[llama66]

From my limited time in College for Marine Navigation, the 3rd Mate shouldn't be wondering from the bridge to eat, I hope the 3rd Mate lost his WKM for this...

[Freakinoldguy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Unlike Harbour Patrol - aka 2 Squadron we were always out at sea.

1977 nearly 300 days away from home port in the only squadron that actually went to sea.

Undermanned and overworked, and like you said baby sitting all those young impressionable wardroom wannabees.

Saskatchewan 3 times St Croix and Qu'appelle, with a sprinkling of Gate Vessel time, never sailed on the Yukon, Mac Chaudier or Columia though. Seaboat drill with the Mars II every evening and OOW manouevers every lunch hour.

Oh how I miss Training Squadron time.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

baby sitting all those young impressionable wardroom wannabees.

ODs needed someone to abuse too.

[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Unlike Harbour Patrol - aka 2 Squadron we were always out at sea.

[Gunnair]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Unlike Harbour Patrol - aka 2 Squadron we were always out at sea.

1977 nearly 300 days away from home port in the only squadron that actually went to sea.

Undermanned and overworked, and like you said baby sitting all those young impressionable wardroom wannabees.

Saskatchewan 3 times St Croix and Qu'appelle, with a sprinkling of Gate Vessel time, never sailed on the Yukon, Mac Chaudier or Columia though. Seaboat drill with the Mars II every evening and OOW manouevers every lunch hour.

Oh how I miss Training Squadron time.

In the late 80s - 280 days plus on the west coast battlestar when she came out.

[HyperionTheEvil]

It doesnt surprise me, when i was in the navy we gave those guys a wide berth. Having been ferried a more than a few times between VC and VN most of the crewman seemed more like tradesman from a Canadian Navy approach. It's fine to have a helmsman actually physically drive the ship but you still need a navigator, Officer of the watch and we always had at least 2 or 3 people who knew how to plot and navigate.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Brenda Brenda:

OMG how can you put a person that knows nothing on the helm of a ship...
STUPID MORONS!!!

BC Ferries is doing a good job so far, imho...

Actually, the question to be asked here is whether or not the helmsman was required to know how to navigate.

When I read the article, I was rather taken aback by the tone which suggested the helmsman should have know where they were and how to carry out the navigation of the ship. Certainly in the navy, those jobs are not done by the helmsman, but by the Officer of the Watch who is responsible for the ship's navigation. The helmsman is responsible for steering, making pipes, dealing with alarms and system failures, but certainly not navigation.

I'm curious to see what BC Ferries' reaction will be confirming or denying the accuracy of the article.

Sorry I just noticed this after I posted.

Gunnair is totally correct, while i knew some helmsman who had some Nav'Os teach them basic naviagtion and plotting. It's not and isnt a simple process. The Navy's and civilian "Rules of the Road" is not a pamphlet or two but an actualt course that new Officers take and it isn't easy. The actual book that is handed out the last time i saw it was well over two hundreds pages. While that may not seem like a lot , its a question of not just navogation but also of intercating with your enivorment in an interactive and always changing fashion.


If the woman in question was 'driving' without her being a ttained navigator, or having on the bridge. Then in my mind it's negligence

[llama66]

The (person acting as) 3rd Mate is supposed to Navigate. Thats the whole point for writing your WKM.

[BartSimpson]

According to what I saw on the BC Ferries site all of the mates who could serve on the bridge are supposed to have basic navigation certificates. If the person at the helm was not rated to be at the helm then that is reckless endangerment on the part of BC Ferries.

Basic navigation is a necessity for a helmsman so they can understand their orders. Why someone who was not qualified was at the helm escapes me.

Reminds me of my friend Justin who was in the US Navy telling me of a Lt. who was in command of a destroyer in formation on a heading of (I'll say 350 as I don't recall the exact heading he told me) and the fleet was to come to a course of 340. A ten degree course change.

Except the eltee orders to come about to starboard to a course of 340. The helmsman asked him if he was sure about that and the Lt. blew up at him. At which point the wheel went hard over to starboard to make the near circular course change. The eltee is then screaming at the helmsman and the Master Chief tells the eltee the kid is just doing as ordered. The ship is of course heeling over with her port windows looking at a lot of green while this is going on and the wheel stays hard over while the destroyer goes across her own wake.

When the skipper finally gets to the bridge and orders the ship on the correct course he has an eltee wanting to press charges against two crew members. Pulling the tape it's found the eltee gave exactly the order that was followed.

The point here is that the helm knew it was a bad order and questioned it.

