If you get a chance, read Dynasties of the Sea: The Shipowners and Financiers Who Expanded the Era of Free Trade by Lori Ann LaRocco.  I began Dynasties of the Sea with great anticipation mainly because I had just finished The Shipping Man by Matthew McCleery. McCleery writes the introduction to Dynasties and I wanted a look inside to see if I could figure out which shipping magnate The Shipping Man was loosely based upon. It was pretty easy to figure out. After you read both books submit a comment below and let me know who you think it is.

As a lover of ships and shipping, Dynasties was an enlightening read for me. One by one the book introduces the reader to the greatest current leaders in shipping from around the world. Many of them are individuals and some are families. It is remarkable how disparate the owners’ philosophies are related to the maritime industry and the world economy in general. I expected a homogenous take on the direction of shipping and the economy but there is no consistent message except that to be successful in shipping you have to live it, work hard, and have a lot of luck.  As different as each of the leaders is, they all are incredibly successful in the same sector.  It just goes to show how unique shipping is as an industry.

If you enjoy either business or the maritime industry this book is a must read. Nowhere else can you get an insider’s view on the varied perspectives of the owners, investors, and operators of various shipping companies from around the world. It is a very entertaining way to get a Master’s primer on maritime.

I love ships and the maritime industry so Dynasties of the Sea was a pleasure to read. But I think anyone with an interest in global economics or business in general would enjoy the leadership lessons it contains.  Dynasties should be an addition to your bookshelf or Kindle library. I hope Ms. LaRocco is already working on Dynasties II.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

Richmond, a Democrat who represents Louisiana’s 2nd District, and Grimm, a Republican who represents New York’s 11th District, say the primary purpose of the new Maritime Caucus will be to help educate members of Congress about a broad range of maritime-related topics. “The maritime industry is the unsung hero of our nation’s economy,” Richmond says.

“The operation of U.S.-flag vessels with American crews strengthens the domestic economy,” says Don Marcus, President of the International Organization of Masters, Mates, & Pilots. “It keeps thousands of Americans employed, generates tax revenues for our government and contributes to our nation’s economic recovery.”

“Without a strong peacetime U.S.-flag merchant marine, America’s troops overseas will not have the American vessels and American crews necessary to deliver the supplies they need to protect the interests of our country,” Marcus says. “The men and women of the U.S. merchant marine are on the front lines every day. The Congressional Maritime Caucus will help increase awareness of the essential job they do.”

The Congressional Maritime Caucus is a new concept and one that is welcomed by the American maritime industry as a whole.  Increasing maritime awareness in Congress will go far in maintaining and growing the American fleet of merchant ships.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

The maritime industry is much the same now as it was 100 years ago and there is probably nothing much changing any time soon.  When you get right to it, a ship still moves through the water using a propeller that is attached to a shaft that turns because of the combustion engine it is connected to.  Financial matters are perhaps more sophisticated than they were a century ago.  But ultimately one party pays another to carry their goods on a ship, with everyone in between taking their respective commissions.

Arguably the greatest recent innovation was containerization, making the transport of goods more efficient.  Prior to that perhaps it was mechanical propulsion.  We are an industry that changes gradually and obstinately.  As an example, at present the International Maritime Organization is entertaining a debate over the navigation of ocean vessels using coastal vessel traffic services, much in the way airliners operate.  In this case, the slow pace of change is a great benefit.  As a ship captain I would have a difficult time surrendering my decision-making capability to someone in a cubicle stationed on the coast of Tanzania.  There are a host of legal implications to consider should an accident occur.  And I am not alone in these concerns.  This is why shipping innovation moves so slowly.  Changes affect many nations and since the maritime market is a mature one it is difficult to change the momentum of the status quo.

The Silicon Valley guy wanted to know why ships do not use sails or some more energy efficient form of propulsion.  I explained that while ship engines have become more efficient and are adopting new, more refined fuel types, the basic concept remains the same because it works.  We are beginning to see alternative propulsion methods but nothing has been yet proven effective enough to be adopted full scale.

The latest dream is liquefied natural gas (LNG). Orders are currently being placed all over the world for LNG tankers and ships that operate propulsion using LNG.  It is the cleaner, cheaper fuel of the future.  There appears to be an LNG boom developing in the United States and all over the world companies are striving to be part of it.  It will be interesting to see what lasting changes and improvements come to shipping because of it.

