I have returned to the sea, for a three-week trip. On this occasion, I have signed on as Mate. That is second in command on this ship and entails a 12-hour night shift from 7 pm to 7 am. After the manic trip we had last time I was here, nights are a blessed relief. The noise-to-signal ratio is far more pleasant when the office workers ashore are asleep and unable to attempt to remotely micromanage your every move from the offing.
The idea is that the new skipper I trained up last trip will sail as Captain here and find his feet while I’m still on board and available to advise. If he does well, he’ll likely get his own command elsewhere, next trip.
However, my first act on board was one of assumed command. The client ‘requested’ we sail immediately, into the prospect of a seriously deteriorating forecast.
First, the client asked ‘what is your working limit’? By this, clients in the offshore wind sector are usually referring to a single factor, known as ‘Hs’ – Significant Wave Height. That is the average wave height of the highest one-third of the waves experienced.
Like most statistical distributions, the abstract academic concept is used and abused by ‘industry experts’, in order to manipulate people. In this case, the focus on a single factor like Hs by individual project managers is intended to minimise the appearance of the hazards presented by other combinatorial risk factors such as Maximum Wave Height; direction of Swell, the direction of Current; the combined vector of water flow; forecast confidence; and other operational limitations that present hazards like distance from a safe-haven or place of refuge.
Like a back-pedalling Sage scientist, or a retiring civil servant, the expert single-factor analysis defence is used by offshore managers as both a tool to pressurise certain behaviour (or ‘nudge’ in the psychotic-certainty of modern parlance) and as a CYA tool when everything goes wrong. ‘Not my fault Jimmy. It was within limits, when I told them to sail’.
The clients’ offshore manager, either through ignorance, single-factor analysis, or a deliberate attempt at manipulation by commercial pressure reassured us by saying ‘We are in the field, the current wave height is 1.6 m and decreasing’.
Our maximum working limit stated on our contract is a significant wave height of 1.5 m. However, the assertion by the offshore manager was not specified as being an estimate, an instantaneous measurement from a wave-rider buoy, or a trend over a given period of time. No maximum height was quoted, despite maximum height being a considerable hazard during ops. The forecast showed some chance of dropping to ‘within contracted limits’, but only by 10 cm to 1.4 m significant.
More important to us was the direction. Easterly. (Meaning, from the east travelling westbound). From an east coast port, with no natural shelter, this is the worst possible direction to deal with a heavy swell. Particularly in Montrose where the channel is only 50 m wide, with up to 8 knots of current experienced at some stages of the tide. Our maximum speed is only 14 knots. The visibility was also forecast to be poor, at around one mile, for several days. This is also nightmare fuel, from a safety point of view.
Those were the hazards. A chance of grounding on return to port in bad weather, or being unable to enter the harbour and being stuck out at sea when the weather worsened.
The alleged ‘weather window’, is forecast to be followed by a gale of north-easterly wind, with significant wave heights of 4 m and maximum wave heights of 6 m. Our ship is built to withstand a maximum wave height of 4 m, at which point we are legally required to ‘immediately seek shelter’, lest we capsize or founder.
Additionally, the forecast confidence (an assessment of the accuracy of the weather forecast), was only ‘moderate’.
Although technically we could likely sail at around 4 am and provide rescue cover protection for the client, for a forecast maximum of six or seven hours, We’d then be forced to insist to the client that we’d need to return to port before the weather worsens. Once contractors have been deployed on offshore wind turbines, it may not be possible to get them down in time.
I couldn’t commit to providing the protection they would expect, even if we did sail. Would I actually be helping those technicians by sailing? or encouraging unnecessary risk-taking?
Although not very likely, if the forecast were wrong even by a few hours, we could seriously face the prospect of being stuck out at sea. If the 6 m wave heights forecast were actually experienced, we could face a real risk of capsize and death by crushing, impact injuries or drowning. If we survived that and made it to the sea, we’d likely have ten minutes before hypothermia kicked in, as we’re in the North sea. It isn’t easy to don an immersion suit if you’ve just been turned upside down and thrust into darkness underwater.
As I said, an unlikely scenario, but a possible one.
Risk assessment involves assessing the likelihood of harm from a potential hazard occurring, multiplied by its potential severity of harm. Proper risk assessment involves technical knowledge, the experience of marginal or dangerous conditions, plus some imagination and judgement.
That is why captains exist. As much as autonomous shipping is gaining a foothold, for the moment, there is no substitute for having an experienced person standing on your ship. Ready to endure the fear and discomfort in person, and accept the consequences of the decision to sail, first-hand.
