Simon Nichols’ submission included:- “
....The amendments will affect me by lowering the standards of the AMSA Engineer Certificate of Competency which long term will affect me both financially and also professionally by allowing substandard Engineers to obtain certificates of competency. I have recently passed my class1 motor and steam oral exams (December 2012) which cost me a substantial amount of money with no assistance from my employer. As a result of YOUR proposed changes I feel that the considerable time and effort I spent studying to pass my exams was wasted. To add insult to injury I now also understand that if I stay with my current employer and come to revalidate my certificate in 5 years the time served in the towage sector on lesser powered vessels will not be recognised and could result in my certificate being lowered to Class 3! The proposed changes are foolish and I cannot understand why the AIMPE who represent Marine Engineers professionally have not been involved in the entire process. The old saying goes if it ain’t broke don’t fix it! As far as I am concerned there has always been a career pathway for seafarers to further advance themselves. The company I am employed by have had two integrated ratings retrain as Masters and one integrated rating try to retrain as an Engineer who gave it away after approximately one year. From what I understand this was due to a lack of effort. All you are doing by lowering the bar is making it easier for people to gain qualifications that they may have not been able to obtain under the current Marine Orders...”
Col Peart’s submission included:- “
....It concerns me greatly that it appears I will lose my Engineer Class 1(motor) certificate if I have been employed in the tug industry for the previous 5 years and will be revalidated with a Class 3. The Australian bluewater fleet is practically non-existent to sail on and accrue sea time. This will eventually lower standards, safety and the COM- PETENCY of the certificate holder and therefore risk lives. This would be a very heavy burden to carry if these proposed amendments are passed...”
Matthew O’Neill’s submission in answer to the question “Have We Missed Anything?”
wrote:- “
....The Draft MO3 as it is written certainly has not missed anything in the way of de-valueing, removing and de- stroying the Professionalism of Engineers holding current AMSA Certificates of Competency. In its current form it is nothing short of discriminatory...” He then made a number of points including:
“
...STANDARDS REDUCTION: Duration of Watchkeeper training for Cadets:- At least 30 months of training is a minimum for the Engineer Watchkeeper. APPROVED TRADE: Workshop Skills Equivalent Qualification:- A more flexible approach is required which recog- nizes the changing contemporary education systems. NO APPROVED CADET COURSE :- Marine Order 3 must retain a requirement for any cadet course to be approved by AMSA...”
Karel Hartlieb’s submission included:- “
....After years of discussions and negotiations, it is obvious that you DO NOT understand what the role of the Marine Engineering Professional is about !! The Australian Marine Engineer has a proud history of training and competency which has been recognised throughout the world. AMSAs new proposals would be a GIGANTIC STEP BACKWARDS to and for the competency of Marine Engineers...”
Geoff Mann’s submission included:- “
....In my opinion it will see my Certificate of Competency devalued in that the current high standard required to achieve a Marine Engineering Certificate will be greatly reduced. This will mean that my level of competency will now be viewed as the same as that of a person attaining a certificate of competency attained under the new MO3(7), even though they will not have satisified the criteria under which I gained my COC. Australian COC’s are held in high regard throughout the marine industry because of the high standard required to obtain one. Any reduction in standard may lower the prospects I have to obtain future work within the Marine Industry. Many persons from other countries specifically come to Australia to gain an Australian COC to enhance their prospects of gaining employment.
Secondly, as a Chief Engineer, I am responsible for the safe operation of the vessel on which I am employed. With the reduction in standard to achieve a COC under MO3(7) I will no longer be confident that a person with a MO3(7) COC will be capable of carrying out their duties without constant supervision. Instead of a person being trained to be capable of being directly in charge of a watch (gear turn) before serving in such a position onboard a ship, this will now take place on the job, putting much more work load on myself and the other Engineer’s onboard if the safe and efficient operation of the ship is to be maintained. Experience cannot be under estimated and the longer a person has onboard a ship before being allowed to gain a COC, only enhances their knowledge and ability to carry out their duties safely and competently.
On Watch March 2012 page 21
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