Mission Objectives For The First Twelve Months

[thomas]

Gents,
I have started this new thread with a view of gauging what ROV people think our most important objectives are for the first twelve months of our existence.

Remember when posting that miracles take a little longer.

I and others will gauge the objectives based on what you want to happen and then formulate our twelve month plan.

[Scott Beveridge]

Gents,
I have started this new thread with a view of guaging what ROV people think our most important objectives are for the first twelve months of our existance.

Remember when posting that miracles take a little longer.

I and others will guage the objectives based on what you want to happen and then formulate our twelve month plan.

Once again folks, if you think you’re satisfied with your WHOLE lot – just sit by, otherwise join a thread and chat, throw around some ideas to improve the industry the way you think would seem fit for all involved.

[James McLauchlan]

Firstly I suggest people not dive right in there and start harking on about day rates and how IROVA should get them sorted, which I suspect some might wish to. You’d be flogging a dead horse. Remember, we are talking ‘International’ here so a fledgling International ROV Association will have no influence on International rates in early years and possibly not in later years.
To me it would therefore appear to be a pointless exercise to expect the IROVA to use it’s currently limited valuable resource on that subject at this juncture.
However, there are more subtle ways to work towards preventing exploitation of personnel on various issues and these are within the remit of an association.

In the interim I’ll throw three objectives onto the pot.

• 1) Develop a constructive and workable grading structure for ROV personnel.
• 2) ROV personnel training guidelines/standards should be produced by IROVA.
• 3) Guidelines covering minimum safe crewing levels for various class of systems during 12 or 24hr ops should also be published.

Grading structure for ROV personnel.
The current ‘guidelines’ issued by the IMCA appear to suit short term contracting company needs with little thought having been given to the needs of those operatives who are working in our industry as a long term career, namely…. the people at the sharp end offshore.

I am aware that many feel that it is not acceptable for a person, having never been offshore in their life, to turn up on a job as a ‘Pilot Tech’ of any grade! Safety considerations aside, operationally it’s not fair on the so called PTII who will clearly be inexperienced, nor is it fair on the team or the client who would be paying for a qualified tech!!

To help overcome this there should be an additional ‘clearly stated’ ‘Trainee’ grade offshore.

I would suggest the trainee should be fielded in addition to the minimum recommended crew to operate any given system. Who bears the cost of that is not for the IROVA to suggest.

ROV Training guidelines should be produced.
Yes, I am aware that another association has already produced such guidelines but it’s clearly obvious that as an International ROV association IROVA should produce it’s own and not rely on other associations to do so.
It would be of no matter if they are similar, in some respects, to the guidelines currently produced (for example) by the IMCA as the basic ‘current’ structure is palatable however, they do need tweaking to better suit ROV operatives needs, from an operational point of view, and not just the requirements of contracting companies.
Assuming that IROVA establishes itself globally, on the subject of ROV’s, I would expect ROV related guidelines produced by the IROVA to take precedence over those issued by any other Association. Purely because the ROV Association, by it’s subject specific nature, will be better qualified to issue guidance on ROV matters. That’s some way off yet.

Minimum Crewing Levels
The current grading structure, suggested by another association, potentially allows for a weak team and too much pressure to be heaped on the ROV Sup with not enough of the load is spread across the team due to inexperienced personnel being sent offshore as ,so called, ‘qualified’ PT’s.

For example: On a work class system it is generally accepted that a team should consist of a minimum of three experienced crew, namely an ROV Sup and two other qualified experienced techs. Yet, the currently system allows for one of the team members to be a PTII which means that the system is in fact being operated by two experienced personnel and a trainee (disguised as a PTII).

In summary:

IROVA ROV training and grading guidelines should be issued to include a Trainee grade. A Trainee should be fielded in addition to that as laid out in the IROVA minimum crewing level guidelines.

[Scott Beveridge]

James,

I agree with your well put post above in its entirety.

Most people will in fact, be looking for the "shop steward" to put pressure on management first and foremost. It would be nice of course, but this is not the aim…

One can read many different posts on this site criticizing ROV schools and that are clearly in it for the dosh only. Grading, using a "specific" ROV assessment system would benefit us all in the long term. Call it MK 2 IMCA if you’d like but change / modify the present system.

Assess the schools by all means! It’s done at unis/colleges….

And minimum / safe working crews means just that… It takes the minimum of 2 people to work on Hi-voltage systems and/or high press hydraulics.

With the above said and done ( years to accomplish? Maybe…) money/grades may just fall into proper perspective – in time.

[Lemmin]

While I certainly agree with James that training guidelines are an important part of the work IROVA will undertake, and that we should work on those as a matter of urgency, I believe the two most important things IROVA should work on in the next 12 months are credibility and membership.

