Crew Sizes

Ian b
29th November 2008, 21:27
With regard to the hi-jacking of the tanker Sirius Star. When I was on bulk carriers in 1963-6, we had crews of about 40-44, and that was considered low. Sirius Star has a crew of 25, can anyone give me a breakdown of this number.

Steve Woodward
30th November 2008, 01:40
I sailed on ship this size we had :
Master + 3 mates
Cheng + 3 Engineers
Bosun + 3 AB + 2 OS
3 oilers
1 cook + 1 assist steward

Total 19, so they have a few extras maybe 1 mate, 1/2 pumpman, cadets perhaps

Bill Davies
30th November 2008, 23:30
I sailed on ship this size we had :
Master + 3 mates
Cheng + 3 Engineers
Bosun + 3 AB + 2 OS
3 oilers
1 cook + 1 assist steward

Total 19, so they have a few extras maybe 1 mate, 1/2 pumpman, cadets perhaps

Thats about standard nowdays on VLCCs.
Heard they are down to 17 on latest VLOCs.

Ian b
1st December 2008, 21:54
Thanks for that. I was an assisant stwd, so I can only compare from that point of view. I take it that the engine room is all automated, it was two engineers and two greasers per shift in my time. Who would do the Chief Stwd's duties? We had a 2nd chef, he made the bread every day and also the desserts for every meal.
The Captain and Chief Engineer would be eating with the other officers? does everyone have to clean their own cabin now???
You would think that only 17 or 18 crew on a ship that size would be a security risk, wouldn't you?

Bill Davies
1st December 2008, 22:45
The worlds first ULCCs, the Bantry Class, carried a crew inxs of 50. My last ULCC (2003) carried a total of 22.

Frank P
1st December 2008, 23:48
I sailed on ship this size we had :
Master + 3 mates
Cheng + 3 Engineers
Bosun + 3 AB + 2 OS
3 oilers
1 cook + 1 assist steward

Total 19, so they have a few extras maybe 1 mate, 1/2 pumpman, cadets perhaps

Steve,

Did you not carry an electrician, if not, who did the electrical work?

Cheers Frank

Ron Stringer
2nd December 2008, 20:18
Did you not carry an electrician, if not, who did the electrical work?

Joe Shell had done away with electricians by the early 1960s. There, the 3rd Engineer was responsible for all the electrics.

Ian b
2nd December 2008, 23:37
There was an electrician on one that I can remember (he told me in 1963 that one day people would have television screens hanging on walls like pictures -as if), I don't remember any on other ships.

Lemschout
5th December 2008, 18:01
If the SIRIUS STAR was manned as per the Panama " Safe Manning", which is standard for a coaster or a VLCC (perhaps even ULCC), the deck staff would have been one master and two mates only!

Bill Davies
5th December 2008, 18:08
I would guard against assuming anything. The flag an owner flies does not necessarily dicate what he does onboard. Vela run a good operation.

Jim Brady
6th December 2008, 20:33
I sailed on the Cast Privilige (as a guest) year 2000.L'poolAntwerp,Montreal
L'pool.Full Croation crew. I was looking at the ships plans on the bridge,
she was an ex tanker. The catering department consisted of.
Chief Steward.
2nd Steward.
3 Asst. Stewards.
Pantry Boy.
Chief Cook.
2nd Cook & Baker.
Galley Boy.
Total 9. Presently when I was aboard 1 cook 1 steward.
The captain,mate and chief engineer were the only ones having their cabin
serviced.

Lemschout
7th December 2008, 14:09
Of course most managements put more people on board, but some take advantage of a low safe manning to bring down the ship's complement to that ridiculous number, most often on container vessels.

When I see such a creasy situation, I start to compare the working hours records with the log book and inevitably I find discrepancies, like mooring operations where one of the mates is absent.

Then I have some ground to put a defficiency against the flag state.
A FOC like Panama does not care much, until one day the ship will be involed in a bad incident. Then the court will have some stuff to work with.

It is also a fact that the catering department was often inflated in the past.
But this is also a matter for the flag state to fix with the Safe manning.

However many Safe manning certificates have no provision for a cook, pretexting that his function is not regulated by the STCW. The result is that on some coastal ships it is one STCW crewmember which must do the cooking.

And the early 90s, a ship of our company ran aground near Hosburgh light making $9m damage, while the captain was checking the provisions...


I would guard against assuming anything. The flag an owner flies does not necessarily dicate what he does onboard. Vela run a good operation.

Steve Woodward
7th December 2008, 16:35
Steve,

Did you not carry an electrician, if not, who did the electrical work?

Cheers Frank

Frank My appologies for not answering earlier,
Mosy electrical work was done by the engineering team but the company concerned employed an electician, when needed he travelled from ship to ship
Steve

McCloggie
7th December 2008, 17:46
Oh the wonders of working to the exact letter of the regulations and being perfectly legal!

It appears to me that the bean counters are at work yet again, trying to justify Capital costs against Operational costs and in the FPSO game, Contracts are written accordingly.

Our normal crew for a new North Sea FPSO will be 34, working a two-on three-off rota. While we strive to work to these targets, we all know that there will always be more people on board - vendors, visitors, maintenance crew, painters, scaffolders, inspectors etc. etc. The caterering/steward crew will change accordingly - Normally 4 but can/will increase.

I know this is not normal MN operations but I believe the principle will be the same. Some shuttle tanker contracts for example may require additional crew to those that may be normally carrried on a trading ship.