Innovation in the maritime industry is slow.  At the end of the day shipping will remain the same as it has been; giant hunks of steel owned by the wealthiest families on earth plying the oceans carrying boxes full of the goods that people need.  Freight rates rise and fall.  Shipping companies come and go.  But little changes.  And when iPhones and Facebook are relegated to the history books ships will still be out there running, propellers turning, carrying goods from place to place. So far there is no app for that.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

For any military branch looking to improve its funding chances, the maritime sector can provide a synergistic relationship that justifies appropriations in peace and war.  Maritime, you see, is a critical partner in the national defense of the country.  How else do the tanks, helicopters, and bombs get overseas?  And when the military needs that cargo shipped, the vessels must be ready and willing to carry the cargo.  And they are.

The problem is that the number of U.S. flag merchant cargo vessels continues to dwindle.  At the rate the industry is going, eventually the only option our military will have for transporting its critical cargo will be ships that fly the flags of nations that may not have the best interest of the United States in mind.  As a nation we need to grow our fleet of merchant vessels.

The Navy in particular could benefit from a larger fleet of American ships.  As American cargo ships travel this increasingly hostile globe, they will require protection.  Who better to protect American ships than the American Navy?  As my Sea Power 101 instructor told us, this is the reason Navies were created in the first place.  I can already see congressional budget line items for the Navy growing in size as the US merchant fleet grows, whether in peace time or war.

If DOD and the Navy leadership can join the maritime industry in convincing our legislators of the critical need for a growing US merchant fleet of ships, they will go a long way to ensuring continued funding for all of their programs even in the most challenging budgetary periods.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

Flag registries ensure vessels operating under their country’s flag comply with current international regulations ranging from size of crew complement to the size and number of fire hoses required on deck as well as everything in between.  A flag like the United States is a registry that actually has its government overseeing regulatory compliance.  In the U.S. this task is managed by the U.S. Coast Guard, the same body that is publicly admonishing the U.S. flag fleet.  Under a “Flag of Convenience” registry like the Republic of the Marshall Islands, for example, there are a few people in cubicles in Virginia performing the same work that the Coast Guard does for the United States.  Where the United States has a vested national interest in proper regulatory compliance of its fleet, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has very little, if any, direct involvement in the regulatory process.  The Marshall Islands flag registry is merely a business.

The Marshall Islands, for the sake of continuing the illustration, has an interest in ensuring the vessels flying its flag comply with regulations because it reflects well on the registry, which in turn means more ships that want to fly that flag, which generates more revenue.  As a result, the regulations tend to be simple so that compliance is easy.  Development of the regulations occurs quickly.  On the other hand, the United States regulatory process is cumbersome and complicated.  The unfortunate outcome is that compliance becomes difficult.

Enter the Paris MOU rankings.  Think of them this way.  The white list means your vessels operate efficiently and safely.  The conditions on board are satisfactory and your vessels are structurally sound.  The black list means your ships are rusty clunkers with rag-tag crews that can barely cross an ocean.   The gray list is somewhere in between.  Somehow the United States went from the white list to the gray list and now joins the company of countries such as Egypt, Belize, and Kazakhstan.  While it is hard to believe Kazakhstan even has ships it is more difficult to acknowledge that our great nation is lumped in with these other mediocre flags.  It is a black eye on the United States to be sure but when we dig deeper we see that perhaps the ranking is not indicative of the true performance of the U.S. flag commercial fleet.

Of 174 U.S. flag vessels inspected by port state control regimes, seven were detained.  Of the seven detained only one was a legitimate deep sea commercial vessel manned with a union crew.  And this one vessel, the APL Agate, was detained because the engine room was not clean and a security certificate had not been properly filed.  To be fair, this vessel had only recently transferred over to the U.S. flag from foreign operation.  The crew was still trying to bring the vessel up to U.S. standards and into compliance.  Here are the other six vessels:

MARIA BRUSCO – a tug detained in Canada for the certificates of master and officers “not as required.”  Given the U.S. Coast Guard approach to standards for tugs, this detention comes as no surprise.

BRENDAN J. BOUCHARD – another tug detained in Canada for certificates of master and officers “not as required.”

HOS SHOOTING STAR – an offshore supply vessel detained in Spain for International Safety Management not as required and missing a garbage management plan.

LORELEI – a vessel listed as “special activities” of only 99 gross tons detained in Italy for a laundry list of violations.  One has to wonder if this vessel really was a commercial SOLAS vessel that should affect U.S. flag white list status.