BC Ferries failed because the person at the helm of the Queen would not have known a bad order from a good one and had no business at the helm of that ship.

[Scape]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Scape Scape:

How is BC ferries to blame if the captian is in charge?

Because they are responsible for their subordinates, same as the Military was for fisco's like Somalia.

In the civilian world shit normally runs downhill but in this case you'll see that it actually runs in both directions with the helmsman at the bottom and BC Ferries at the top.

If the person they put in charge failed to carry out their orders, then he's culpable but so are they for failing to ensure he followed their orders and directives and didn't put his vessel into jeopardy.

Does not the Captain have onus here? Why would he even leave port knowing that at some point during the voyage there would be a chance that there would be no helmsman on station? BC ferries can have everyone scheduled to wear pink and have lunch breaks all at the same time as far as the captain is concerned if he has a problem it is his prerogative and responsibility to sort that shit out before they even leave port. I'm not clearing BC Ferries of any culpability here. I know they have set up a disaster here and are trying to pass it on to the Union but when it comes down to brass tax you can not serve two masters and that the critical moment it wasn't BC ferries in charge, it was the captain.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Does not the Captain have onus here? Why would he even leave port knowing that at some point during the voyage there would be a chance that there would be no helmsman on station? BC ferries can have everyone scheduled to wear pink and have lunch breaks all at the same time as far as the captain is concerned if he has a problem it is his prerogative and responsibility to sort that shit out before they even leave port. I'm not clearing BC Ferries of any culpability here. I know they have set up a disaster here and are trying to pass it on to the Union but when it comes down to brass tax you can not serve two masters and that the critical moment it wasn't BC ferries in charge, it was the captain.

If the captain was told by BC Ferries HR dept. that the woman at the helm was qualified then he has to go on what he's told or lose his job for daring to question the qualifications of a woman.

Sorry, but it would not surprise me to see this end up as a matter of political correctness coming back to bite BC in the ass.

[ridenrain]

It already has. During the initial investigations, the union was spraying ink all over to hide the criminal incompetance of their members. They cited lack of training and I've even heard union supporters even blame this on the Campbell government.

[Scape]

Never the less the Captain still has to sign off on the recommendations of the HR dept. They can also say they only need 2 people on the bridge at one time but they still have to conform to transport Canada standards Bart. Your little war on PR be dammed, there is still laws and safety regulations. The buck stops at the captains chair.

Www.tsb.gc.ca

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Never the less the Captain still has to sign off on the recommendations of the HR dept.

You really expect that each individual captain for BC Ferries is supposed to approve HR policies? That's absurd.

Scape Scape:

They can also say they only need 2 people on the bridge at one time but they still have to conform to transport Canada standards Bart. Your little war on PR be dammed, there is still laws and safety regulations. The buck stops at the captains chair.

Oh, I agree about laws and safety regulations but fear of being dismissed or hauled before one of Canada's beloved "Human Rights Commission" star chambers would certainly give someone pause before daring to criticize a woman whose skills have apparently been vetted by an HR department. And according to what I've read so far the posting of unqualified people at the helm is SOP as there were Post-It notes stuck on some of the nav equipment on the Queen to tell the bridge crew what to do. This woman was not the only unqualified person to helm that ship.

[QBall]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I know times change and things evolve but I've got a question. What happened to the Bosn's mate on the bridge?

He used to be the one who made routine and emergency pipes and dealt with the alarms other than ones relating to the helm. If they have the helmsman doing all this how is he supposed to actually steer a course?

When I was in we had a minimum of 5 people on the bridge for 4th degree of readiness sailing, an Officer of the watch, helmsman, bosn's mate and two lookouts.

That's the bridge manning on the heavy's (CPF, 280, tanker). 1 in 4 in open ocean sailing you could, with CO's permission, secure the starboard lookout and have throttle double as lookout.

$1:

Makes sense. A smaller crew.... a smaller watch, but I'm pretty sure the OOD doesn't go below to have a bite to eat when he's on watch and that the Helmsman and POOW are trained to carry out their duties according to SSO's.

OOD (Officer of the Day) is for alongside. OOW (Officer of the Watch) is at sea. As long as the 2OOW is qualified to take charge of the ship at sea (BWK qualified) then there's no reason why the OOW couldn't pass charge temporarily to 2OOW (assuming there's nothing going on) and hit the heads off the bridge flats on the CPF. Done it numerous times. although I would usually send the 2OOW to go get food/drinks (bridge crew always appreciated a Coke at night to help stay awake). Of course if the 2OOW isn't qualified then you're peeing off the bridge wings (4 hours is a loooooooong time when you gotta pee).