200044 Comments on Watchkeeping Hours
Comments on Watchkeeping Hours
Report No. 200044
A suggested watchkeeping pattern which may help to alleviate fatigue was published in SEAWAYS in May 2000. The suggested watches were as follows:
| 2/O | 00/06 | 08/10 | ||||||||||
| Mate | 06/08 | 12/18 | ||||||||||
| 3/O | 10/12 | 18/24 |
Many people responded to this item - here are the comments:
1.
May's issue coincided with a Safety Audit carried out on my vessel. It was pointed out by auditor that our officers, including myself, are very close to the STCW 95 rest hour limit. There was very little we could do with 'old' watchkeeping pattern as the vessel is a 27,350 DWT chemical/product carrier employed in Northern Europe, is in a port every 36-48 hrs. We have 3 deck officers + master on board and could only dream of having one extra officer to ease our burden!! After reading the article in SEAWAYS I decided to try the proposed 'new' watchkeeping pattern. The issue was discussed with all deck officers and we started the new scheme on the first of June. After one month results are very encouraging:
The Chief officer gained 69 hrs of rest per month, the 2nd Officer gained 50 hrs and the 3rd Officer 24 hours.
The new pattern gave me the opportunity to be on the bridge and relieve deck officers for their short, 2 hrs lasting watches more frequently as the shorter period is more agreeable for me too. As the experiment has only been running for one month so far, I promise to give you full evaluation on completion of my contract i.e end of September. The results should then be more precise.
****************************************
2.
On my last (container) ship we tried out the USCG suggested watch system and in general it met with the approval off all three watchkeeping officers on board. When and how to fit in all the various off watch duties required a bit of re-thinking but, certainly, the fatigue accumulation was cut down. At the time we were on a typical containership run with periods of port visits one after the other followed by a spell of ocean crossing. Regardless of times of arrival/departure all officers were able to obtain adequate rest before periods of duty.
3.
This leaves the crew unsupervised for half the day. I thought the whole point of the 4-8 was to allow he mate to carry out all his other duties. Also six consecutive hours is a long watch in heavy traffic. The graveyard watch was always bad but extended for an extra two hours? No thanks.
****************************************
4.
I am writing to applaud the "Protection Through People" watch routine proposal. I believe it is a material improvement over the standard system provided that the ship's routine is adjusted to reflect the change. I suggest that the usual shift from sea to port watches (and vice versa) be changed to occur at noon rather than midnight to avoid fatiguing the 2nd Officer on AM sailing days since, on this ship, the he/she normally stands 1600 - 2400 in port. For the same reason, drills at sea should be scheduled for 0900 whenever practicable.
****************************************
5.
On my present ship the officers have been following this pattern for the last three months and the general consensus is that it makes a great improvement over the previous traditional "4 on, 8 off" system. We also gave the offer to the ratings to try out the new system, but they preferred to keep the traditional system - possibly because, unlike the officers, they do not have regular off-watch duties. This ship has been operating on a 35 day high-latitude East-West trade, with 10 day deep-sea passages, often at sub-zero temperatures, at 20-odd knots (and so an hour clock change every night!) interspersed with 7 day loading/discharging coastal voyages. Hardly a "sunshine cruise" and whilst the watchkeeping hours deep-sea could not be described as fatiguing, they were obviously "wearing" over the long term. I have discussed the new arrangements with the officers involved, and received the following feedback:
3RD OFFICER Initially, the 3/O considered that he did not benefit from the new system, and was getting no more useful rest. It turned out that he was still getting up at 0700, even though he was not on watch until 1000 - A word with the cook regarding a bit more flexibility of breakfast time soon solved this!
2ND OFFICER Under this system, the 2/0 only has a two hour break between 0600 and 0800, but the 14 hour break between 1000 and 2400 offers ample opportunity for an extended rest period - the 2/O appears very much in favour of this system.
1ST OFFICER The 1/O was also very much in favour of the new system, as it enables him to be up and around during the entire working day without using up too much off-watch time, whilst getting a full nights sleep. Also this system allows all senior officers to take dinner together.
