In command of a mobo or raggie, but not in control ?

Some of the most challenging skippering from a man management point of view that I've ever done was aged 23, as a relatively newly qualified YM skippering corporate charters. When the clients were all novices it was fine, as even when they were old enough to be my grandfather they didn't question my judgement.
And the very well qualified/experienced crew were also fine in the main. They tended to understand that a boat can only have one skipper, though a lot of them would throw a few test questions my way, and almost all would ask if I was a zero to hero YM. I quickly learnt that these types either wanted nothing to do with running the boat, and wanted the others to experience sailing, or liked being asked to manage a couple of novices when tacking etc so I could concentrate on helping the guy on the helm.

But the absolute worst were the non boat owning day skipper qualified type. Almost without fail I'd get decisions questioned by this group, especially when they were considerably older than me, and almost all would hold forth to the non sailors in the group about all subjects nautical, frequently getting quite a lot wrong. It was a chap like this who was the only person I ever had to lay down the law to whilst I was corporate skippering, as he simply kept telling the crew to ignore me and do everything differently. "We didn't do it like that on my day skipper, we did it like this.."

The worst weekend I've ever spent on a boat though was a weekend where a bunch of skippers borrowed a boat and went for a jolly. There was agreement over almost nothing, and arguments about almost everything. The chap who'd organised the weekend thought he was the skipper, the chap with the YMI ticket thought he was, the chap who was the most senior in the company thought he was and the rest of us finished the weekend barely on speaking terms. Normal relationships were resumed once we were all back on different boats, but fun it was not.
 
I am a g4reat believer in one ship one captain. Fortunately usually the owner who pays the bills is captain.
I have been on one boat where the lady owner not very experienced ona very hot boat asked for a bunch of experienced guys to crew for her. yes it was chaos with testosterone and pride prevailing. Fortuantely no real concern for my own safety but very amusing.

Airlines from some years back have been on a global basis trying to address this problem of 2 pilots one more senior than the other to be able to work as a team. This includes the ability of the least senior pilot to intervene int he case of captains error. 2 pilots should be better than one if they work correctly together. But this is very hard to make work in some Asian cultures.

Regarding the crash it is an interesting example of how big aircraft are far more vulnerable to wind speed or direction change on landing. They are eindeed a bit like the huge oil tankers int aht they take a lot to change direction and speed. To help with this problem it is normal procedure to aim for a point 1/3 the way down the runway for touchdown. This gives room for error. One of the biggest dangers is called wind shear where surface wind can change in direction and strength as you approach the end of the runway. Tyhe aircraft has a speed in space which because of inertia is hard to change. But at the same time it relies on air speed to keep it up. So if it traverses from an area of 15 knots headwind to anarea of 15 knot tail wind he has lost 30 knots of airspeed in about 100 knots needs to keep it up.
The answer then is to put on power and try to climb extend the glide or aborth the landing. This is not easy with engines having several tonnes of rotating parts so takes time to increse power (quite a few seconds) while you have 35o tonnes of aircraft going down when you want it to go up. It all takes time. Clearly in San Francisco he ran out of time. it is common certainly on jets on carriers to increase engine power in the last stages of landing to have the engines up to speed inc case of aborted landing. Flaps and spoilers are used to slow the aircraft as needed. they can be retracted quickly.
The change of wind speed is often caused by thunderstorm down draft. These are particularly bad in USA. They are the leaders in research into this phenomena though I understand weather was clear for that crash. One defence is to have many anenometers placed around the outside of the airfield. Any difference in windspeed is a reason to be very cautious.
Another sad fact is that pilots do much of their training in small aircraft where this inertia is not a problem. Open the throttle and up she goes.

It is a pity this crash had to occur from known causes including pilot communication. olewill
 
I used to work as a trouble shooter (Professional Chief Mate if you want) with a small tug company, some of the Masters I worked with were a bit ropey to say the least.