It has long been a custom of the sea, in traditionally seafaring nations, that a Master Mariner’s authority on his ship is total and final. And it has long been a custom that the captain should face the same fate as the ship, as the final responsibility of that authority. However, commercial pressure has always been a serious concern.
That is why in our current society, I was able to exercise the Master’s Over-riding Authority and I was able to refuse to sail on this occasion.
Of course, the way to do this as a responsible representative of the owners, and servant of the client, is to have your argument ready, your empirical facts in alignment, and your language courteous but firmly expressed – in writing.
In our society – post-modern, but with a memory of John Wesley & common law – that is enough in most cases to make the commercial pressure go away, and for reason to prevail. It is still recognised in our society that each human being has an equal right to exist and has sovereign authority over their own life. That means the inherent and equal authority to observe reality, make judgements, and give or deny consent.
The idea of individual sovereignty in the west comes from the philosophy in Genesis. That is why it is absent in other societies, and why the Roman Catholic church can be argued to be anti-Christian in its hierarchical form.
Shipping technology has advanced in recent decades to a point where almost all technical failures have been eliminated. With high-quality electronics now involved in every stage from ship design to navigation, shareholder investment analysis and the management of maintenance and repair, defects are not exactly a thing of the past, but they are a far reduced source of incidents resulting in insurance claims.
The majority of remaining claims, which have levelled off in the past ten years or so to an abominable ‘floor’, are deemed to be ‘Human Factor’ or ‘Human Error’ claims. Finding a way to break past this lower limit of incidents and eliminate human errors from shipping incidents is considered the next ‘holy grail’ of the marine insurance industry. A multi-billion dollar problem, begging to be solved.
In our secular, politically correct, and CCP-dependent age, this problem is unable to be discussed frankly in public. Where euphemism and censorship reign, progress cannot be made. Much talk revolves around improving ‘Safety Culture’, while at the same time any analysis or comparison of the ‘Culture’ of seafarers is prohibited.
In my experience, there is a strong cultural divide in seafarers’ mentality (with numerous obvious exceptions and caveats), between those raised in Authoritarian cultures, and those raised in post-Protestant cultures.
The example, observed by every seafarer paying attention to such things, is something I have encountered multiple times in both domestic and international waters. You encounter a ship that is presenting a risk of collision with you. By the rules of the road, the other ship is required to give way, and you are required to maintain your course and speed.
Time passes. Her bearing is steady, and her range is closing. The little red alerts on your radar and AIS that are normally an irritant, begin to draw your attention with legitimate concern. Your room to manoeuvre is reducing, and the other ship isn’t blinking or budging. How long do you wait in this stand-off?
Finally, you (reluctantly) call them on the radio – something I caution against, due to the pitfalls of confusion by VHF communication.
‘Vessel X, what is your intention’?
‘Station calling vessel X, I will maintain my course and speed’.
‘Vessel X, negative, you are the give way vessel. Please alter your course per the rules’.
‘Silence, or mumbling in a (frequently) Russian/Chinese accent’
‘Vessel X, please follow the rules, what is your intention’?
‘Silence’ – A very long and hard-felt silence, as her range closes dangerously with the risk of collision
[New foreign accent appears on the radio]
‘Station calling vessel X, this is the captain speaking. I maintain my course and speed’
At this point, the radio conversation either continues to the point where no action is taken, and collision ensues. Or, a less polite exchange of words takes place, along the lines of:
‘We are all Effing captains mate! That’s exactly who the rules are for! Now bloody follow them, and no! I won’t go Green-to-Green’!
Evasive manoeuvres can take place before or after the rant, depending on how badly you want to see the whites of the other fellow’s eyes. Personally, as soon as I hear the foreign accent now, I’ll do a 360° round turn, and keep a mile clear, rather than waste my energy explaining to an authoritarian person, that he has no authority over me.
No discussion is required when discussing the collision avoidance regulations. When you see someone disobeying them, their actions reveal more than their words. You can immediately tell that the other person at the helm cannot be trusted, by their behaviour.
Although I won’t be able to comment until the details are available, it is possible that a failure to correctly communicate or interpret the actions of the give-way vessel contributed to the collision that closed Gibraltar port for the past nine days.
Like much of the discussion regarding the energy crisis, and Liz Truss’s response, words are often wasted energy. Speculating whether the threat coming to you is by the malice of forethought, total incompetence, or philosophical difference is virtually irrelevant. All that matters is that you take avoiding action in good time.
