MarEx Mailbag:
This week’s Mailbag is heavy, referencing more than one MarEx online article. Read on to see what MarEx readers had to say this week.
Last week, our lead piece referenced eLearning and maritime education and more specifically, the CMES / MEBA sponsored eLearning Symposium at Easton, Maryland. The article, entitled, Collision Course: eLearning Meets Maritime Education, touched upon a host of issues, but in general, fairly marveled at what is now possible in terms of technology and how that technology is applied to maritime education. The editorial caught the eye of more than a few of our readers, You can read our July 23rd editorial by clicking HERE. Naturally, our readers have their own unvarnished opinions, as well. Read on to see what they think of the advent of eLearning on the maritime community:
Dear Mr. Keefe,
Distance learning lived up to its name when you took the CMES Crisis Management and Human Behavior Course on-line last week. I was proctoring the course from Salerno, Italy in an apartment building constructed in early 1400. You were in your office in North Carolina; other students were in Washington State, New York City, Brazil and Chile. Yet, we all could communicate at the speed of light. For me it was an exhilarating experience.
Flying home from Italy last Thursday, my wife and daughter asked me if they could play a game on our Nintendo DS’s using the WI-FI feature. I wasn’t sure whether or not they could. I leaned on my experience using a wireless cell connection to the Internet the week before and told them not to use the WI-FI feature.
One of the first things I did when I returned home was to check with Nintendo about using WI-FI feature on airplanes in flight. The Nintendo web site is very clear that the WI-FI and PictoChat features can interfere with aircraft instruments and should not be used on airplanes in flight.
"Observe and follow all regulations and rules regarding the use of wireless devices in locations such as hospitals, airports, or onboard aircraft. In order to comply with airline regulations, do not use PictoChat, or play the multiplayer modes of DS games while on board an airplane. Operation in these locations may interfere with or cause malfunctions of equipment, with resulting injuries to persons or damage to property."
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/ds/faq.jsp#airplane
In my opinion the Maritime Executive Magazine is the best source of current information about the Maritime Industry. Keep up the good work.
Tom Cannon.
Instructor / Calhoon MEBA Engineering School (CMES)
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Cannon was my instructor on the on line “Crisis Management” course two weeks ago. Thanks for reading, writing and your kind words. I can personally attest to the interactive nature of the course. Here’s another letter addressing the same subject and article:
Dear Mr. Keefe:
You may find it instructive in this vein to read the two articles below from the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute. The Navy apparently uses eLearning, and perhaps not to their benefit. Both stories were published in the January 2009 edition. The first author, Lt. McDermott, appears to favor the current system which relies heavily on computer-driven learning for Surface Warfare officers. I personally lean towards the thoughts of the second author, Lt. McGuffie; and I believe merchant officers such as me who routinely encounter US Naval vessels at sea may agree with Lt. McGuffie.
Though never having seen naval service myself, much of my family has; and the qualifications of bridge officers are a hot topic at family get-togethers.
Sincerely,
Robert Rustchak
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/archive/story.asp?STORY_ID=1742
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/archive/story.asp?STORY_ID=1741
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: MarEx readers always bring something extra to the table. This reader is no different. The applicability for eLearning for certain subjects and skills is always going to be at the heart of any discussion that involved computer based instruction. Thanks for weighing in. We have still more mail on this subject. Read on:
Good morning Joe.
I had a good chuckle reading your editorial. Brought back memories when I was a kid when the TV first appeared in our home in 1950 and I had read science books on how electromagnetic energy was used to transmit the pictures and sound and how the receiving TV converted this invisible energy in the atmosphere into moving pictures with sound on a glass screen mounted in a metal box. I thought my parents were behind the learning curve and felt smarter than them. Didn't many kids feel the same way then?
History does repeat itself. I know of middle school and high school teens who follow posted online college and graduate level courses in engineering, physics, math, business administration, earth sciences, etceteras and make their teachers look like they are clueless in class and make comments like, "How come you don't know this?" and "Your material is soooo boring." and " this stuff you teach is ancient history!" I actually spend 2 hours per week (with a cup of Java and a brownie, courtesy of my spouse) looking at graduate level courses posted online at YouTube to keep myself current in areas of my specialties. Cost? My time, the cost of coffee and brownie, and the electric energy consumed and I don't have to sit in a classroom at a distant campus. It is good to see that there are people who are using their brains and not wasting them. Joe, I am sure you are enjoying the "struggle with the technology demands" of your children. Remind them that one day, they may experience their kids 'Star Trek style', suddenly beaming themselves from one place to another. After all Jules Vernes gave us a pre-image of nuclear submarines and our generation built the nuclear powered commercial ship Savannah.
