|
|
Post by kevins on Nov 11, 2009 15:38:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Nov 11, 2009 16:38:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Nov 11, 2009 17:41:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Nov 11, 2009 21:09:12 GMT -8
Nice job on the quizzes kevins! The first one was pretty challenging. I guessed on everyone but got 5. The second one was easier, I got 8. The last one I got 6. Looking forward to more.
|
|
Nick
Voyager 
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on Nov 11, 2009 22:14:00 GMT -8
Great job! Those are definitely the hardest quizzes we've ever had on here. I got 5, 6, and 7 on them. Looking forward to more!
|
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Nov 13, 2009 15:38:22 GMT -8
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 13, 2009 21:40:57 GMT -8
I got 67% on that one. The Chief Engineer question confused me... I was under the impression that there was one chief per shift, and one senior chief per vessel, indicating that the chief engineer was in charge of the engineering watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Nov 13, 2009 23:13:01 GMT -8
The Chief Engineer is responsible to the Master for the engnineering aspects of the vessel but they may or may not be looking after the actual watch keeping in the engine room.
Just as if the Master enters the wheelhouse that does not automatically mean they are taking over the con, they must formal relieve the person who is currently the Officer of the Watch, the same applies for the engine room. The Chief Engineer may be just passing through picking up a document and then returning to their office topside.
It must be clear to all who actually is in charge and going to respond, that is the reason for the formal watch handover.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 14, 2009 1:20:27 GMT -8
Ahhh, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying, Kevin.
|
|
