in the duration of Watchkeeper training for Cadet Engineers, the proposed deletion of academic or trade prerequisities for the qualification of Watchkeeper and the proposed deletion of an approved cadet engineer course will only lead to a (very) short-term influx of these poorly trained, under experienced and non-motivated individuals who (through no fault of their own) find they do not have the skills, intelligence, fortitude nor determination to carry out the required functions asked of a professional Marine Engineer. As a direct and relatively immediate result of the proposed certificate structure there will be a catastrophic implosion in the numbers of ably qualified seagoing Marine Engineers entering the workforce, in much the same way as we saw the ill concieved, poorly implemented, professionally devisive and ultimately sidelined Provisional Integrated Rating (PIR) scheme of the early 1990’s implode. After the initial 20 week generalised academic studies there-by followed a 20 week multi-task seagoing period which involved deck work, navigation duties and engineering duties. At the end of the 20 week seagoing period the retention rate for those proposed Marine Engineers for the first few intake years hovered around the 10~20% mark and did not climb much higher until the scheme was ultimately abandonded. Some 20 years later I still have not come across one (1) Marine Engineer Officer borne out of the PIR scheme, yet most of the cadet engineers I started with in the mid 1980’s are still at sea, employed as highly experienced, highly qualified, highly sought after and HIGHLY RESPECTED Chief Engineers. The draft MO3 certificate structure as it stands will revisit this bleak period of Australian maritime qualifications...
... The proposed changes to MO3 specifically relating to the qualification of Steam and Motor tickets has obviously been drafted with little-to-no understanding of the vast engineering difference between the two disciplines, making the document not only fundamentally flawed but also professionally incompetent...”
Cameron Turnbull’s (was Engineer Class 3, now Watchkeeper) submission included:- “....I am a young Engineer who has followed in my father’s footsteps, believing whole-heartedly in the institution of Marine Engineering. I have strived to obtain the highest level of Marine Engineering qualifications (Class1) during the past 10 years and am still yet to attain them.
These years involved completion of a Trade, Traineeship, copious sea time and more study. At no stage of this have I asked (or complained) that this be easier to attain. I regard high qualifications and training levels as one of the most valuable assets in any career, and believe that the training and time build a more knowledgeable, and competent engineer. It is my further belief that a competent Engineer, whilst expensive to create in the short term, ultimately saves money, as a more efficient, safe worker able to minimise expensive mistakes and identifies problems which may cause later costs. You pay for what you get.
I fail to see the logic in lowering the standards of qualifications, it appears to be a blatant disregard of the damage it will cause to the industry and individuals directly involved, not to mention the cost to rectify these.
I have always considered AMSA Surveyor’s/Examiner’s as the pinnacle of the Profession. To pass an oral examination was one of the most satisfying things I have achieved.
How could I now look at AMSA in such a way? How can a governing authority write such a flawed and biased piece of legislation? If I and fellow Engineer’s were to design and manufacture a ship to a similar level of integrity, of the drafted MO3, and set sail to it, we would find ourselves being prosecuted for negligence after it sank. I am sure that you would not fly on a plane if CASA decided it would be OK for the cleaners and luggage handler’s to do the maintenance because ‘they have been around jets long enough to gain suitable experience’. This exactly what is being proposed in MO3. Please stand up for our qualifications. Please stand up for the reputation that Australian Engineer’s have. Please stand up for the safety of our coast and shipmates, and scrap the changes to the Marine Orders...”
Peter Toohey’s submission included:- “....I have, in many salvage jobs, worked aboard ships crewed by engineers from China, Cuba, Phillipines and also Australia. My experience in the engine rooms of these ships, with these crews, shows me the value of an engineer educated in the colleges of Australia and tested by oral examination of AMSA engineer examiners. When the shit really hits the fan and the vessel I am in is sinking from beneath me, give me a calm, well trained and experienced engineer from the Australian technical education system to stop leaks, isolate systems and use innovative work-arounds to keep power and pumps on-line!...”
Peter Lucas’s submission included:- “
....AMSA has been able to stir up my fellow engineers to a level I have never seen before in my lifetime so unless this draft is dropped all I can see are massive repercussions within our industry as the proposed downgrading of qualifications will inevitably lead to marine disasters of every kind. Gentlemen I implore you to immediately remove the MO3(7) draft from the table and honour the agreement you had with Mr H Christiansen (AIMPE) and Mr G Peachey on 22nd October 2009...”
On Watch March 2012 page 17
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