To be fair I think every person who has added to this thread each has a point which could be considered. Maybe it's time for the shipping industry to look at all angles rather than to continue down this path. Looking at other industries and their evolution may also be beneficial.
Technology of course is not a bad thing, but maybe it's not being utilised within the industry to full effect?
For example the company I work for has a different type of electronic chart system for almost every type of vessel. Each one has a different specification and some of which are so completely inaccurate that one would never trust such a system in certain navigational situations. Therefore with equipment like this, the only thing to do IS to look out of the window.
Whereas on with other systems I would cross reference with the electronic AIDS. This unfortunately means there is no standard.
I am also very interested in the aviation industry. Lots can be learnt here.
Regular simulator rides could be a steady way of continuing competence in particular circumstances. Those course of this nature I have been on were excellent. Putting one under pressure and strain and learning about yourself and how you react in a situation can be a steep curve.
TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) is an automated response by the aircraft to the pilot in command. Warning them of aircraft nearby. A similar system which interprets rule of the road and perhaps provides an option could be useful. Yes this may take skills away, but for all those incidents that do happen like the one in this thread then maybe they could be avoided. I have no doubt that the OOW on the bridges of these two vessels knew the rules, but maybe assistance from a marine standard TCAS could have avoided an incident like this completely. A system like that may well have provided an alternative to the poor decision made.
Just a thought,
John
They obviously didn't know the rules, otherwise there would have been no collision. Introducing a marine version of TCAS or adding yet more checklists will only make things even worse, just as the introduction of AIS made collision avoidance by VHF a thousand times worse.
After all, giving an idiot on the bridge of a ship better equipment does not make him safer, it merely makes him more dangerous.
Let's remember that STCW has not brought everyone up to a decent standard, it has in fact brought everyone DOWN to the lowest common denominator.
Everyone seems to think the airline industry is the be all and end all of procedure, it is not. In many ways it's totally inapplicable to the marine world for a hundred different reasons.
The core problem today amongst nearly every nationality of young (and some not so young) officers is a lack of knowledge and experience beyond the absolute bare minimum required. Many do not even have that, all brought about by training schemes, colleges and cadetships which are not fit for purpose and are merely an exercise of putting bums on seats to comply as minimally as possible with STCW and things like the tonnage tax.
Unlike in the past where you had to grapple with very basic navigational equipment (if any), the navigational workload of the modern OOW is non existent and almost entirely revolves around ship dodging and following the accursed red line. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of collisions and groundings will simply not occur providing that the OOW possesses both adequate knowledge and (real) experience, plus a proper lookout is being kept.
Keeping a good lookout is the easy part, ideally have a rating on the bridge 24 hours a day solely dedicated to lookout duties. At the very least between sunset and sunrise and in all busy areas.
The knowledge and experience part can only be achieved by the following:
1) Return seatime and watchkeeping requirements for all certificates back to what they were pre STCW 78/95. In the case of cadets ensure seatime does actually have some value where the cadet is placed in a ship with individuals of the same nationality and ideally of their own company. End the farce that is cadet training groups.
2) Ensure that a greater depth and breadth of tuition at the nautical colleges is provided during a cadetship. Also ensure that subsequent senior certificates require real college time and classroom lessons, together with written AND oral exams. These should be properly constructed and externally invigilated - colleges setting and marking their own exams is nothing short of a joke.
3) Abandon pointless "all in one" cadetship schemes like (so called) Foundation Degree and Professional Diplomas, as they are not worth the paper they're written on and all they produce is seriously underqualified individuals who have a grossly unfair short cut to senior certification. That in itself is setting up serious problems for the future.