Automation, STCW and electronics officers
The idea of the automated process is to reduce operators - something convenient in this age of crew reductions and saving costs - assisting with physical and mental requirements of the work.
"The new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets and clock and wires, it has been told to me, can call voices out of the air of the waters to con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep thou lightly. It has not yet been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea."
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
A quotation that is still valid today - where the sea still has not ceased to be the sea and that despite automation and technology we have not reached a balance on human and machine intervention.
The idea of the automated process is to reduce operators - something convenient in this age of crew reductions and saving costs - assisting with physical and mental requirements of the work.
But we have to be careful: no instrument exists yet that will replace the officer of the watch in his duties despite the advancement in this field; and, what is more important is that not all automated processes are reliable with so many 'bells and trumpets and clock and wires' and sensors and data sensitive variables to control and monitor.
One of the problems faced onboard with automation, relates not to when the whole process is working correctly, but when due to incorrect information or calibration or failure, the results become unreliable and the automation process is in need of stopping - overloading other crew who need to complete the tasks manually - and then to be fixed by qualified engineers and electronics officers.
Yet, while the engineers are covered by the requirements of the STCW Code, electronics officers seem to have been overlooked. Such is the importance today of automation that many ship manage- ment companies and owners have started to check the possibility of getting electronics officers, with watchkeeping licenses, who are able to cover Safe Manning Certificate requirements, while others have opted to have one roving 'Electronics Officer' to travel from ship to ship, to solve problems, calibrate sensors, and replace parts, in an effort to avoid - or to reduce to a minimum - the need for an expensive third party shore technician.
Based on this importance we need to find ways to better cope with automation and its equipment when it fails, and to have the correct resources available to make it work as soon as possible - such as adding the electronics officer to the Safe Manning Certificate, establishing competences within the STCW Code etc.
Otherwise, automation just for the sake of saving costs is an accident waiting to happen...