Yes you can sit 2nd in command and watch the world go pear shaped, take it in, write it it up and report it in, but in the end there are times when you just have to ask who knows best, take action and save the ship - so to speak and then you need to act.

I'm not sure this well written, but if you ever get there you'll know what I mean...
 
I'm just re-reading Marryat's novels, set in Nelson's navy (Marryat was an officer in the Nelsonian navy, so his "local colour" is very accurate!), and read of the procedure in a court-martial, which seems to be relevant here. When the panel of judges were making their decision, the most junior was asked to give his verdict first, then the next and so on. This ensured that the decision of the most junior officer was not influenced by the decison of more senior officers.

Of course, this is not relevant in a fast moving real-time situation such as that on the flight deck of an aircraft, but it may be relevant on a yacht where things are rarely so fast moving. If "senior" figures make a practice of asking the opinion of "junior" ones BEFORE giving their own assessment of the situation, then they will get the benefit of the "junior" person's genuine opinion. If the "junior" person is wrong, no harm done, and a good teaching opportunity. If the "junior" person is right, their confidenceis boosted if the "senior" person agrees. If BOTH are right, but differ (i.e. "Yes, but I'd do it another way"), that opens a useful debate during which BOTH may learn something.
 
sarabande said:
The plane crash in San Francisco raises an uncomfortable spectre, which I suspect many here have experienced.

It seems that the pilot doing the flying was senior to the pilot (a training pilot BTW) in the right hand seat, and there is a suspicion that the Korean culture of deference to age and rank may have inhibited the non-flying pilot from speaking out when/if he noticed that the plane was not in the correct approach profile (too low, too slow).

Translating that into the more two-dimensional environment of our sailing or motoring, I wonder how many times people with good solid experience and/or qualifications (the two are not synonymous)have sailed with an owner of less experience or paperwork, and have noticed a decision or event which if uncorrected could put the boat at risk.


I did a delivery several years ago from West Mersea to Breskens in a motor sailer owned by a successful young hotshot lawyer. He was pretty clued up generally, but made the self-deceiving assumptions (for which many of us have fallen) that because a light appeared in a certain direction, that was the light he was expecting - despite slightly different characteristics. We resolved the issue in a friendly way - but I'm not going to say how.


My question is really in two parts:

1 Has anyone been in the position where the owner/skipper has made a decision which is wrong, and likely to imperil the boat ?

2 How do you bring that fact to the boss ?

and a corollary

How do you as a boat owner or skipper ensure that crew speak up when they are uncertain what you mean, or believe you are making a mistake ?


The decision culture on boats seems to be different from the multi-member team approach in large aircraft. Is this really so, and should it be a matter of concern ?
Click to expand...

I was a 'passenger' on a yacht motoring toward Calshot Spit Buoy, when another yacht under power, headed in our direction from our port side at some speed. No-one was visible behind the sprayhood. Our 'qualified helm, when it was obvious, that the other vessel hadn't seen us, decided to take avoiding action, by turning to port.
As a guest, it was difficult to avoid suggesting to our helm, that he was a complete pillock.

He was/is still abysmally unaware of his transgression.
 
AntarcticPilot said:
I'm just re-reading Marryat's novels, set in Nelson's navy (Marryat was an officer in the Nelsonian navy, so his "local colour" is very accurate!), and read of the procedure in a court-martial, which seems to be relevant here. When the panel of judges were making their decision, the most junior was asked to give his verdict first, then the next and so on. This ensured that the decision of the most junior officer was not influenced by the decison of more senior officers.

Of course, this is not relevant in a fast moving real-time situation such as that on the flight deck of an aircraft, but it may be relevant on a yacht where things are rarely so fast moving. If "senior" figures make a practice of asking the opinion of "junior" ones BEFORE giving their own assessment of the situation, then they will get the benefit of the "junior" person's genuine opinion. If the "junior" person is wrong, no harm done, and a good teaching opportunity. If the "junior" person is right, their confidenceis boosted if the "senior" person agrees. If BOTH are right, but differ (i.e. "Yes, but I'd do it another way"), that opens a useful debate during which BOTH may learn something.
Click to expand...
That's some good thinking right there.
 
sarabande said:
The plane crash in San Francisco raises an uncomfortable spectre, which I suspect many here have experienced.

