6000 & 10000 ITC being done away with?


On an OSV you have to know how to dock the vessel and on a container ship you watch the tugs do it for you.


It’s been months since we had this argument.


Docking supply boats is so easy it’s laughable. One day we were standing by and bored, so we fired up and I taught every member of the crew (that wanted to) to dock the boat including most of the engine department and the cook.


Yeah, it’s like having sex, the “easiest” way to do it is to have someone else do it while you watch.


I was sailing before the STCW rollout back in the day and I had to spend a month taking BRM, fast rescue Medical Care, etc… I think some people got grandfathered, but I was not one of them:tired_face:


“Did you have to do the STCW assessments and classes to get those certs or did they just give them to you?”

They handed out '78 to everyone sailing but I recall having to do lifeboatman and a BST class for a renewal or upgrade or some such. Then all the other ship specific stuff in later years.

Aside from the original STCW certificate given like you said, to everyone sailing deep sea when the US signed on, everything else had to be earned.


Yeah, and it’s pointless. It’s been two decades since the first 6000t license was issued, and the fact remains that no incident or accident has been attributed to this license scheme. And, to be perfectly honest, the “testing” and “course work” is high school level material across the board. The practical knowledge gained over the course of a career or sea-time accrued is something else entirely, but in matching that experience up comparatively to that of smaller versus larger OSV only validates that reason why such a scheme should exist.
As we all know, it comes down to the attributes of each individual on whether or not that piece of paper actually demonstrates overall competency, and I’ve seen that go both ways as most have.


That’s right. Everyone got 78 then the requirement was 95 hence the classes, but never any assessments.

It doesn’t matter though, that’s water under the bridge. The new system is a long game designed to create an environment of attrition with US Mariners. Once there is a severe enough personnel shortage companies will be demand waivers for foreigners. At least that’s how I see it playing out.


In saying that, there were many mariners put in limbo as well. You had to take a few classes to be grandfathered, but if you were caught up in the licensing scheme and still upgrading, rudimentary assessments were required for subsequent upgrades that made little sense. Hence the reason the USCG was challenged by trying to regulate by policy and lost.


Beginning at the end of the year the new requirements for a Master OSV 10,000 STCW Master > 3000 oceans requires all of the advanced classes except shiphandling.

Ultimately being qualified to hold a license (Not the position) has to come down to a standard. I would like to see what part of being a Chiefmate on an OSV does not meet this standard. Please don’t quote some personal standard that you can’t document.


Jeeezzus, listen to you guys! You sound like a bunch of nancy-a** bit***s whining about the USCG not being fair and somehow this issue becomes the individual’s fault for taking advantage of what was offered, as defined by the CFR’s. Shouldn’t you be picking this fight with the USCG?

I would have to agree with most in whether or not an individual holding a CM/MA Unlimited gets the job. Since most employer’s already do look at experience, which is a no brainer. I do not understand where some of you are coming from or which tanker companies you would be referring to… For example, look at Crowely’s website. They have positions open for MA’s and CM’s and are asking for very recent tanker experience.


The argument is that Master Unlimited is a license for deep sea ships; having that license should indicate that one knows at least something about how to operate a deep sea ship. The requirement to actually be chief mate on an actual ship insured that one had at least some OTJ training in this aspect before being licensed as master on ships.


I’m not sure that “tanker companies” were ever referred to…


Right that is an understandable argument. The same way that an Unlimited Master running as a ChiefMate on a tanker would most certainly be placed as a mate to train on an OSV.
Ive been told that the MSC tugs like the Apache do not call for a Chief mate on the COI. Should they only be permitted to get Master Unlimited restricted to Towing vessels?

It is up to the mariner to prove by way of coachable attitude and displayed intelligence that they are capable of working into a position. Does InterMarine take a Chief mate or Masters from a container ship to work Heavylift without running in a subservient position? I sure hope not!

Your suggesting that the USCG should regulate the cultures of the various industry sectors not the mariners ability to perform certain basic functions. If this is not the case please list specifically some of the things that Chief mates on a deep sea vessel learn that OSV Chief mates do not.


You cannot get Master Unlimited on the Apache because it is only 1,522 GRT.


Actually, someone could get Master Unlimited, restricted to 3000 GRT, with only sea time as the senior most Mate on 1500 GRT tugs like the APACHE (without even considering the combined tonnage of the tug and the tow).


Yes, but that’s still not Unlimited.


Don’t forget “serving in the capacity of Commanding Officer.” I used that to get approved and still have the option to skip all the way from 1600 ton Master to Unlimited Master.


I encourage you to make the move to Master Unlimited. Studying and taking the exam is easy enough for a man with your background and ability. You could get Master AGT without STCW, and then add the STCW later as you can find time and money to take the required courses.

Hopefully, as more schools get approved to offer the new STCW courses, prices will start to come down. I wish the USCG would let us take foreign STCW courses. I have no doubt that most foreign STCW courses would be much higher quality and much much cheaper than US courses. Besides, it would be nice to be able to write-off a trips to Italy, Croatia, and other interesting places.


You and me both bud. That was exactly my thought when I asked about this in another thread.