Ratings

[j.sabourn]

With most of which is written here refers to the past, Bosuns Carpenters AB's Ordinary Seamen etc. Going back to the not so long past the middle 90"s, these ratings were not officially there. I always in my mind thought of them as such, but were signed on as I.R. Intergrated Rating The Bosun being the Chief I.R. The Maritime Union of Australia made available I think it was a 12 weeks course at the Tasmania College and all deck and E.R. staff had to do this. They were supposed to work either Deck or Engine Room as required. It usually worked out OK as worked from their own experiences of either previously having worked the Deck or Engine room and tried to carry on as such, but officially they worked both areas. With the changing of the certificate structure I suppose this would now be world wide, but am not sure about this, as a bit out of touch. Anyone have any update on the now manning requirements on working cargo vessels.? The catering staff I believe stayed the same although very much reduced. Regards John Sabourn

[John Arton]

John
The manning of any ships these days is controlled by the "Minimun Manning Certificate" which is a statutory document.
It lays out the number of deck and engine room officers together with the number of ratings that the ship MUST have on board in order that it can be considered to be safely manned. Unfortunatley they only seem to have taken into consideration ocean passages when drawing up the regs. as this certificate does not really cover periods of extensive workload nor the trading routes of the vessel. As an example my last ship, a 7000 ton coastal chemical tanker had as its minimum safe manning, the following.
Master
2 Officers of the Watch
Chief Engineer
2nd Engineer
3 A.B.'s (they had to have a STCW cert. stating that they were qualified as deck ratings who were part of a bridge watch)
1 engine room rating
1 cook.
We were in port every 2 days with all the tank cleaning etc to be done along with all the loading discharging plus safety drills etc. etc this in addition to complying with the work/rest hours regs.
Fortunatley the company I worked for was one of the better ones and we had manning in excess of the required. An extra deck officer and two extra deck ratings but it was still hard work.
rgds
JA

[Jim Brady]

I think the work title here John was G.P. (General Purpose) same thing deck and engine room as required.
When I did a trip as guest/passenger in 2000 Croation crew but same applied there.Ex British ship when that was so catering staff of nine now two 1 cook and 1 steward.Captai Mate and Chief Engineer only ones who had their cabins serviced,remainder of mates electrician and engineers did their own.I did'nt see any scrubouts beeing done alleyways companion ways were scrubbed out daily when I was at sea whether they needed it not.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[j.sabourn]

I know years ago there was talk on British ships about G.P. crews which I thought never caught on. In Australia since about 1995 the Rating I.R. as mentioned was brought out, this may have been solely in the offshore Industry, but it was quite a usual practice for me to take ships on longer sea passages the crews were still I.R.s
They did 2 years I believe as a trainee I.R.before going on the bigger money. As far as I know this is still the manning on Australian ships. As certificate structure has been made as one so to speak i.e. the same level world wide, where does this fit into the scheme of things. ABs and such are no longer as far as I know not on Australian ships there is no such rating it is I.R. is this only peculiar to Australia. Cheers John Sabourn

[j.sabourn]

John there always was to my knowledge a statuory manning certificate on British ships, e.g. A certificated cook was mandatory. However that is British ships, if they have brought out a world wide crewing cert. as said there is no reconized AB cert. as such in Australia. So what happens do we revert back from I.R. to AB. Cheers John Sabourn.

[John Arton]

John
True about the cook, forgot to mention that.
Do not know if you have ever seen a STCW95 cerificate of competancy (all tickets are called that now) but is just a slim booklet like thingy that looks a bit similar to the modern E.C. style U.K. passport.
All STCW certs are endorsed with the ranking of either Operational or Management. Thus a deck or engine rating, a third or second officer would have his certificate endorsed with Operational level which means that as a holder of an Officer of the Watch qualification they could be in charge of a Navigational or Engine Room watch or if they were a rating their certificate would state that the were qualified as a rating forming part of a navigational or engine room watch and there certificate would be endorsed at Operational level. For Chief Mate or 2nd Eng. upwards there certificate would be endorsed at Management level, which is self explanatory. In addition all certificates would have further endorsements as required in order that the holder could sail on oil,chemical and gas tankers and also passenger ships.
With this style of ticket it is now possible for any holder to have them endorsed as both deck and engine room ratings and indeed officers, so long as they have successfully completed the required training and passed the exams. If you have never seen a STCW cert. I am pretty sure that googling it will bring up a picture of one and it will most likely give you a bit of a shock when you compare it to any pre STCW issued certificate.
Going back to the cook for a minute. When my last employer was asked if they could employ Baltic State cooks as the majotity of the crew were from that area, they went ahead and recruited through their 50% owned crew management company Latvian cooks, a number of whom were basically fry cooks from the equivilant of MacDonalds and who knew nothing about stores ordering etc. They got a hell of a shock when it was pointed out to them that we were in breach of the safe manning certificate as we were not carrying a certified cook, which just goes to show how much management really knows about certification on board. On the ships I was on the catering department consisted of the Cook, finish. AS Captain I did all the stores ordering along with all the hotel supplies (bog roll, soap etc.) from a specialist company.Cabins and alleyway cleaning was carried out by an off duty rating daily and we were all expected to assist in keeping our own cabins clean and tidy.
There were 14 in total on my last ship and it was just like one big happy family, albiet with around 4 different nationalities on board. We all mucked in together and everyone took a pride in the ship. WE were all attempting to keep within the work/rest hours regs. but I have to admit there was quite a bit of fudging when recording working hours to keep within the statutory 72 hrs per week of work coupled with the rest periods.
rgds
JA

[Capt Bill Davies]

You would need to be a Philadelphian lawyer to fully understand the STCW structure. Thanks god I never had the the need to hand my UK certificates in for the STCW equivalent. Many did and, had the real thing 'clipped' and given the 'so called' STCW equivalent where it applied.
It must have been heartbreaking.

Brgds

Bill

[j.sabourn]

Bill, I applied for one of the new ones after I retired and before I lost the 5 years statutory sea time required for updating. Took one look at and threw in Drawer. Pleased I will never have to use. Took photocopies of British one before being clipped at the corner like an out of date passport. Still have Australian one plus Liberian Cayman Islands etc. etc. I believe they have accomplished nothing by this coming to a common level to encompass all maritime nations. Its like the convoy going at the speed of the slowest ship. Like most things the brainy ones come up with a lot of crap. Its an insult to all seafarers, bringing down the standards which it obviously does. To me in my mind I will remember shipping as I knew it, that they certainly cant take away. Cheers John Sabourn.

[Capt Bill Davies]

John,

I agree with yours above. This reduction to the 'lowest common denominator' might be alright for todays requirements with cadets running around with their little 'tick box' experience booklets but lets face it, it was nothing nothing less than a reduction in standards and an insult to those of us who worked hard for our certificates.

Brgds

Bill

[denniswalker]

Hi all,reading this with intrest. Back in the 80; while with ben line you still had your abs,edh,etc,while working for shell taankers they started with gp system, had to get a engine watch certificate,as well as,your abs ticket,even nowadays with my current employer,calmac,they are now going with a dp system. Cheers dennis