MarEx Mailbag: Reader Response to Last Week's Editorial & More…
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008
MarEx readers weighed in on last week's editorial (You Bet I'm Going Back to Sea…) & other articles
In last week's edition of the MarEx e-newsletter, we actually posted two "lead" editorial efforts. The first article centered on Managing Editor Joseph Keefe's ongoing quest to attain STCW compliance for his continuity Coast Guard license. The second piece (Decades Late and Four Dollars Short) addressed the renewed call to drill in the face of $4.00+ regular unleaded gasoline in America. Read on to see what MarEx readers had to say in the matter.
Read last week's STCW editorial by clicking HERE.
Read last week's editorial on the controversy over domestic drilling by clicking HERE.
Or, read on to see what MarEx readers had to say on both subjects. Regarding STCW compliance:
* * *
Hi Joe!
Thanks for reinstating me. I very much enjoy your weekly issues.
When I was about forty-five, I became Ted Hood's marketing manager and found myself in the big boats, i.e. America's Cup candidates. At the same time, the realization of how much out of shape I was when I had to run up and down the decks of those monsters, dawned on me. So, I took up road running and ran until I was about seventy-five.
The real joy arrived when I hit sixty and was able to grab a few wins in my class because the other guys were older than me. Most races don't have an over-seventy class, but I managed a few "oldest runner" trophies in those instances.
So, just think of me in those ten-milers and ten-Ks, then a generation or so older than you are now. Once, at MMA Homecoming, a race was put on and when I came across the finish line, my wife heard someone say, "Jeez, that guy was in World War Two!!" And you cannot imagine how many cadets I beat that day. The only negative is that I was to be an Honorary Captain at the football game for the coin toss and I was up in one of the dorms taking a shower!
Steady as she goes.
George Duffy
Editor's Note: George is a fellow Mass. Maritime graduate. We kicked around a couple of e-mails after his initial posting and I let him know that his physical fitness gives me hope. I'm 25 years and perhaps 35 pounds beyond my last of three marathons. In 1983, I ran San Francisco in 3:31:06 – my PR. The next day, I did the wine tour, which really helps with the pain. Good tip for those of you going out.
* * *
Joe,
Just read your latest in the Maritime Executive on-line. I wish you well. I did the exact same thing with an expired USCG license beginning in 2001 after retiring from the corporate world. I subsequently authored an article for Professional Mariner magazine about my experience of requalifying and returning to sea after 32 years. I had to sit for my USCG unlimited tonnage Master credentials after first taking certificates for Able Seaman and flashing light. After eight months study, I passed the CG exam and began the STCW stuff. That was another six months. Then I had to apply for and get re-instated in the MM&P. Finally, I had to take the various courses that the MMP-contract companies require of their MM&P officers before I could sail. I now have 14 voyages under my belt after returning to sea in 2003. I have also (in 2007) renewed the USCG license, my STCW certificate, and my FCC radio licenses and received my TWIC card. I expect to return to sea next month out of LA. Completing the effort I feel is one on my greatest personal achievements.
Good luck with your effort. If I can be of any help, please let me know.
Warm regards,
Phil Kantz, Master Mariner
Member Masters, Mates & Pilots
Editor's Note: (Captain) Kantz weighs in with real life experience in the quest to obtain STCW compliance. His comment that "completing the effort being one of his greatest personal achievements" only echoes the comments of many others that I have spoken to.
* * *
Joe;
I have been following your efforts to gain STCW endorsements.
As you know, I did the same thing when I was 56 years old and believe me the BST course (or curse) was the toughest single element.
I, too, did my fire fighting down at MITAGS. In fact we were there on 9-11-2001, and had to stop and reschedule for a week later, so I had two 90 degrees plus days in the burn building.
When you have finished your goal, you will have the satisfaction of knowing you have accomplished something. You will also realize that STCW is needed in today's Merchant Marine.
Sadly, we hear reports about the storefront operations in the Philippines and other such places, where someone can get all the endorsements they need, just by paying the fees.
Something like ISO, it is only as good as the regulatory oversight and international cooperation.
Now that you have indeed paid the price, you might want to do some comparison. Your new "Red Badge of Courage" will give your opinions much more validity and respect among the rest of us who did it the right way.