McC

Burned Toast
7th December 2008, 18:11
One Catering rating per ten crew the normal today.

chadburn
7th December 2008, 19:59
Interested to read that the "lightly" manned vessel that hit the lightship recently had one Watchkeeper in the messroom (on the orders of the Skipper who wanted him to work Day's) and the O.O.W. head down looking at a Computer screen in a rear facing area of the Bridge just before they hit and did substantial damage to the Lightship, fortunatly no lives were lost in the incident.

non descript
7th December 2008, 20:06
Interested to read ... vessel that hit the lightship ... and did substantial damage to the Lightship, fortunatly no lives were lost in the incident.

These lightships are a menace (EEK) sitting there with blinding light shining in the eyes of watch keepers and without engines, just lying there right in the path of the on-coming traffic. They really should be painted red and have a name on the side so decent law abiding folk can try and escape from their grasp. (Jester)

ROBERT HENDERSON
7th December 2008, 20:39
These lightships are a menace (EEK) sitting there with blinding light shining in the eyes of watch keepers and without engines, just lying there right in the path of the on-coming traffic. They really should be painted red and have a name on the side so decent law abiding folk can try and escape from their grasp. (Jester)

Quite right Kris,we have all fallen foul of the bloody thing sometime in our sea going days. Cannot tell with that blindinng light if they are showing navigation lights or if they are at anchor. (Smoke) (Smoke)

Regards Robert

Bill Davies
7th December 2008, 20:42
Quite right Kris,we have all fallen foul of the bloody thing sometime in our sea going days. Cannot tell with that blindinng light if they are showing navigation lights or if they are at anchor. (Smoke) (Smoke)

Regards Robert

Robert,
Not a spelling correction this time . Just a name !

Bill

ROBERT HENDERSON
7th December 2008, 20:52
Interested to read that the "lightly" manned vessel that hit the lightship recently had one Watchkeeper in the messroom (on the orders of the Skipper who wanted him to work Day's) and the O.O.W. head down looking at a Computer screen in a rear facing area of the Bridge just before they hit and did substantial damage to the Lightship, fortunatly no lives were lost in the incident.

Geordie Chief.
I am not surprised in the least regarding the above incident, the last ships of the Everard fleet I was master of carried six crew whereas a few years ago we would have carried ten or twelve. The modern complement was,

Master,Mate, Engineer, AB/COOK AND TWO DECKHANDS.

We had the deckhands on daywork which just left one watchkeeper on the bridge, with the chart table and navigation equipment facing aft. I am very surprised that there not more accidents. The MCA say we should have lookouts, the owners complain if the maintenance is not carried out, a lose lose situation.

Regards Robert

James_C
7th December 2008, 21:44
Robert,
What you describe is pretty much the de rigour situation on the coast, certainly with the various Coastal outfits I've spent time with.
On some ships the ABs would be on daywork, however they'd be 'available' for watchkeeping too, usually by spending the 'watch' in the TV Room or their cabin.
One those ships we had a crew of 8 - Master, C/O, 2/O, C/E, 2/E, Cook/AB and 2 x AB.
For example mooring was normally 1 AB and the Cook/AB up forward, and a Mate and Engineer down aft.
The MCA and every other flag state know exactly what's going on, its just they don't have the balls to get together and actually sort out the manning levels.

Bill Davies
8th December 2008, 20:05
All above,
I have always been mystified why people put up with conditions described above. I occasionally meet coastal Masters at NI gathering none of whom are happy with the situation but resigned that things will not improve.
I am well aware of MCA and Flag states connivance in all this which does make it all the more difficult. I was never happy when they took the 'Sparkie' off but that is a small inconvenience than having to stand a watch which is something I have not done since 05/70.

Bill

Pat Kennedy
8th December 2008, 20:17
Coastal manning wasn't much better in 1962. On the Firth Fisher, a fairly bog standard rock dodger, there were; Captain and Mate, two engineers, four ABs and a cook.
All except the cook worked four on four off.
It was hard money!
Pat

ROBERT HENDERSON
8th December 2008, 21:17
Coastal manning wasn't much better in 1962. On the Firth Fisher, a fairly bog standard rock dodger, there were; Captain and Mate, two engineers, four ABs and a cook.
All except the cook worked four on four off.
It was hard money!
Pat

I agree there were coaster with manning as Pat describes, mostly the voyages were shorter and the turn arounds were slower. The tonnage I was referring to used to carry Master 2 Mates 3 Engineers Sparks 5 on deck,Cook and Cabin boy or Steward, Everards bigger certainly did.

Regards Robert

James_C
8th December 2008, 21:19
As things stand, the ships are manned legally, however to run them practically requires them to be run in an illegal manner. So really you're caught between a rock and a hard place as to openly admit to the likes of the MCA the specifics of what goes on would leave the individuals concerned wide open to prosecution.
Of course the crew themselves could refuse to sail on such ships but they'd then find themselves 'on the beach' pretty damn quick and replaced with a Nationality which did not harbour the presumption to complain.
Legislation requiring suitable minimum manning levels has to come from the IMO, not Flag State, as a ratified and enforced resolution by the former is the only way to stop owners simply switching flags.
As for the likelihood of the above, well, I'll remain studying the heavens in the vain hope of a glimpse of the incredibly rare phenomenon that is bovine aviation...

Bill Davies
8th December 2008, 21:27
Legislation requiring suitable minimum manning levels has to come from the IMO, not Flag State, as a ratified and enforced resolution by the former is the only way to stop owners simply switching flags.
...

Agreed, but to have a more indepth analysis of this organisation would require a new tread. NI are currently contly considering NGO (Non Gorenmantal Org) status. Any takers?