RYAN T – an offshore supply vessel detained in Spain for certificates of masters and officers invalid; crew certificates not endorsed by flag state.

TRANSATLANTIC – a general cargo ship detained for not having a Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage Certificate.  This ship is a low bidder for government cargo and operates with non-union crew.  This vessel is notorious throughout the industry for subpar compliance.  She is not typical of U.S. vessels in the commercial trade particularly because she does not use the more highly trained union mariners as crew.

It is easy to see that the Coast Guard remonstration of the U.S. flag industry is off the mark.  To assume the entire registry is in decline because of violations of a few subpar flag participants that are atypical of the broader commercial fleet is incorrect.  To publicly state as much is disingenuous and irresponsible.  Furthermore, the Coast Guard approach to regulation makes compliance with international rules extremely difficult.  To wit, the industry is still waiting for Coast Guard guidance on the new STCW work/rest hour requirements that came into effect January first of this year.

Let’s be clear; there is no gray area here.  U.S. flag commercial vessels with union crews continue to operate at the highest standards and set the mark for the international maritime community.  This has not changed simply because a few tug boats and small supply vessels were too complacent to maintain required paperwork and adhere to generally accepted standards.  To believe anything otherwise would be obscene.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

For the uninitiated to celestial navigation or maritime, this location and these timepieces are essential aspects of maritime history and, in turn, the history of the world.  It was not so long ago, as recently as the early parts of the 17th century that time could not be kept at sea.  Chronometer technology today is ubiquitous but it was not always that way.

The problem of keeping time was paramount because it is a necessary piece of celestial navigation calculations, allowing mariners to determine their position at sea.  Without it, sailors could not know for sure where in the ocean they were.  As a result, many ships were lost and investment in ocean voyages was limited because their outcomes were unpredictable.  World trade could not grow.

It is easy to determine latitude by using the sun but knowing longitude is dependent on knowing hours and minutes.  For every 15° that one travels eastward, the local time moves one hour ahead.  Similarly, travelling West, the local time moves back one hour for every 15° of longitude.  Therefore, if we know the local times on two points on Earth, we can use the difference between them to calculate how far apart those places are in longitude.

Sailors in the 17th century could determine the local time of their location by observing the sun but they also needed to know the time at a reference point, such as Greenwich, in order to calculate their longitude.  This required an accurate timepiece that could be carried aboard ship.  Although clocks existed in that day, building one that remained immune to the motions and effects of the sea and kept accurate time was an elusive challenge.

Enter John Harrison.  Harrison was a carpenter by trade and began building longcase clocks from wood with wooden mechanisms.  Over time his clock designs moved through numerous evolutions as he improved each subsequent design.  The challenges he overcame included building mechanical pieces immune to gravity, moisture, or temperature change.  His designs truly were original and revolutionized sea-going time keeping.  As a result of his work Harrison won the longitude prize, issued by the Board of Longitude, a body formed to promote finding a solution to the problem.  The secondary result was that navigation and world trade were changed forever.

A photo of Harrison’s H1, the first version of his marine chronometer, can be seen above.  The H4, which could be produced on a mass scale, is below.  There is much more to the story, which you can find in Dava Sobel’s best-selling work, Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time.  I recommend it to anyone with a penchant for history, the sea, or the inner workings of clocks.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

It seems someone is always positing absurd Jones Act theories.  Remember the Macondo well blowout?  You may know it as the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico where hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil were released as the result of an oil well failure.  Almost immediately after the accident Senator McCain appeared on all the major news networks claiming the Jones Act was responsible for hindering cleanup efforts.  The statement was so patently false that as McCain repeated it on what seemed to be an endless loop, the entire maritime industry stood, mouths agape in wonderment, figuring the old guy had finally lost his marbles.  One wonders if McCain or his staffers have ever read the law.

Known formally as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Jones Act ensures that goods transported between U.S. ports are carried aboard U.S. flag merchant vessels.  The legislation is critical to maintaining the American flag fleet of merchant ships.  This is a good thing from a national security standpoint because it means the U.S. government will have a ready supply of tonnage available for transporting military cargo when the need arises.  Numerous instances have occurred where the U.S. government paid foreign-registered vessels to transport militarily necessary cargo to war theaters and the vessels refused to enter the destination port at the most critical moments, whether out of fear or because of conflicting national interest.  Having that same cargo carried aboard U.S. flag merchant vessels manned by American crews guarantees that such a mission failure will never occur.