Captain William H. Doherty
Master Mariner and First Class Pilot
Centerville, MA
Editor's Note: Bill Doherty needs no introduction for most of us. He was, a long time ago, my "tanker operations" professor at MMA, and then still later, a client of mine in my former life as a marine consultant. I think his comments speak for themselves. Bill wrote two letters this week and you can see his other effort by reading on below. But first, another letter, this one referring to my editorial entitled, "Decades Late and Four Dollars Short":
* * *
Mr. Keefe,
I am just catching up on your March 20 editorial (referred to in your latest June 26 editorial) where you advocate increasing energy taxes to pay for a national health care system. This is exactly one of the wrong ideas that has put us into a $15 billion budget hole here in California: taxing one thing to fund another. If you want to increase energy taxes to decrease the use of oil, then the money should go into funding public transportation. That way you get twice the bang for your buck in reducing oil consumption, or maybe three or four times, if decreased oil consumption also leads to cleaner, healthier air to breathe and higher prices make more people walk or ride bicycles.
Jeff Olmstead
Editor's Note: I'm all for anything that moves us closer to the goalposts. Funding public transportation is a great idea, and not coincidentally, it reduces air pollution, related health risks and more efficiently uses similar amounts of energy. Here in Charlotte, I took some flack from friends when I advocated the acceleration of our fledgling light rail system here. Today, the only complaining I hear about is that the available trains (and there just aren't that many yet) are too full as people flock to this mode of transit in the face of spiraling fuel costs. Do you know that people are actually having to STAND UP on that train now? Jeff, it is all interconnected: health, pollution, trade deficits, domestic employment, clean air and yes – national security. We can achieve all of those goals, but not if congress and the executive branch does not collectively wake up and smell the carbon monoxide.
The next letter, received from Captain Bill Doherty, refers to our – specifically my – coverage of the Boston Harbor situation and an ongoing effort to provide certification for so-called "docking masters." I won't steal Bill's thunder, but suffice it to say that he takes issue with my objectivity in the matter. Read on to say what he has to say and then read my comments, as well. You can also read my recent coverage of an allision in Boston Harbor that appeared in our article, entitled "Allision in Boston Harbor Reignites Docking Master Licensing Question" by clicking HERE. You can also see my response to Bill; an abbreviated summary of sorts of a telephone conversation we had earlier this week.
* * *
Joe:
There are times when "journalistic license" just goes too far. We have been opposite sides of this "Docking Master" issue from day one, but I have always respected your professionalism and understood that your magazine has the right to endorse any particular side of any issue.
What I don't appreciate is the reluctance on the part of any media outlet to get both sides of any issue or in this case "event".
My position on the license of Docking Pilots" in the Port of Boston goes back to my first hand experience regarding the lack of legal accountability which can arise from events such as groundings, collisions and allusion under the present "undefined" arrangement in the Port of Boston.
I gained firsthand experience of this situation when I was assigned the responsibility to deal with a 1991 grounding and subsequent release of several thousand gallons of gasoline, in the Weymouth Fore River section of the Port. That is the very same area where the "Cosasett" incident, the subject of your current article, occurred.
At that time, I was responsible for East Coast marine operations for a major US Oil Company. That company, and its parent, were and probably still are the single; largest imported of cargo into the port of Boston. I am sure you remember that since you were engaged in a "Consultant" service by that same company at the time.
In fact, and for the record, my efforts, in following up the circumstances regarding this grounding resulted in my being awarded an official commendation from the US Coast Guard First District Commander, Rear Admiral Joel Sipes, and the USCG Captain of the Port of Boston, William Boland.
These efforts led to accelerated Federal and local permitting for reconfiguration of the Weymouth Fore River Federal Channel, dredging of both Federal Channels and private berths in the area, new aids to navigation and the establishment of safer improved operating procedures to prevent future incidents.
During that period I made numerous transits in and out of the Fore River and Boston harbor. Quite often, I was accompanied, at my request, by senior USCG officers, as well as the US Congressman, who was then Chairperson on the US House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
The resultant improvements were regarded as "holistic" and far reaching. One of the key components was in the area of the synergistic cooperative efforts of both the State Licensed "Bar" pilots, and the equally professional and dedicated "Docking Pilots."
One of the recommendations at that time was to provide some State Licenses for docking masters in Boston Harbor. My rationale for that argument was not to provide employment security for the Docking Pilots, but rather, to provide a clear chain of accountability for the services which were and still are provided by these highly skilled and qualified Dock Masters.