The same holds true whether you are aiming to survive the predations of your government, the curse of mob rule, the caprices of your employer, or dealing with a dodgy client rep with a track history of lies and disregard for the safety of others.
Action is communication. The reason for someone else’s threatening action is irrelevant. If they are threatening you out of neglect, or intent, the threat is still equivalent. And you know it when you see it.
As soon as you see someone act in an untrustworthy way, you must take note of that, and never forget it. Particularly where the authoritarian element is at play.
There are two views on the authority that I exercised yesterday. One is that I wasn’t signed on as Captain, and I should have let the lesser experienced Master come to his own decision, and please the client if he so wished, by taking the risk and going out for 6 hours. Do the good old ‘Sail and fail’ to keep the customer happy. It wasn’t my place, and the customer is always right. I am out-ranked on this trip, and I should know my place. Authority comes from power, and cash is king.
The other is that authority comes from truth. And whatever your rank, the one who can detect the truth and the risk most clearly, and can articulate it, and defend it, is the highest authority at that moment. Like when a deckhand yells ‘Stop’! to the captain, if he sees the ship is about to crush or injure someone. At that moment, the lowest rank on board has sight of the danger and becomes the highest authority on board when taking action to prevent it.
Authorities do not exist. Authority is an impermanent state. Temporary, like all forms of beauty.
To grasp and hoard authority is the sinful folly of all of our attempts at licensing, price control, regulatory capture, cartels, dictatorships, bureaucrats, bullies and dysfunctional family tyrants. It is an illusory, slippery temptation that must be guarded against at the individual level.
Like saying ‘no’ to unwanted medical treatments, or to unwanted sexual advances or peer pressure to indulge in suicidal levels of alcohol abuse, the will to say no is an important life-saving muscle. One that must be exercised.
I don’t believe it is any coincidence that the majority of shipping incidents resulting in multiple fatalities and the total loss of ships occur in one geographical region – South East Asia. Particularly in the South China Sea.
I believe that human beings are governed in all they do, by their philosophical view. And that philosophies that elevate might over right, lead to incidents and death.
It was only in 2001, with the introduction of International Safety Management code, that the Masters’ over-riding authority to stand up to the commercial pressure of clients and shipping companies became international maritime law.
Culture takes longer to change than you might think.
Acting consistently within the rules is the first step. As my Muslim friends have said, acting pious can make you pious. Then, later, after practice, you might begin to understand the internal consistency or philosophy of the rules. Their ‘ethic’ if you prefer. In our case: ‘the non-aggression principle, ‘actions speak louder than words’, ‘empirical observation’, ‘consent’ and ‘consistency with convention/predictability’ govern the rules of conduct for ships at sea.
These rules evolved between the UK and the US and were refined in the age of the cross-Atlantic steam liners. They were not top-down constructs, but emergent codes of behaviour developed in explicitly religious, countries of Protestant legal philosophy.
Without the Genesis proposition that all human beings are derived from the same source, and have equal sovereignty and right to exist, where is the source code for the idea of equality before the law? And how can a voluntary code of conduct be developed, that applies to all people, on all ships, of all nations, in all waters, without a belief that everyone has an equal right to exist?
The laws of the sea are based on the laws of equality and reciprocity.
Such rules had to evolve, and could not come from any central law-giving authority. Institutions of authority, in our modern concept of statism, always seek to exempt themselves from rules and fund themselves by violating the consistency of those rules. They are all Platonic philosopher kings. As such, no tax or debt-funded, centralised legal authority can ever be fully trusted. Its actions are always self-contradicting.
Trust exists only between individuals. It cannot be regulated into or out of existence.
Only individuals with integrity are capable of trust. Only those who trust themselves, who pluck out their own eyes, can trust others.
Arbitrary behaviour communicates inconsistent internal morality and betrays untrustworthy people for all to see.
Our ability to judge others is contingent upon our ability to judge and control ourselves. That is the divine authority granted to all human beings. The ability to grasp moral consistency, or the lack thereof. It is the concept that allows any individual to cast judgement on the injustice or failings of public policy, or of ‘the Authorities’. It is the concept that allows us in the ‘west’ to criticise our governmental authorities. It is the concept that fuels all legitimate moral outrage at the interminable hypocrisy of our society.
Right is might. Every assertion to the contrary is an unholy attack on our freedom of conscience, and our right to exist. I can’t help but feel that things are so bad now, because people have not widely grasped that fact.
