responsible for and carried out the bulk of maintenance to a range of medium / high speed engines up to an individual output of 2000kW, as well as all others aspects of running / maintaining a vessel as Chief Engineer. Not to forget complying with all Local / State / AMSA and IMO regualtions.
Previous to this I was employed in various industries as a Heavy Diesel Mechanic / Fitter. Industries included Railway Locomotive (Diesel Electric), Mining Industry, Heavy Road Transport, Agricultural, Oil and Gas. Yet, my Trade Certificate issued by the State Training Board of Victoria 20 odd years ago has the title “Mechanic - General Stream” .
This title does not make any of the approved Trades lists in the current or Draft MO3. Therefore entry to Watchkeepers is open to me only through non Trade or cadet pathways.
Yet, the proposed MO3 allows for an IR with almost no experience, competence of a trade or academic levels to progress to Watchkeeper training.
Therefore these amendments affect will affect me in my progression, yet allow other less qualified or less competent people progress...”
[Editor’s Note: the AIMPE-AMSA 22 October 2009 Agreement set up a mechanism for valuing maintenance- experience whilst holding Class 3 as a basis to reach ‘Trade-Equivalence’. It also provided for case-by-case evaluation of the POST-Trade maintenance-experience of someone holding a Trade that did not fit into the approved Trades list. Had AMSA delivered on this Agreement Michael Thomson would not have been in the situation he now describes!]
Michael Thomson went on to say:-
“
...There should be a system of service endorsements for engineering Certificates of Competency available to categorise the differing propulsion types of vessel propulsion systems such as combined technologies and multi engine plants on one shaft.
• These categories should be Slow Speed Diesel, High & Medium Speed Diesel, Steam Propulsion Plant
and Gas Turbine Propulsion Plant. As a Class 3 Engineer, I for one do not believe that I could walk onto a large blue water vessel and competently operate a large slow speed diesel and all its Systems. Conversly, operating a smaller High Speed Diesel Offshore vessel is again a different class.
• • • • • The STCW Regulations and Code allows for specific endorsements such as the following (which is used
in Schedule 3), “Chief Engineer duties on ships with a propulsion power <3000kW operating within near coastal limits”.
The use of the words “Steam” and “Motor” on current Engineering Certificates of Competency are in themselves, endorsements AMSA should consider how regulations and interpretations of those regulations best suit the whole
Australian marine transport industry not just the “Bluewater” long distance commodity and cargo transport sector.
Companies operating in the burgeoning Offshore Oil and Gas Sector would benefit from these endorsements. The number of ships over 500GT in the Australian Register is decreasing and it is very hard for a junior
engineer to gain experience in steam propulsion and auxiliary steam systems, as there is not many steam powered vessels in the register as there used to be. It is extremely difficult for trainees and junior engineers to get any time and experience on steam plants and propulsion limiting the ability to complete task books (Training Record Books) at the entry level EWK and progression into the MO3 system for holders of coastal certificates (Marine Engineer Class 3s)...”
The submission from Chris Blackmore included:- “....I understand that the ORAL Examination of Marine Engineers is to be
Eliminated.This would be a
disaster.The oral Examination is used by most Professional Bodies, Doctor’s, Surgeons, Airline Pilots etc. Quite often some people are rather good at the Theory side, but, practically useless. The ORAL Examination seperates the sheep from the goats. It is also very much a Character assessment, at the end of the day, it is the Chief Engineer who advises the Master, that we must abandon ship, the pumps cannot keep up with the water coming in or the Engine Room Fire is out of control.
Essential for the SAFE Management of ships Engine Rooms. THIS MUST BE RETAINED AT ALL COSTS!...”
The well researched submission from Evan James included:- “....I cannot understand how the draft proposal can determine the two candidate levels of the Class 3 Engineer candidate and an Integrated Rating/Seafarer candidate to be equal when quite clearly they are not. Notwithstanding the CL3 has completed several engineering oral examinations with State and possibly
On Watch March 2012 page 8
The Oral Examination is
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