that; whether they record actual hours worked is another matter! But the strike on the Flag State form is just another straw on the crushing burden of legislation and administration being piled on the Master. 
The mariners here present will testify that the"Minimum manning" levels set for any vessel are, almost without exception, ludicrously low. It doesn't take much action by an owner/manager to crew the vessel above these levels. That doesn't mean that the "actual" manning levels are adequate.
The whole scenario; a sickly spiral through inadequate manning, fatigue, inattention, incident, catastrophe is there every day, somewhere, waiting to strike. Recording hours hasn't stopped that, nor will it.
Incidentally, a vessel's crew are always "on call 24/7", at least they always are on the vessels I work on.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

The USCG were one of the first administrations I encountered that actually wanted to see the HOW logs during inspections. We do tend to slate the USCG a lot of the time (and rightly so in some cases), but I think they set an example there for everyone to follow.
The trouble was, that the Old Man went into the HOW program and changed them (i.e. reduced the numbers) so that we weren't in violation. This naturally annoyed many of us and we had it out with him that if that's what he was going to do, then what was the point filling them in in the first place.
He was of course under pressure from the company (BP).
One issue with safe manning that isn't now easily resolvable, was that in the past ships were always built with extra cabin space, so they could take extra people should the need arise.
Most large tankers and bulkers (especially Maersk) these days only carry enough space for the normal crew, so you can't carry extras even if you wanted to. That includes cadets.
This despite the fact that tacking on a few extra cabins would an almost negligible increase to building cost.


----------



## Pat McCardle (Jun 12, 2005)

These HOW records are so easily abused. The old man (one of the youngest on board) changed mine & the C/E hours as they were in 'Violation' of the hours set out. He was shaking with fear that he would loose his ticket if the HOW were inspected by the authorities, I refused to accept this explanation & re entered the real hours I worked, I then had to sign a statement saying why I worked these hours, which I won't go into but being the Mate + Safety Officer I did not want to delegate anyone. The whole lot is a waste of time & computer space, if all the hours were entered then the ship would not leave the quay (Offshore supply & Ditto coastal Tankers)(Thumb)


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

Hope the HOWs are never compared to OT records.

ISM and ISPS advent has made me relatively happy working in the office.


----------



## vic pitcher (Oct 20, 2004)

In The "Pass" coastal tankers operated by Panocean in the 70's, we didn't follow the coastal tradition of the mate & 2nd mate working "watch & watch"

The Old Man kept the 8-12, the 2nd Mate the 12-4 and the Mate the 4-8.
The Mate loaded and the 2nd Mate discharged; the Master did all the pilotage and berthing/unberthing.
Notwithstanding this, I put in some horrendous hours. I can remember arriving in Tees Bay at 2200, berthing the ship at N.Tees No1 at 2240, dealing with the agent, etc,etc; getting my head down for a couple of hours before getting up to shift the ship to No. 4 jetty, up again at 0530 to go to anchor in Tees Bay and then doing the crew wages and accounts, and then taking the ship up to Billingham Oil Jetty where I paid the lads, signed some on and off, went backward and forward to the jetty for acrimonius phone calls to the office, dealt with the ship chandler, dozed for an hour or so to the lullaby of the cargo pumps and then took the ship back to sea.

Alas, the three watch system seems to have gone by the board with the incredible contemporary manning practices of small box boats sailing around with just a Mate and Master, which is why the shoals and headlands of the UK are littered with the remains such ships, remember the "Craiggantlet" piling herself up on Killantringan, not thirty miles from my house?


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Many of those Mate/Master only ships also either have only 1 engineer, or the aforementioned is dual certificated. I've seen that on 90m feeder container ships. 
Crazy!
As regards the OT records, even if a crew do 12 hours a day (i.e. 4 over the normal) they will still be within the regulations, provided they get at least 6 hours rest, which of course they normally do from 2000-0800.
I did a few trips on coastal tankers working the Mate loads/2nd discharges with the Old Man and anyone else (cadets included) trying to fill in the watches in between. It's not too arduous in these days of segregated ballast, all singing all dancing ships with Cargo control rooms. On the older ones, with no CCR (i.e watches on deck), and dirty ballast, discharge lasted circa 20 hours, and you were up for all of it, working 30 mins on/off out on deck with the duty AB. With newer ships the discharge time is about 7 hours (full discharge).
As regards ISM and that other waste of space (ISPS), it's a wonder anyone actually stays at sea.
It's only idiots like me who couldn't cope with a 'real' job.

LOL

P.S. Did anyone else see that IMO report a few months back which said that with the advent of ISM that an extra 2 point something people have been employed in the shipping offices ashore to deal with it, yet the number of men onboard has increased by.... wait for it.... Naff all.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

I sailed one trip from Montreal as a watchkeeper, we were short two watchkeepers and they had hired one new guy. We worked 6/6 and they were getting me up to stand part of the news guys watch (usually in the CR chair pouring coffee into myself). Ship gets to Sept Isle, new guy quits, which leaves me and the 2nd. We sailed from Sept Isle to Europe across the N Atlantic in spring, which means you don't get 6 hours sleep in the off watch. Discharged, converted from ore to oil (OBO) then sailed to another port-maybe Rouen (?). Meanwhile we are still standing 6/6, the ER cadet on the other watch while the 2nd is handling the rest. All this and clocks every night.
I could have kissed the regular 3rds bald head when he come onboard and relieved me on watch I was so happy to see him. I was pretty stunned by then. I spent that part of the trip hoping that everything hung together.
I couldn't imagine working 4 months in those conditions. 
I didn't go back to that ship once I got off-life is too short to work like that.


----------



## DMA (Mar 1, 2005)

*Sleeping on the Job*

From the Edmonton Jounrnal. 12/02/06.


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

James_C said:


> P.S. Did anyone else see that IMO report a few months back which said that with the advent of ISM that an extra 2 point something people have been employed in the shipping offices ashore to deal with it, yet the number of men onboard has increased by.... wait for it.... Naff all.



There are 3 in the office doing ISM. The DPA, the assistant and a Standards guy.
Meanwhile on our end of the floor there are 3 of us handling 10 ships repairs and regulatory requirements.


----------



## Ian (Mar 27, 2004)

can anyone remember, 4 on 4 off on the colliers coasters in the 50s 60s running coal to the south from the Tyne, Blyth etc, in a force 10 gale, we could not sleep, the ship sailed on.


----------