If you are a secular humanist who believes that human rights are self-evident and that scientific discovery is the natural human default, please explain to me why these ideas did not develop in any other philosophical tradition. Please explain to me why these ideas and stories are so trivial, untrue and idiotic, yet they are somehow still so threatening that they must be undermined or censored by every institution.
Divine Revelation
It has often been stated by the new atheists, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, that revelatory religions are extraordinarily cruel. The complaint by many is ‘why doesn’t God speak to me, but only to him’.
I think the opposite is true. Most cultures without the concept of revelation believe in fate, fixed authority, and the unchanging and brutal acceptance of cruelty. The grim acceptance of colosseum combat, slavery and death by the Greco-Roman Stoics. The acceptance of slavery and tribal warfare by all pagan tribes. The karmic prohibitions on charity. The love of infanticide, abortion, and the practice of Sati by transcendental reincarnation-pantheists. The restriction of authority by those who believe that there will be no more prophets. All of these beliefs are far crueller, and much more human than the revolutionary idea of revelation.
Prophets, realisation, codes, symbolism and deciphering of reality. These ideas gave birth to empiricism and the scientific method. Our return to secular material determinism is nothing new. It is pagan fatalism. The cause of our slide away from the scientific method to Scientism as expert-authoritarianism, rather than discourse.
The idea that anecdotal evidence is not evidence and can be censored by ‘authorities’ is anti-revelatory.
Only the anti-authoritarianism of the bible stands against the idea that there is a special category of Platonic knowledge. Only these ideas allow God (or truth or principle) to speak to any one of us, at any time. Only this philosophy breeds freedom.
The Magic of Equivalency
The other major criticism, as old as the hills, or the Jeffersonian bible, is that ‘don’t these idiots know, that magic isn’t real’?
Why were the Jews punished, scattered to the four corners of the earth and persecuted, for their failure to recognise that Jesus Christ is God? Why are Christians still the most violently persecuted group on earth, particularly in their traditional central Asian homelands, and West Africa?
What is so dangerous, about the insistence on the concept that a human being is God?
My favourite quote on this subject is from comedian Owen Benjamin who said ‘When Jesus said this bread is my body, and this wine is my blood, that dude was clearly saying that if you’re not into metaphors, this club isn’t for you’.
The God of Moses spoke from a burning bush. A bush that blazed brightly in flame, but did not consume the fuel, and did not turn to ash.
The God of Moses showed that he was a God of freedom. A God that defied human conceptions of him, by defying the most certain assumptions of materialist, fatalist human beings. For, what more could be certain to any ancient mind, that wood, when burned, turns to ash?
Defiance.
God represents the personification of the highest virtues, the highest principles, the judgement that they cast, and the unlimited power of reality to prove wrong the human mind.
Demonstrations of magic show us that we are not so smart as we think we are and that things exist outside of our knowledge or control. Only in this worldview, this way of viewing the world with humility is change or discovery possible as a concept.
The Trinity. Communion. A personified God. God as a living human being, instead of an ancestor. Virtue as the father of all, and that casts judgement on all. The sacrifice of Christ, for the sin of others. Being made in his image.
Viewed either as literal truth, or a clever metaphorical truth – codified so its anti-authoritarian message might survive societal suppression – the message is the same.
The idea of equivalency is central to the Christian worldview. Understanding this idea helps us understand the world we live in today.
Why have so many people turned to Christianity, during the time of Covid lockdowns? Why are so many Christians exploring ‘Conspiracy Theories’ to explain the financial and legal ‘reset’ that is being forced upon us? Why are churches being corrupted and attacked as the State turns, at the very least, the other cheek?
Christian philosophy recognises the concept of equivalency.
Our rulers may not be possessed by actual demons, but they seem to act as if they are.
Upon hearing the news that Liz Truss will be borrowing £100 + Bn to enact energy price controls, and Queen Nicola will be enacting rent control, the instant comment from one of our sailors was ‘Great, so we’ll still get humped, but now we get to pay for it for 100 years’.
You might not believe in God, but you certainly believe in reality. Try to see the equivalency between the two. Therein lies the path to holy scepticism, and true anti-authoritarianism.
PS
The other ships who sailed, as requested by the client, have just come limping back into port with their ‘tales’ of heroism and sacrifice, between their legs.
They’ve chosen to perform the old ‘Sail and Fail’ method of persuasion today. I’m glad we didn’t.
There are many forms of courage. Hold fast; navigate by fixed objects; and steer by a higher star.
Thanks for reading Captain Yankee Jock! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Thank you for reading Captain Yankee Jock. This post is public so feel free to share it.