It seems that the pilot doing the flying was senior to the pilot (a training pilot BTW) in the right hand seat, and there is a suspicion that the Korean culture of deference to age and rank may have inhibited the non-flying pilot from speaking out when/if he noticed that the plane was not in the correct approach profile (too low, too slow).

Translating that into the more two-dimensional environment of our sailing or motoring, I wonder how many times people with good solid experience and/or qualifications (the two are not synonymous)have sailed with an owner of less experience or paperwork, and have noticed a decision or event which if uncorrected could put the boat at risk.


I did a delivery several years ago from West Mersea to Breskens in a motor sailer owned by a successful young hotshot lawyer. He was pretty clued up generally, but made the self-deceiving assumptions (for which many of us have fallen) that because a light appeared in a certain direction, that was the light he was expecting - despite slightly different characteristics. We resolved the issue in a friendly way - but I'm not going to say how.


My question is really in two parts:

1 Has anyone been in the position where the owner/skipper has made a decision which is wrong, and likely to imperil the boat ?

2 How do you bring that fact to the boss ?

and a corollary

How do you as a boat owner or skipper ensure that crew speak up when they are uncertain what you mean, or believe you are making a mistake ?


The decision culture on boats seems to be different from the multi-member team approach in large aircraft. Is this really so, and should it be a matter of concern ?
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a rumour, of an owner going down the Needles Channel from Hurst, who was heading for the Shingles Bank.
He was told by a certain very well known RYA instructor, that he should change heading. This advice he ignored.
He was then advised more forcibly, that he should change heading, because he was endangering his vessel & putting the crew at risk. He again ignored the advice, with a retort, that he (as owner) knew best.
Apparently, the tale continues, with the instructor hitting him with a winch handle & taking control.
 
Quite a long time ago, as a young tyro. I was asked to get a boat back to UK. So I was Skipper with the owner on board. She wanted to get into a port at night in Corsica. I was unsure if we were approaching the right bay (no nav aids, DR only after two days) She insisted it was OK and it was only after I realised the stars were disappearing at a high angle because we were under a cliff that I overruled her and tacked out. Never mentioned, but it soured the rest of the trip. I sort of liked her, for her independance and enthusiasum. But as a 21 yr old verses 60 odd, plus the era, it was difficult

More recently, a friend did not question the very experienced guy sailing friend's boat. Until they crash gybed and capsized. If on his own, he would have noticed that the track was tide related and the wind was crossing behind them. The helm was used to modern boats and the gaff rig caught him out. Bit like the KAL sindrome.
 
Last edited:
It's all very well us acknowledging that, at times, there may be a safety problem and that the 'interpersonals' may exacerbate the situation instead of resolving it. For examples, we could consider the many ship/small craft encounters in sub-optimum visibility and the decision/actions interplay.

It is clear from reading these forums that there are many 'takes' on when, for example, a 'risk of collision' exists and consequently when/how close a decision to act is made. Time and again, on boats with several experienced crew, I have seen widely differing interpretations of what is needed and when. We can't all be right. So how do we raise our team-game to reduce the likelihood of disaster?

Could we improve our game by a thoughtful consideration of the principles and practice of 'CRM', ( or Cockpit.... Crew... Bridge... Resource Management ) ?

"....Crew resource management or cockpit resource management[1] (CRM) is a procedure and training system in systems where human error can have devastating effects. Used primarily for improving air safety, CRM focuses on interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit. The training originated from a NASA workshop in 1979,[2] which found that the primary cause of most aviation accidents was human error, citing the Tenerife airport disaster in 1977...."
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management


"....It recognizes that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that a ( hazardous ) error is occurring....."
Click to expand...