One of the "proprietary" precautions, implemented by my company, at that time was to require any person serving as a "Docking Pilot" berthing or unberthing at any terminal owned by our firm, to hold a US Coast guard First Class Pilot's endorsement on their Merchant Marine license.
The towing company involved in the incident you refer to in your commentary, did in fact hold the prerequisite Pilot endorsement for the waters involved.
Joe, your magazine has every right to establish positions on either side of any issue. You also, however, have a responsibility to get "all" the facts. To date, you have not even attempted to interview any of the persons involved with this incident, employed by the tow boat company. The docking pilot at the time was a USCG licensed Pilot, and experienced tug boat Master. He was also a graduate of our Alma Mata, Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
I did interview the President of the Boston harbor Docking Pilots, Capt George Lee, and the Vice President of the tugboat company, Mr. Jonathan Wales, of Boston Towing and Transportation Co. and entity of the Reinauer Companies. They confirmed that the Docking Pilot had over twenty years experience as both a Docking Master and tug Master in Boston Harbor. They also reported that he had successfully attended several international approved ship handling training and simulator programs to attest to his competency.
In the particular case, there were several "extenuating" circumstances, including, but not limited to, the risk to life and safety of workers, afloat in the vicinity of the old Proctor and Gamble dock, compounded by a loss of propulsion of the ship involved, which could have presented a far more serious consequence to life and property than the "allisions" to the old Fore River Bridge structures.
As for you report of the tug "Liberty" not being "tethered", you must know that the horizontal clearance of the Fore River Bridge would prevent a tug from being tied up alongside, and good ship handling procedures for passage under that bridge, normally calls for the tug to either precede, of follow the ship through the bridge and then, if necessary, make up, after clearing the bridge, in order to allow the ship to be unhampered in its control in that leg. A tethered tug tends to impair the steering of a self propelled ship passing under a narrow bridge, even when clearances might allow a "shoehorn" fit.
If you continue to report these very "minor" allisions and incidents in which no damage was done to either the ship or other structures, when under the "conn" of Docking masters, you need to also include the more serious incidents, on record, in the Port of Boston, in which damage was done, when State Harbor Pilots acted as docking masters.
Joe, you and I go back a long time, and I respect your work. I also, however, feel that you must be more objective, in your coverage of this one particular issue. At the very least, you should provide interviews or rebuttals from the individuals on the other side, specifically the ownership, management and docking pilots of Boston Towing and Transportation Co.
Respectfully,
Captain William H. Doherty
Master Mariner and First Class Pilot
Centerville, MA
Editor's Note: (Captain) Doherty and I do go back a long way. I think – no, I know – that Bill has the best interests of the port of Boston as his motivation in writing to me. And, I respect his opinions and I'll concede that he is in a better position than I to determine who is qualified to be a docking pilot, harbor pilot and perhaps a few other maritime afloat positions. But, in this case, I won't apologize for my coverage and I stand by my editorial remarks. Here's why:
I regret that Bill feels that I have been less-than-fair. Nevertheless, and in this particular instance, I have reported exactly what is available. The Coast Guard released to me what they felt was prudent; I accept that and I reported as such. I did not publish the name of the individual, although I could have, even though the Coast Guard declined to release it. And, typically, the participants in this type of "incident" are reluctant to provide details. That only makes sense. But, Bill is right: I didn't contact the docking master. Of course, his name wasn't released, either. There's a pickle for you, I guess.
Docking Masters should be certified in Boston Harbor; I've said that more than once. There is currently a mechanism that exists to do just that. I believe the local authorities have laid out very clearly under what circumstances that could occur. I understand the so-called "docking masters" are unhappy with those parameters. I think I have all of that correct – someone let me know if I do not.
I think the local pilots should get a pay raise, too. But, I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. But, there are those in the fray that think otherwise. For myself, I dislike it when politics affect matters of safety. I've said that in print, as well.
Clearly, we do need some "accountability" in Boston Harbor. Bill Doherty, to his credit, recognized this more than a decade ago. For the record, I am available at any time to listen and then tell the story of anyone in Boston Harbor who has something relevant to say on the matter of docking masters, rates for pilotage, fairness or anything else. Also, if anyone would like to receive an e-copy of the five-part series I completed in 2006 on this issue, I'd be glad to forward it to them. I can be reached at jkeefe@maritime-executive.com. Standing by on both counts.
Link to newsletter archive
Would you like to share this article?
PressReleases 
Articles 