In common with most other Masters, I have been in the habit of relieving the OOW for an hour or so in the morning and afternoon. Under the new system, by just doing one of the 2 hour "dog watches" in the morning, I can make sure that each of the officers gets a break one day in three. Under the old system, 4 hours would be needed to give an officer a significant break from his watchkeeping duties, but under this system just 2 hours can give an OOW a complete watch off. As regards the impact of port arrivals and departures, we have not yet found a situation where the new system compares unfavourably with the old system. Additionally the new system allows flexibility to compensate, for example, in the case of a 2200 departure, the 2nd Officer is possibly faced with the 0000 to 0600 watch and then the 0800-1000 watch, but this can easily be compensated by the Master standing in for the 0800-1000 watch. In summary, I think that the new system is a definite improvement, but to derive maximum benefit, a little bit of attitude-adjustment and flexibility is needed. Also, a small contribution to the system by the Master is invaluable, with the proviso that this contribution should be at the Master's discretion (i.e. the Master's contribution to watchkeeping hours should not be "written in stone" - he should be left to decide when his input would most useful).
****************************************
6.
I have been using this watch standing system for several months now on a multi-streamer seismic research vessel. I find it only advantageous over our previous traditional watch schedules. Every watch stander that has been on board under this arrangement has only praise for it. All watch standers have reported to their respective watches more alert and with less fatigue. I have no intentions of returning to the previous 4 hours on, 8 off schedule. This schedule allows each watch stander to fulfil his/her watch standing and other duties in a 12 to 14 hour window. This leaves each crewman with a 10 or 12 hour block of time allowing for a complete rest period. This system also meets all STCW requirements. In practice, the 4 hours on, 8 off schedule was questionable. Happily, the new system also agrees with all meal times and other scheduled events in a mariners day.
Old traditions die hard and the maritime industry is steeped in tradition. It will be difficult for long time mariners to embrace this new concept. I am sure that when mariners give this schedule a "fair try", many of them will be as pleased with the results as I am.
****************************************
7.
I agree that fatigue is a problem on the ships and mainly caused by work outside the bridge watch environment. Firstly, I cannot see how it works in port. If the 2/O does six hours on deck and departure is at 0630, CSV at 07.00 and he comes back again at 0800 then there is hardly any rest before resuming his watch. On a coastal run with five ports in a row, fatigue will not be reduced by the proposed schedule. Secondly, on days at sea, if the 2/O comes of watch at 0600, I presume that he would like to take a nap before his next 8 - 10 shift, as no doubt after 1000 with the whole ship awake, other work will be taken on. I sincerely doubt if those two hours in between are enough for a short rest. The dog shift is the watch where the "man with the hammer" comes along, so a good rest before the next spell of watch is necessary. By the time the 2/0 is off the bridge and turned in, it will be 0630, he/she will have to get up at 0730 to have breakfast and start at 0800. As a break is necessary, it would seem preferable to me to have this watch system amended to 0001 - 0530 and 0830 - 1100 or 1130 The other watches could be amended accordingly. Starting on the half hour away from the formal ending of the watch seems a bit strange, but my company has been doing it for deck officers (to facilitate meal hours) since 1968 and it has not caused any problems.
****************************************
8.
I fully support the idea of change in watchkeeping, but with a "small" amendment. This new style of watchkeeping to be implemented on ships where people with this idea will be put on board as 2nd officers. Shortly after they will realise the full "advantage" of this "great" idea. What is the solution to fatigue problem? Simple! An additional deck officer. The rank of 3rd officer is quite sufficient but this is not a popular measure and it costs money. Prudent shipowners will save money in the long run by employing an extra officer and avoiding accidents due to fatigue. There is nothing wrong with the present watchkeeping set up. The attitude of "give them computers and reduce the crew" (i.e. removal of Radio Officer) is very cost-effective but certainly does not improve safety. On the contrary.
****************************************
9.
It seems like a good idea except for the watchkeeping 2/O who practically has a continuous watch for almost 10 hrs. How does this fit in with the clause of FIT FOR DUTY?. This poses a big question mark. Will the 2/O be fit for duty and have had sufficient rest when he resumes his watch at 0800 hrs (0800 - 1000), when he has already been on until 0600? Also I would like to invite your valuable comments for the ships engaged in a particular pattern of voyage, like tankers engaged in lightening trade where the period of sea passage ranges from 3 hrs to 20 hours, followed by pilotage of 4 to 30 hrs (Mississippi river) and the longest voyage is of 48 hrs duration in the Gulf of Mexico. I became more curious when the article suggested that it is safe for an officer to keep continuous watch for 6 hours. If this is the case then a watch of 8 hours at a stretch may be possible and also seems to give the period of rest required to comply with STCW95. It also seems strange that the duties displayed are for 3 deck officers but the feedback was obtained is from 141 mariners from only 8 ships. This seems a bit strange unless they included the cooks, greasers etc.
The reason for asking the question was to see how it could work on ships with difficult schedules. I have emailed the USCG requesting clarification on the number of people in the survey but have not yet received an answer.