seafarers to Shell ships. MO3(7) for Australian flag ships is not consistent with other Flag States....


...... also MO3(7) reduces the minimum time required to gain an Engineer W/K certificate from the current MO3(6) requirement of 36 months to 24 months (includes seatime, college and trade time). When I completed my cadetship the requirement was 4 years. I have grave fears that the proposed further reduction in training will have a large impact on the quality, ability and safety of the Engineer.


In my experience, 36 months is the absolute minima required to train a reasonably well qualified engineer, 24 months is too short a training period. Actually, my experience over recent years with newly certified Eng W/K engineers is that 36 months was not enough time, some cadets & trainees simply needed more time to bed down the skills and knowledge required.


Note that all the other suppliers of Engineers to Shell Shipping (Isle of Mann, India, Croatia, USA, Canada) still retain a training period of 4 years for cadetships.


The MO3(7) proposal is half that.


The inevitable result is that the Australian certified engineer is considered less safe, less skilled, less trained than all other engineers from other Flag states. Disturbingly, my current certificate gained under the old rules, will be devalued and I may find it difficult to gain employment in overseas shipping or offshore projects using the Australian issued certificate. The Australian ticket becomes worthless. To be honest I’m now ruing my decision to undertake this career as a 17 year old school leaver....


....also MO3(7) proposes that Ratings may gain 10 weeks of their qualifying sea service for an Eng W/K certificate while sailing as a Rating and not meeting any of the current academic, trade, experience, or skills prerequisites required under MO3(6). This will only lead a lowering in the quality, skills and knowledge of our future engineers that follow this short cut career path. Additionally, there is not time in the work day for the solitary E/R rating on an MIDC Gas Carrier to gain meaningful experience as an engineer, our manning levels could not accommodate the request. Also, I have grave doubts as to the ability and safety of some of the potential applicants this new proposal would allow, putting the ship in a potentially unsafe position...”


Andrew Pawlukowski’s submission included:- “....I will try to put to You some common sense comments and appeal, as I see the issue from the perspective of Australian citizen of 26 years of ethnic background.... .......I am Marine Engineer educated in Poland’s Maritime Academy in Gdynia. I started on Polish ships during the advent of “Automation” which required a significant uplift in the level of education of the industry entrants.


I could easily see daily the benefits of high class education, when working alongside less fortunate individuals. I came to Australia in 1985 and started work on BHP ships in 1990.....


.....The ship’s technology content constantly evolves scaling new heights, demanding higher standard of education from the people involved in operation and maintenance of the vessels. The Australian Certificates of Competency are of high standard and regarded very well in the world.


The previous minnows IE Philippines, India together with Croatia, Ukraine are providing the world’s fleets with highly skilled and educated seafarers, very often to the tertiary / degree level.


Why Australia as an island nation should lower the bar via MO3? , resulting in the damage to the training, skills and professional standing of marine engineers. Sir as the CEO of AMSA could You please provide the reason for this backward change?


I am strongly of the opinion, that in the long run, it will cost us all dearly, after the well qualified and certified Australian marine engineer vanishes off the radar.


Sure, this island nation can be served by all foreign ships, taking profits with them, but will You man the AMSA offices then with “Fly in / fly out” from say Karachi?


What about the Australian interest?, defence aspect of having the Australian manned / flagged merchant navy?....


.....One can only speculate about the reason, but surely, there must have been some heavy, unhealthy influence, if You as the Head of the Government body AMSA, went as far as reneging on previous undertakings, stated in correspondence with my Union AIMPE!


David Kerfoot’s submission included:- “....The draft MO3 certificate structure will NOT provide a valid or even valuable career path for the next generation of Australian Marine Engineers. The proposed deletion of Oral Examinations by a Marine Qualified AMSA Examiner, the proposed reduction


On Watch March 2012 page 16


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