Maritime Safety Paradox

It’s clear. Maritime organizations across the world are agreeing that both productivity and safety are on the rise (IMO) thanks to advances in technology (specifically communication and geolocation technologies). Picture a century ago (or 5) and it should be intuitive that our ships are moving faster, sinking less, and carrying more. The data agrees with this. And despite a few alarming outliers (more to come), maritime investors are enjoying steady returns with less risk. Ok. So... What? A recent study, by MIT and Harvard scientists, is confirming a suspicion many old salts are having about technology: Technology often reduces the intelligence of the user. In other words, there is a trade off between the productivity that technology brings and the wisdom that is earned through outdated modes of seamanship.

In his book More From Less and, in an easier format, an interview, the MIT scientist Andrew McAfee hits the lab with his buddies from Harvard to find out a few things about technology in free market societies (don’t worry – we are pro capitalism in these parts, and so is McAfee). While the book isn’t focused on the maritime (though there is a hilariously sad chapter on the damages of Socialist policy on the whale population in the age of Stalin) one can easily extrapolate and explore the overlap with the study’s findings and the modern maritime.

We’ve worked with mariners who seem to be out of their element when the power goes off. In most instances this is noticed with things like Facespace or Snapshat, though often it is also noticed with things like Radar, ECharts, and VHF radios. McAfee’s study shows that many technologies allow the user to bypass learning important processes that most “older” generations take for granted.  The best example he uses is of the Abacus. The Abacus is a rudimentary technology that helps the user accomplish mathematical equations, and along the way the user learns how to conceptualize the algorithms at play, thus becoming more aware and more productive at math. The cautionary tale comes into play when the calculator arrives. The calculator removes the algorithms from sight and returns an answer magically, thus robbing the learning-process from the user. This is why Japanese students continually kick our ass (NYT article) in STEM classes – they use the abacus where our grade-schoolers use iPhones. We can take this example and run with it! Word-processing technologies decrease our vocabulary (which ruins our ability to build elaborate and concise thoughts in writing – if you haven’t noticed). Google Maps robs our wives(husbands?) from learning how to get home from Costco.   Smart cars remove the need for us to kick our tires and dipstick our oil. Oh God! The list grows….

In the maritime, we have guys who’ve been in the pilot house for decades. They know the tides like the back of their hand (I need better analogies). They know their routes in the fog and darkness. They’ve toiled over these things with compass and chart – they’ve deep-learned them. But in the maritime we also have new guys/ladies who just bought a $150,000 yacht that makes 45knts SOG. We have ABs who stare into whatever-digital is in their palms instead of the high-strain on the line. We have licensed captains who mumble Red-Right-Returning and seem to go into a state of anguish as they strain to remember right-of-way rules, who don’t use “shall” sound signals.  We have a problem(?), maybe - I think.

This phenomenon could be blamed on a number of things: a) Employers encouraging “yes men,” b) most maritime training institutions openly state they teach “how to pass the test,” c) unions and job contracts allow for it, d) cheating-norms rising in our academies, or, perhaps, even e) internet access in REC testing rooms… But despite all these things, it’s not even clear if it matters. As mentioned earlier, success metrics are up. Coast Guard regulations, IMO regs, and internal self-management techniques (based on the all mighty dollar and the fear of scary fire) all seem to be working.

But I am alarmed. As we regulate more technology onto our vessels, we may be robbing our mariners of the motivation to learn the art of seamanship. Electronic chart plotters remove the ability to conceptualize our area of responsibility – an abacus is like a paper chart and an iPhone is like an electronic chart plotter. As our comfort level goes up with increasing feelings of safety, our desire to understand the tides, the stars, and the traffic patterns diminishes (check out Steven Landsburg's study on the paradox of safe seatbelts - more bicyclist get killed because of how we regulate vehicle safety!). A sense of safety blurs our field of view; as we fly through the waterways with VTS, AIS, digital E/R readings, and poorly tuned radars.

The barrier to entry for the maritime used to be street-smarts. No one would allow an expensive vessel or valuable cargo (dozens of passengers) to set sail without a wise seafarer aboard – someone who could recite Nav Rules, feel the pending weather, understand great circle sailing, have knowledge of past and modern tragedies at sea. Mariners who mistaked-big (I just made up that word-phrase and I’ll keep it despite my spell check) were expelled – now we name a joke after said mariner and pat them on the back. We’re actively creating a maritime industry operated by techies instead of seafarers; we’re at risk of losing the wisdom maritime theory was built on.  

In the intro I mentioned that safety statistics were up in the maritime. Though there are caveats and there are alarming outliers:  There are more collisions and causalities with recreational boaters, including where these boaters interfere with commercial traffic (USCG).  And, the casualties that do happen often create greater loss under avoidable conditions (think of the M/V Conception, the Ferry Kim Nirvana-B, RoRo Estonia, RoRo El Faro, Table Rock Lake Duck Boat). So what can be done?  Regulation is always a big "if." I appreciate that the Coast Guard moves slow on most technological advances (we have an eye on battery powered commercial vessels and fire fighting capabilities). I think the answer is from the employer. The minimum training, licensing and knowledge standards placed on employers by regulators like the USCG should NOT be the par. Organizations need to encourage personal and career growth of their mariners. Leadership underway needs to understand new technologies and how these things effect the industry, the organization, and individual employees (not just in terms of safety and skillsets). We need to keep paper charts in the wheelhouse and inspect them annually to ensure they have been updated appropriately (this goes back to building smarts, not just carrying a navigation tool). All mariners should be reminded of related maritime casualties – specifically in industries where new technologies have placed vessels in new territories: high speed, battery powered machine spaces, ginormous cargo ships[sic!], dense traffic areas, etc… And we (the maritime industry) needs to be better at displaying reckless behavior to the public – if a ferry captain hits a charted obstruction, injures his passengers and takes on mass amounts of water, and the Coast Guard allows this captain to continue his routes, and the employer excuses instead of apologizes, the media should publish to expose all the tragedy: the stupid and avoidable piloting error, the Coast Guard’s irresponsible response, and the employers inefficient regard for improved safety (look here ).

Update: We need to disclaim reports that suggest that maritime incidents are not falling. It appears that gCaptain has an article on this. Though we have to point out the obvious, if you replace our premise (maritime incidents are falling) with gCaptain’s premise (maritime incidents are not falling), then our conclusion is even more pressing. If technology is dumbing our mariners, we should be alarmed regardless of statistics on safety.