Gregory H. Constantios CCO
USCI, LLC (Underwater Structures Comprehensive Inspections)
DHS-USCG Auxiliary 5SR 24-8
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Constantios is a regular reader and he writes in from time to time. I, too, enjoyed his entry this week. The next letter is from a gentleman whose company “presented” at the eLearning Conference at Easton, MD last week. I sat in on that session and came away impressed with what Mr. Hiller had to say. I think our readers will be interested in this letter, as well:
Dear Mr. Keefe,
Thank you for your article today about the e-Learning conference held in Easton. David Hiller and I are partners in the MARPOL Training Institute, Inc. (www.marpoltraining.com) where we provide MARPOL and VGP Computer Based training programs. Although we have clients who are operating under stringent Department of Justice Environmental Compliance Plans (ECP), we would rather see our clients avoid the DOJ altogether and provide their crews with comprehensive MARPOL training programs to keep them out of trouble in the first place. It certainly makes good economic sense to do so.
What companies that have not been caught up in the ECP process do not realize is how consuming and taxing a 3 or 4 year probation period is on their organization. Every ECP requires at least 4 things: 1st an Environmental Management System must be created, 2nd Comprehensive Environmental Audits are conducted throughout the probation period, 3rd training must be provided, and lastly there is a monetary fine. We have known companies to pay as much as $40 million dollars in fines.
Imagine being aboard a vessel where you must log in the Oil Record Book all leaks in your lubrication, fuel and cooling systems and report them to both the US Probation Office and the USCG. Then you may also have to seal and tag all the flanges and valves in your lubrication and fuel systems and inventory those seals periodically. Perhaps you vessel will have to be fitted with remote monitoring equipment that enables a USCG Officer ashore to watch what is happening on your vessel.
And then of course there are criminal penalties against seafarers themselves. Those guilty of violating the regulations may serve time in jail, in detention and be forced to pay fines.
Doesn’t it make sense to head off all these negative impacts and provide comprehensive training to the crews?
Best regards,
Bob
Bob Hall
Managing Partner,
MARPOL Training Institute, Inc.
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: And the letters keep on pouring in. Here is another:
07/23/2009-1640
Aaah, the joys of the eWorld! I think on balance it has great value... as long as we do not totally rely on technology to do it all without "us" and end up with eCaptains, ePilots, etc. The old joke of the announcement on the All Techno Airlines that says to the passengers, "This flight has no human pilots, only highly sophisticated computers flying the plane from take off to landing. But rest assured nothing can possibly go wrong... go wrong... go wrong..."
John Rice
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Rice is another regular reader. Thanks for weighing in, John. Here is one more from a reader that most of may recognize:
Wow, great article Joe!
I've been harping on communication for some time... it simply amazes me that kids can chat on a plane (which, even I didn't know was possible) but two captains riding out a storm are stuck with VHF radios.
John Konrad
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: We feature Captain Konrad’s gCaptain WEB site on our e-newsletter and MarEx WEB site. It’s always worth a look. Thanks for writing, John. Our next letter refers to our lead editorial from two weeks ago. The recent Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on The National Maritime Center and Mariner Credentials, served notice that seafarers are far from satisfied with the current state of affairs at the National Maritime Center (NMC). The meeting, which took place on July 9 at the Rayburn House Office Building, involved pointed testimony from a host of individuals representing various sectors of U.S. mariner demographics had painted a scathing picture of inefficiencies and inequities at today’s NMC. The piece also dissected the televised “whipping” session and questioned the wisdom of such formats in the future. You can read our July 16th editorial, entitled “Mariners on National Maritime Center: Mission Not Accomplished” by clicking HERE. Last week, we got a raft of mail on this one. Nevertheless, our readers continue to express opinions on the matter. We’re happy to let others know what they think, as well:
Dear Joe,
In less than one year, the Coast Guard (specifically NMC) has managed to completely destroy a program that actually worked in certain regions of the country. On June 30th of this year another “session” was held in the office of U. S. Representative William Delahunt of the Massachusetts 10th Congressional District. You may recall Congressman Delahunt speaking at Mass. Maritime during our most recent MERPAC meeting in March.
