A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE DECK OFFICER OF THE FUTURE

1. A good officer doesn’t just know what to do, but understands why things should be done in a certain way. This basic understanding of background and principles means that, when confronted with a new problem, the solution can be worked out, rather than inappropriate procedures being blindly followed. This is particularly important in e-navigation, where much of the data is collected and processed out of sight of the user. When errors occur, the user must be knowledgeable enough to detect and correct them, through understanding data sources, what the equipment is doing, and where things might go wrong.

2. Good basic education and high level academic skills usually give a person the ability to adapt quickly to change. Some regular and relatively unchanging jobs in the maritime industry are successfully filled by people who have to study hard to reach the required level of competence and then are happy to continue for years in the post they have achieved. However, the industry also needs people who can readily adapt to change. This ability is more usually found in people who have progressed to A-Level or degree level studies, where much of the curriculum is “learning to learn”.

3. In a research project at Liverpool Polytechnic, we had one experienced seafarer who was asked to try out a new computer-based radar system and use it in complex heavy-traffic areas. He mastered the radar, but did not plot his position while manoeuvring, and ran aground. Good deck officers need to manage their time as watchkeepers to ensure they are fully aware of the position, the traffic, the environment outside the ship and what is happening inside the ship and on deck. Some people have a natural ability to do this, most have to be trained to do it, and some finish up much better than others. It is difficult to test for this aptitude at entry to the profession. It is a management skill, which does not correlate directly with academic learning.

4. Some officers (and pilots) write brilliant accident reports.
 

• They are good academics, who have knowledge of theory and enough practical experience to explain exactly why things went wrong. They often have a lot of practice writing reports, because they have a lot of accidents. Why, then, did they not foresee that things might go wrong, forestall the accident and prevent it?
• Some excellent and very competent officers, masters and pilots carry out their job brilliantly, but cannot explain in detail how they do it.
• Again, academic ability does not correlate with practical skills. The answer is to have the former as college lecturers or marine superintendents and the latter as seafarers.

5. Good officers are, and will continue to be, those who are professional in their outlook and keep themselves up-to-date. It is a matter of attitude and pride in doing the job well. Those who are just “in it for the money” and have the wrong attitude, are a danger to themselves and other people. This is something that is difficult to use as a selection criterion, but membership of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and Nautical Institute are good pointers to those who regard it as a profession and not just a job.

6. There is an age gap at sea, just as there is ashore. In general older people find new technology difficult to cope with, and have a healthy scepticism for what computer screens tell them. Younger people take to new technology likes ducks to water and many have a dangerous habit of believing computers and not using their own eyes and common sense.

7. Old autocratic hierarchical systems of command are rightly out of favour. Teamwork, which requires good communications and self-confidence are the order of the day.

CONCLUSIONS

For future deck officers, selection criteria should be:

1. Attitude
2. Academic ability
3. Practical aptitudes and skills
4. Communication skills
5. Ability to work in a team
6. Management potential (including self-management).

We should select the right people for the right jobs.

Whilst interviewing with an Oil Major who spent three days selecting four candidates to sponsor on Liverpool Polytechnic’s BSc Course, I asked “Isn’t this a very expensive selection process?” The reply was “The cost is miniscule when weighed against the cost of selecting the wrong person and not realising it until they are well into the training or work program!”

Let us hope people take care to get it right in the future.