registering two votes for AIMPE, one for me and one for them. I’m with them.


I understand that although they represent upwards of 1400 people [Editor’s Note: actually more than 2700 at last count], you o Ruddian faceless man, are only going to count their submission as one voice. Excuse me for using plain language but I am a working man after all: that is a lawyer’s trick and it stinketh mightily.


1. The Examiner. It is proposed to remove the examiner from the regulations. Oh, I know AMSA say they are going to keep him on, but what guarantee is there? None. So why change the regs?


Well, that would be because “someone” has the intention of removing him later on, or failing to replace him when he retires. We’re not fools you know.


I think AMSA are looking across the Tasman to NZMSA and thinking how much more convenient it would be not to have that niggly old stickler for high standards around. Not to mention not having to pay his salary any more.


Why am I in favour of the examiner, given some of the difficult questions his (now defunct) counterpart in NZ has asked me previously?


He is the guardian at the gate, the guy who keeps the colleges and the government honest. Marine engineers don’t like sitting the oral exams. They are hard. I have never spoken to one who would like them taken away though. It’s an assessment of practical and academic ability rolled into one and also an assessment of experience and character. It is “the hard bit” which makes an engineering certificate a certificate of competency and not some academic exercise.


In case anyone is confused here, the competency of engineers is of the greatest importance in keeping ships free from mishap and the crews and passengers of their own and other vessels free from harm. Also for keeping the sea clean. If AMSA are to justify the third letter in their name they would recognise this and go looking for ways to raise the standards, not to lower them to some lowest-common denominator IMO or STCW level.


Keep the good parts of marine engineering education I say, of which the examiner is the number one component.


2. Audit of approved courses.


What is the purpose of allowing AMSA- accredited persons or organisations to do this job rather than requiring AMSA itself to do it? Same as above, it’s because “someone” intends to do away with having AMSA in charge of this. This can only serve to spread responsibility afield. The engineer certificate is a certificate of competency which means that the holder can be held responsible for their actions and omissions. We expect no less of the organisation which issues the certificate. Again: no reduction of standards thank you. People’s lives are at stake here. It’s not OK.


3. Approved trades. AMSA and AIMPE had an agreement that the list of approved trades is now unworkable, and that a more flexible approach supervised by the examiner was the way forward. A little ray of sunshine in my opinion; a way to find suitable candidates. This MO3 revision ignores that agreement. This demonstrates lack of character on AMSA’s part. It supports my argument that the government’s intention is to get rid of the examiner, and also is consistent with the apparent idea that we can just get new recruits from off the aft deck, which I will be savaging at length in point 5.


5. Watchkeeper applicants: IR’s to be exempt from academic and trade prerequisites. This is blatant stupidity. The proposal, not my submission. There is one thing that all marine engineers I have spoken to agree on, and which needless to say I also believe: simply being at sea doesn’t qualify anyone to become a marine engineer. Oil and water actually don’t mix. As I understand; it is proposed to exempt IR’s from not only trade skills requirements but also from the academic entry path. Unbelievable. Stupid, ignorant and just downright wrong. Let me explain: This is how it is with the seamen. I’m going to tell you how it is here, so listen up: Some of them are decent blokes and some have carpentry or even cabinetmaker skills. I’ve known some to claim they are boilermakers


On Watch March 2012 page 14


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44