200450 Bridge Distractions

Bridge Distractions
MARS Report 200450

In the MARS column of February 2004 a retired Chief Engineer commented on the 'Alarms and Distractions' section in the Captain's Column of November 2003 saying that it was common in some companies to station the Chief Engineer on the Bridge to attend to alarms etc. As the author of the Captains Column, I thank him for his comments, and yes, I would like to have him on the bridge when in pilotage waters but our SMS states that the Chief must be in the Engine Control Room.

There is, in any case, little that he could do on the Bridge except monitor main engine and auxiliary machinery functions and alarms and it would take a good three to four minutes to reach the ECR in the event of a critical alarm.

I discussed my Alarms and Distractions scenario, which was real and not imagined by the way, with two serving Chief Engineers. They both agreed that I had my priorities right. They would not ignore a crankcase mist detector alarm, or a main engine low pressure lube oil alarm for the sake of sorting out a paper jam on the telegraph logger printer. In any case, our SMS states that 'If the engine telegraph printer for some reason does not function, movements shall be recorded manually', in this case in the Bridge and Engine Bell Books.

I agree with his comments on Chief Engineers not being appointed Ship Security Officer. My Chiefs, as Technical Managers, have a much higher technical and administrative workload than I do, and spend at least half of their working days on the computer managing the planned maintenance system, stores, spare parts, surveys, inspections, budgets and so on.

I have always thought that there is some advantage in having the Chief Engineer on the Bridge in the event of an emergency and putting him in charge of the internal ship's response and communications, thus leaving the 2nd Engineer in charge of the Engine Room response party. This frees the Master to be able to concentrate on the overall picture and the bridge team to obtain help from and communicate with the external response parties. The Master can also more easily monitor the navigation and collision avoidance. In a major incident the communications can become overwhelming for the bridge team and having someone else to deal with the internal communications and dealing with the incident is a great help. I would be interested to hear what the readers ideas are on this subject. RB.

Reader's Feedback

1
I am a Chief Engineer, serving in the Offshore Industry. I read with interest the report regarding Chiefs on the Bridge during stand-bys (or close quarters situations). As I am sure you are aware, during operations offshore, whether on PSV's or AHTS's, the discharge of cargo at platforms or MODU's, invariably requires many hands. On smaller, less well manned vessels, it is almost second nature for the Engineer on watch (or duty on UMS vessels) to attend the Bridge to assist in either cargo operations or just to drive the search light. If an alarm goes off, the Engineer is in a position to provide immediate information to the OOW regarding severity, and an appropriate course of action, or not as the case may be.

Entering or leaving port is a testing time for all concerned and as such I make a point of " floating " around either on the Bridge or on Deck. I encourage my staff to think likewise. With current technology, machinery monitoring is as good on the Bridge as it is in the ECR. Should an alarm go off, I can make immediate diagnosis of the situation with the click of a mouse. I can then advise the Bridge Team to either abort, get it over with ASAP, or just carry on as normal. If attention is required down below I have the option to deal with it myself, or call the ECR to advise on a course of action. In busy offshore support bases, there are always boats on the move, radio calls, etc etc. Enough distractions to make a dead man cringe. After nearly 25 years in the industry, I have never found it detrimental to the operation to have an Engineer on the Bridge to advise on machinery status, after all, if things are that bad down below, maybe we shouldn't be getting ourselves into a potential " situation".

To conclude, as someone dedicated to the operation of the vessel as a whole, I am quite adept at answering radio's, or instructing crew where to put shore lines or rig hoses. Having an extra pair of eyes and ears on the Bridge never did anybody any harm, ...........................or did it ??

2

Your comment on 'Bridge Distractions' immediately took me back several years to when I was Assistant Dock Superintendent, later transferring to 'Special Projects' within the Company. The B O T (as it was in those days) published an 'M' Notice requiring ship owners to look closely at their 'Fire' and 'Boat Drill' procedures and the accompanying signal for these activities.

As we were an enterprising company, we said, "If this is what they want, then we can do better" (or words to that effect). We looked, thought, scratched our heads, and came up with an idea. The first realisation was that 'fire' and 'boat' drills should be a common entity. They should both fall under the heading of an 'Emergency'. For example, if the cook burnt the toast, it could very well be the beginning of a major emergency. The realisation that a simple thing could snowball into a major incident was not lost. We then decided that a reorganisation of the vessels staff was needed. Against all odds and a lot of very intense discussion, Chief Engineers, Pursers/Chief Stewards were assigned to the bridge to assist and advise the master (in their specialised disciples) thus leaving him to make any final decisions that may affect the overall emergency. It all worked well and became talking point with other owners, surveyors, and class societies.

3

The desirability of Chief Engineers on the bridge depends on the Chief Engineer and his relationship with the Master. The ultimate set up I have experienced was on two very well designed and managed Japanese owned VLCCs. The Engine and Cargo Controls were on the bridge in a large and well equipped wheelhouse. The ship also had excellent multi-national crews. I spent many days on these ships over a five year period discharging at an SPM and lightering. Inter departmental cooperation was enhanced by this system. I also sailed as Master for seven years with an excellent German Chief Engineer. He was always an asset on the bridge and we had an excellent 2nd Eng. in the ER. At the other extreme I was recently on a 22 year old vessel. The Master was first class but the Chief Engineer was a pain, grabbing the binoculars, generally getting in the way and behaving like a tourist.