The purpose of this meeting was to give the Coast Guard a chance to explain how they were going to fix a program that is in complete disarray. What those from other regions of the country may or may not be aware is that Regional Exam Centers in Boston, Seattle, and Houston were doing ok before this plan. Some would also include Portland OR and Charleston, SC in that list of places a mariner could go and talk to a person who could help. Mariners in the New England region, who made the sometimes awful commute to Boston, were “rewarded” with a chance to submit their application and discuss any and all issues with a real live Coast Guard License evaluator. If nothing else, mariners knew exactly where they stood in the process when they walked out the door and could discuss their options with the evaluator AND if they disagreed with the evaluator, had the chance to discuss their issues with the Chief of the Regional Exam Center (that would be me from 1998 until 2006). There was and is no better way or more efficient “process” to deal with the complex world or mariner licensing.
We would have mariners from all over the U.S. come to Boston simply for the reason that we had a ZERO backlog of applications waiting to be looked at. It was hard work and often the staff at the REC became exhausted by talking to mariners all day. It takes a lot of energy, training, and leadership to make it work and you have to be willing to support your staff, support the mariner, and do the right thing for both the Coast Guard and the merchant marine program. It also takes people who are capable of thinking on their feet and willing to make decisions based on common sense, a dash of reality, and the willingness to think outside the box. Does this make consistency and issue? Absolutely! But here’s is the problem with trying to be “consistent”. All mariners are not the same!! There are too many variables and circumstances to streamline this part of the process. The laws and regulations specifically gave each OCMI the authority and the latitude to make sound risk based decisions for a reason! If you speak to the early authors of the Licensing regulations (Adm George Nacarra, now head of TSA at Boston’s Logan Airport) who was my District Commander in the past, he would tell you that they left the regulations like that for a reason, when he authored them in the 1980s. You cannot put a mariner into a fixed, non-flexible, system. Even back then, they know that.
It was this level of expectation that came to be the “norm” in places such as Boston, Seattle, Houston, New York and a few others. Yes the RECs were understaffed, underfunded, and often under appreciated by the operational side of the Coast Guard. But those of us in the field who tried to use our heads and make it work, knew we were making a difference.
I don’t blame CAPT Stalfort or any of the present Senior Leadership for this mess. Although I’m not too impressed with what they’ve done so far to correct it. I DO blame the original architects of the plan – some contracted from outside the government – who designed a “plan” to re-structure the program we now see before us. I can tell you that these individuals had it in their mind that this plan was going to work no matter what. Many of us in the field were told to shut up and sit down when we tried to tell them it couldn’t and wouldn’t work. They sold the Commandant and here we are today.
Admiral Gilmore went around to a few industry groups and promised this plan was going to improve the efficiency of this program. He promised that the Coast Guard would put every effort into this program and make it work. We tried until the very end to convince him this was a bad plan and that this program in particular was not designed for full centralization. Now here we are today. Backlogged applications. Medical review “teams” that don’t follow the NVIC that was worked on by so many industry groups. Arbitrary “rules” like this 90 day response time rule, which requires marines to “reapply” if they don’t send in additional information within 90 days! Some mariners don’t see the letter for more than 90 days if they’re at sea! And not to mention the fact that no one will just tell the mariner what he needs to do.
So Congressman Delahunt sent a letter to the First District Commander (Dale Gable) who had the NMC leadership come and speak to the group. Like your session, this was calm, but direct and the message we tried to convey was that the “expectation” of the New England-based mariner is very high and what has happened with NMC’s plan has greatly affected their livelihood. If only ONE mariner loses his or her job because of nothing else but the “process” then the Coast Guard should be held accountable. It is an unacceptable “risk” on their part not to do what’s right and take the steps needed to fix this program and put it back to something that meets the expectations of the industry. When queried, CAPT Stalfort was unsure of what the Industry expected as far as a normal turn around time. It appeared that this standard had not been made known to him. How can you design a system without a standard such as how long do you think this will all take to do?
The answer to this may be in many places, but I think the first step is to get the Coast Guard to recognize that this plan will not work and big changes in leadership and their system need to occur. We in the Industry will continue to support whatever they do, as long as we see results in a positive direction.
Regards,
Andy Hammond
Executive Director
Boston Harbor Pilot Association, LLC
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: As an active MERPAC member and a former REC Chief, Hammond’s remarks perhaps carry more weight than most. Thanks for weighing in, Andy. I plan on going to MERPAC in September. No doubt it will be an interesting and hopefully productive session. Here is just one more letter on the subject:
Sir:
I've written you several times and so I feel compelled to respond to the NMC article. When the NMC first consolidated to West Virginia I had nothing but good things to say about them. But recently the help I'm getting from them has been far from adequate. I understand that they are subbing out the work. I guess we are getting what the government is paying for.
CPT Jim Hairston
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Indeed, Mr. Hairston has written before. His remarks are noted. Thanks for writing, and reading.