Why is it important the Jones Act be sustained?  American crews cannot be trained and assembled overnight.  Training, particularly for licensed officers in the U.S., is becoming increasingly onerous.  An officer typically attends a four-year university, earning a Bachelor degree while also satisfying the requirements of the USCG licensing regime.  After graduation the officer must regularly sail aboard vessels to enhance the skills learned in school and advance license grade.

And ships cannot be constructed in a day.  Another section of the Jones Act requires that U.S. flag vessels used in U.S. trade be constructed in U.S. shipyards.   Canada has a similar law on the books that is very effective.  While Canadian legislators embrace the law, American Jones Act opponents complain about labor costs related to new ship construction.  Studies do in fact show that ship construction in the U.S. is more expensive than, say, China, where slave labor is employed.  As a nation we ought to relish our commitment to a shipbuilding industry that creates jobs and maintains the skilled workforce necessary to fabricate large vessels.  The Jones Act opponents who say that U.S. flag ships should not be built in America are too quick to sell out American innovation and ingenuity.  It is appalling that any American legislator would support this position.

Ship construction is a trade that requires particular knowledge and experience.  So long as ships are being built in U.S. yards, we are assured that the U.S. still maintains the knowledge base to continue this activity.  Stop building ships in the U.S. and in less than ten years all the skilled individuals who know the secrets of ship construction will be gone from the industry.  Retraining this skilled workforce will cost multiples more than any expense associated with sustaining the Jones Act.

Beyond the obvious technical benefits of the Jones Act, there is a more subtle outcome frequently overlooked.  At the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, U.K., the United States holds a seat as a member state.  This seat ensures U.S. influence in the development of international policy.  As the U.S. delegation weighs in on maritime matters at IMO today, its opinion holds sway in no small part due to strong U.S. participation in maritime industry in the form of vessel operation and shipbuiliding.  The U.S. has consistently been known to have the best trained mariners in the world.  To eliminate or weaken the Jones Act would mean the supply of qualified American mariners would diminish, thereby diminishing the perception of the U.S. in the maritime realm and, as a result, its influence on global maritime policy.  It would be difficult for the IMO or any of its member states to take the recommendations of the U.S. seriously.  As part of an international body that governs by consensus, it is vital that the U.S. maintain an influential role lest our national interests be circumvented.

Jones Act opponents like Senator McCain should give serious thought to the ideas they propose in legislation and media.  The harm inflicted on the U.S. maritime workforce and the U.S. reputation within the global maritime community, were the Jones Act repealed, would be irreparable.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

The general consensus among participants indicated that shipping on the Great Lakes is stable with much room available to grow.  Tonnages continue to improve since the 2008 economic crisis, with a notable increase in the commodities utilized in steel production.  Of major concern, however, are the lack of infrastructure improvements, in particular harbor and waterway dredging.  Data presented by US Army Corps of Engineers official Mike O’brien indicated the Great Lakes and their connecting river systems are on a crisis path.  Normal silting of the harbors and waterways must be regularly dredged in order to maintain efficient shipping, however Congress refuses to allocate the required monies to support these projects.  This diminished dredging schedule causes rivers and harbors to lose depth, which results in reduced tonnages by vessels.  This in turn reduces, and in some cases eliminates altogether, the amount of cargo vessels can carry to particular ports, affecting business and ports throughout the Great Lakes.  At a time when the American economy is struggling to regain momentum, this hindrance to commerce cannot be afforded.

A measure now before Congress, H.R. 1533, can eliminate the dredging crisis and ensure free flow of commerce on the Great Lakes well into the future if enacted.  The bill allows for the release of funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the purpose they were intended, harbor maintenance and dredging.  Congressman Steve LaTourette (R-OH) explained to conference attendees that the funds in the trust account are being held hostage by Congress so that the dollar amount can be used as a balance sheet offset to make the budget deficit appear less than it is.  While many congressional members agree that these funds should be released for their intended purpose and have signed on in support of the bill, accomplishing anything in the current polarized political environment is nearly impossible.  Congressman LaTourette is hopeful that sentiment may change following the upcoming presidential election, allowing for progress to be made.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