As a fledgling organisation, the IROVA will not be taken seriously by companies, other trade bodies, governments and so on unless we are seen to be doing everything we can to further the professionalism of our members. Training guidelines are part of this, as is educating the public and the industry, furthering safety and doing anything else for the benefit of our members and their employers. If there is any suspicion that the IROVA is just another name for an union, then companies especially will not believe we are worth listening to.

At the same time, the more members (especially those with experience) that we gain, the more weight within the industry we will have. As an organisation we will need to be able to claim to be representative of, if not a majority, then at least a large minority of quality ROV personnel. I believe the IROVA will need to work hard to gain the membership of the most experienced supervisors and pilot/techs, and to recognise the value of their experience.

Once the IROVA has credibility and decent membership, other factors such as pay, conditions, training guidelines etc will be much more acceptable to the rest of the industry.

If a widely recognised professional body representing the majority of experiences supers and PTs worldwide were to make a case for an extra trainee space on all teams, on the basis of well researched and justified efficiency, economic and safety reasons, then it would probably be accepted….

Therefore I think above else, the IROVA needs to become accepted and recognised as a professional body as widely as possible, and it needs to work hard to bring the best people in the industry on board as members. To a large extent these two goals go hand in hand.

LEM

[James McLauchlan]

Good constructive input Lem, thanks, from me at least, for taking the time to offer your suggestions.

Keeping the IROVA distanced from anything that looks remotely like union activities/agenda will be part of the key to it’s success.
IROVA is clearly not a union (in the commonly accepted sense of the word) and therefore should not be seen to be shaping up like one.

[thomas]

Thanks to all for their input so far.

It is good to see that the spirit of our endeavours is being addressed as opposed to people just calling for more pay.

This association will address pay at some point however the establishment and growth of our association should ,in my opinion ,be addressed first and followed up by all the other aspects which will be carefully considered and democratically decided upon.

[rover22]

Hi all,

Just read about IROVA now. Well done, excellent idea and commendable effort by those involved.

If we, as offshore ROV operators, doing the job, get this going and can self-regulate then it will be good. It is, I believe, a proven reality that IMCA and its role has gone as far as it can and will, and it is now up to us to take it further in our own interests.

One question, who can be involved o join? I hope membership is open to offshore, qualified and experienced ROV personnel, with associate memberships or corresponding membership open to non-offshore personnl and other bodies like training schools.

Good luck, I hope this comes off and would be keen to assist if required.

[James McLauchlan]

Good luck, I hope this comes off and would be keen to assist if required.

Thanks!

Anybody wishing to assist can email their interest to register@irova.org

[rover22]

Hi JamesMC,

I will drop you a line. We chatted about IROVA outside and the general feeling (after overcoming the initial scepticism) is that such a body should be there to serve offshore ROV operators and represent their interests and further the development of a profession that can be recognised and respected by others, and not one that is managed or run by non-ROV operators and training schools. I hope to see the IMCA guidelines adhered to as a minimum standard of recognition of grades and that responsible people in IROVA have sound offshore experience as ROV operators. This will serve as a basis for keeping its activities focused on us, the ROV operators and our needs and goals. If others do this for us, we will end up with very little achieved. I have posted these comments here so that others can read and comment as my thinking on this subject can also be flawed (obviously) and its good to getother opinions. 😀

[Anonymous]

I,m happy with my whole lot so as suggested I,ll just sit by!

This from the guy who was called a SCAB for NOT joining the RMT ( OILC ) Well I guess I saved myself a bunch of $$ !

All the same good luck with this venture 8)

[Scott Beveridge]

I,m happy with my whole lot so as suggested I,ll just sit by!

This from the guy who was called a SCAB for NOT joining the RMT ( OILC ) Well I guess I saved myself a bunch of $$ !

All the same good luck with this venture 8)

Asian,

I don’t think you understand. Joining and registering COULD mean the same thing, agreed. Registering appears to be free for the time being folks and no personal info is needed except your email. However, one could surmise that in time, operating expenses, and admin WILL cost.

Everyone’s opinion is taken into consideration and looked at. If you consider yourself a scab, perhaps you should say something to your adults…

[thomas]

gents,
Just a note to clarify.

At present people have been invited at no cost to register their support for the formation of this association.

As the association comes live then costs are involved in time and money which at this time are being borne by individual people.

When registration for a particular type of membership is asked for then costs will be levied.

The amount of these costs will be subject to democratic discussion prior to publishment.

This association will not be able to function in our industry without funding and the funding will come from all involved as subscriptions.

A few people are at this time dedicating themselves to make this happen and those people are the same as you ie rov people trying to help rov people.

[Scott Beveridge]

Thanks for the clarification IROVA. Seems to make sense that when numbers are up the above should happen.

[Author]

Posts