Is this a topic in which the RYA's Yachtmaster Standards Panel ought to be taking a lead? What about the MCA? Their guys certainly know of 'Bridge Resource Management'. Is there something here for us....? :cool:
 
Last edited:
oldbilbo said:
Could we improve our game by a thoughtful consideration of the principles and practice of 'CRM', ( or Cockpit.... Crew... Bridge... Resource Management ) ?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management




Is this a topic in which the RYA's Yachtmaster Standards Panel ought to be taking a lead? What about the MCA? Their guys certainly know of 'Bridge Resource Management'. Is there something here for us....? :cool:
Click to expand...

This is clearly a Good Thing, and as you point out, the MCA think so in commercial environments.

But surely the problem in a leisure scenario is the lack of well-defined areas of responsibility, coupled with pre-existing relationships outside the yachting environment? I don't go to sea with a first mate and a crew member, I go to sea with (for example) my brother and my wife. Barring racing crews, few of us go to sea with people we don't know socially; many of us are married to our crew, or are otherwise related to them! There are also issues of personality - again, in a professional environment these can be reduced, but in an essentially social situation, it may be difficult for a quiet (but competent) person to make his/her voice heard over that of a self-confident but less competent person.

I think there may well be lessons to be learnt about personnel management on yachts, but I don't think that commercial or racing experience will translate directly to the environment of a crusing yacht. I do recall a thread last year some time where there were highly polarized views about the nature and responsibilities of being a skipper on a cruising yacht, with some people saying they went to sea to get away from rigid roles, while others saw it as utterly essential to have such things clearly stated! And this was all tangled up with questions of who would be regarded as being legally "in charge" in the event of things going seriously pear-shaped.

Another problem for the RYA, as I hinted above, is the very great difference between racing and cruising in this regard. Racing crews approximate better to the commercial situation, with people having well-defined roles and skills, and the commercial Bridge Resource Management skills might well apply very well to a racing crew. But a husband and wife cruisng crew? Or a family?

No answers, I'm afraid, but some interesting questions!
 
oldbilbo said:
It's all very well us acknowledging that, at times, there may be a safety problem and that the 'interpersonals' may exacerbate the situation instead of resolving it. For examples, we could consider the many ship/small craft encounters in sub-optimum visibility and the decision/actions interplay.

It is clear from reading these forums that there are many 'takes' on when, for example, a 'risk of collision' exists and consequently when/how close a decision to act is made. Time and again, on boats with several experienced crew, I have seen widely differing interpretations of what is needed and when. We can't all be right. So how do we raise our team-game to reduce the likelihood of disaster?

Could we improve our game by a thoughtful consideration of the principles and practice of 'CRM', ( or Cockpit.... Crew... Bridge... Resource Management ) ?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management




Is this a topic in which the RYA's Yachtmaster Standards Panel ought to be taking a lead? What about the MCA? Their guys certainly know of 'Bridge Resource Management'. Is there something here for us....? :cool:
Click to expand...

You are right on the money. MCRM (Maritime Crew Resource Management) has just become mandatory - and I am a qualified instructor in it, so I shall now blow my own trumpet and bore everyone stiff!

Slides courtesy of the bloke who trained me - and who invented the subject when he was at SAS.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/adam_cowburn_-_oxford_aviation_academy.pdf
 
I think that any new crew should be considered as "under training" so all manouvres that involve them should include an exit strategy, should it go t+++s up. I still remember when my mate and I were learning to pick up a mooring buoy there was a lot of running up and down the sidedecks, but the engine was always left running ready to go around. In the end, a guy on a neighbouring mooring having had enough free entertainment, pointed out that it's better to scythe the boathook under the pick up buoy so that it snares the rope - the handle only seems to be there to lead you astray.

Rob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top