Have you ever performed a task so many times and so regularly that it becomes automatic?  I know I have.  Running a cruise ship is sort of like that.  You know which ports you will be at and when.  The passengers come aboard, you hit your ports like clockwork, eat some nice meals, and the passengers disembark.  To the average person the job would appear to be exciting.  Every night is lavish dinners and dancing, beautiful seascapes and destinations.   But to the officers and crew on board it is just business as usual, over and over again until the two or three month hitch is over.  Tuesdays are prime rib night and the next morning at 0636 you know you are embarking the pilot at the sea buoy to enter Port A.  Then depart by 2300 for Port B.  You know meatloaf is on the dinner menu tomorrow night.  Perhaps you share a meal and conversation with some passengers at the Captain’s table.  Like anything, this routine can become mundane even for a vessel captain.  Imagine doing these same things and seeing the same sights on a very regular schedule every week for fifteen years.   It would be a challenge to not become bored and complacent.

So it is not a stretch to imagine the officers aboard the Costa Concordia became complacent and in turn tried to invigorate the schedule with a little excitement.  How would you make things interesting if you were bored with the run on that ship?  Maybe have dinner and drinks with a pretty girl?  Perhaps take a route closer to the coastline so you could do a little terrestrial navigation while on watch?  Maybe there is nothing you could do except wait to get off the ship.  If this were the case your mind would wander and you would likely stop paying attention to critical information and warnings from the navigation equipment.  You might even be playing on your cell phone as reception improved the closer the ship came to shore.

Things like this occur on ships around the world every day.  On a ship like the Costa Concordia the automated navigation equipment is so sophisticated that one can easily rely on it to a fault.  It is the officers disciplined enough to remain vigilant and who are properly trained to understand the electronics are unreliable who significantly diminish the risks to their vessels, crews, cargo, and passengers.

The officers aboard the Costa Concordia were bored.  They were probably over confident.  They were likely over reliant on the technology.  Quite simply, they got complacent.  And when they least expected it the worst imaginable thing occurred.  

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com

The question arises because a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) marine investigator shared recently that mariners increasingly reference fatigue as a causing factor during marine incident investigations.  The inspector somewhat callously expressed to me that the concept of fatigue has become so engrained in maritime culture that mariners now automatically cite it whenever an incident occurs.  This idea is troublesome on a number of levels.

First of all, NTSB investigators should be impartial.  In order for an investigator to effectively gather evidence, deduce facts, and form conclusions, that investigator’s perceptions must be free from preconceptions.  When an investigator assumes during questioning that the seafarer is fabricating, the investigation is inherently tainted.  It is a bias that will no doubt factor into the final report whether the investigator realizes or not.

Second, the concept of fatigue has become somewhat of a cliché to these officials because it actually is a problem.  Clichés become clichés for a reason after all.  Of course the investigators are always going to hear fatigue is a contributing factor because fatigue is always a contributing factor.

Consider that the average commercial cargo vessel is operated leaner than ever with schedules more demanding than ever.  On a typical thirty-five day trans-Atlantic roundtrip, a ship will visit 10 different ports.  These visits include piloting in and out of harbors; docking and undocking; cargo operations; interacting with shore officials, vendors, and company officials; maintaining vessel paperwork; conducting safety and security checks and drills; conducting crew training; changing crew; performing vessel maintenance; loading supplies; discharging waste; fueling.  All this is handled by a crew of 18 to 23.  And this list is by no means exhaustive.  Port stays are shorter than ever, which means a typical rest period for crew members no longer exists.

Comprehensive research conducted on fatigue in 2006 revealed the following:
•    One in four seafarers said they had fallen asleep while on watch
•    Almost 50% of seafarers taking part in the study reported working weeks of 85 hours or more
•    Around half said their working hours had increased over the past 10 years, despite new regulations intended to combat fatigue
•    Almost 50% of seafarers surveyed considered their working hours presented a danger to their personal safety
•    Some 37% said their working hours sometimes posed a danger to the safe operations of their ship

Accounting for this one can only conclude that of course seafarers are fatigued!  Rather than discounting mariner testimony out of hand, investigators would do well to look further into the why of fatigue.  Why are mariners consistently reporting being short on rest? Why is nothing done to improve the problem?  Why are incidents involving simple human error still prevalent?  Then apply common sense solutions, such as adding one junior officer to the crew complement, and this very real epidemic will diminish significantly.  The long term savings from injury and accident prevention will more than offset any increased personnel expense.

Author information

admin

Klaus@KlausLuhta.com

TwitterGoogle+LinkedIn

copyright KlausLuhta.com