Chief Mate / Master Shipboard Assessments


#1

TH


#2

Todd - I’m a bit unclear as to what your actual question is, but I think I understand where you’re coming from. Correct me on any of the following -<br><br>Your looking to get your proficiency signed off M-5-1A through D for proficiency in ARPA, right? <br><br>In most cases, this is all covered in an approved ARPA class. I’m not sure where you’re attending school, but a certificate from an approved class will garnish you the competency sans sign off, therefore eliminating the need for an onboard assessment. MITAGS, STAR, MPT, Mid Atlantic, Pacific Maritime and a number of others all offer this approved course, and since you need an ARPA class anyway to serve aboard ARPA equipped vessels, this is a no-brainer as to whether this is a class to attend. Real ARPA equipment, coupled with actual simulator time is the way to go.<br><br>If you’ve already taken an ARPA class that was not an approved class for proficiency, I think you can get it done fairly quickly by being on the bridge during your next port of call, and getting the old man to sign you off without gun decking it.<br><br>Did I miss anything?<br><br>For more reference on this, here’s the link to a page that spells it out pretty clearly in one of AMO’s newsletters - <strong>STCW '95 requirements for deck officers to upgrade to chief mate or master level after 1 February 2002</strong><br><br>Good Luck…


#3

TH


#4

Todd - Considering that the assessments are done as part of an ARPA class in 5 days, I don’t feel that a vessel in normal trade would have any problem signing someone off in one port of call on the M-5-1 portion of the practical assessments. We’re talking Control and Function Operation, Determining Target Data, Parallel Indexing, and BRM while manning the ARPA. <br><br>I would say that if you were a regular member of my crew, had your #$@& together, and were worth your salt as a mariner, I wouldn’t hesitate in signing you off knowing that I’ve observed you in action for much longer than what’s required in the assessment, or the course.<br><br>If James Cavo takes a glance at this discussion, I’m sure he’ll jump in with some advice as well.<br><br>*** Just my humble 2 cents, but I don’t think the old man would have any problem signing you off if you’ve been around for more than a hitch or two, especially as a 2nd Mate. Now if you don’t have those Chart Corrections up to date…well, that’s a different matter! :slight_smile: Leave the letter of explanation out of it.<br><br>Congratulations on tackling the advancement, and good luck!


#5

TH


#6

<P><font color=#ffffff>.</font></P>


#7

TH - I assume you’re serving in the capacity of 2nd Mate on the vessel you’re currently assigned to. I’m not sure what “service” it’s currently in, or how long you’ve been assigned to this particular vessel, but I think all of that <strong style="color: rgb(192, 0, 0);]IS</strong> relative to the discussion at hand.<br><br>I do respect J.D.'s input on the subject, but, at the same token I feel that as an “assessor” onboard my vessel, where I’m assessing the competency of one of my junior officers slated for advancement, I have to take some exception to the <strong><em style="color: rgb(192, 0, 0);]“exactly”[/b]</strong> part. <br><br>Most new officers are required to be signed off as competent on equipment in accordance to ISM, ISO, and STCW standards in the professional Merchant Mariner world. This being the case, I’m sure you had to figure out how all the functions were to be manipulated on the equipment on your vessel even if your company does not have a comprehensive SMS onboard, and, somehow you must be able to get the vessel from point “A” to point “B” with some degree of competence, otherwise you wouldn’t be standing your own watch, and the “Norwegian” Captain and Chief Mate most likely would not have been willing to sign your assessments. That being said, if you’ve performed your duties with some modicum of responsibility up to this point, I would say that an instructor at a school has far less knowledge of your capability after 5 days, than the old man does after say 5 months of service aboard his ship. However, with the threat of reprisals down the road should you decide to pump the bilges in Raritan Bay one day, the only advice I would give you (while keeping J.D.'s answer in mind), is to go ahead and do it exactly by the book, and have some unsuspecting U.S. Master or Chief Mate slap the ink in the appropriate block forever lending his name to your competence. Or, go ahead and pay one of the schools the 995.00 dollars, and go ahead and get it over with. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Fill in the blanks a bit more, so we don't get into too much of a pissing contest here, and tell us more about your current shipping situation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As for the culpability portion of signing someone off - James, I have to say that you've pretty much sealed the deal for me. Just in case one of the up and comers ends up being the next Joe Hazelwood someday, I'll refrain from signing anyone else off &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em style="color: rgb(192, 0, 0);]forever[/b]&lt;/strong&gt;. I can't think of how else one is to protect himself from the &lt;strong&gt;[b]"authority over them for fraud"[/b]&lt;/strong&gt; threat that lingers over someone, that will be interpreted by a hearing officer in an "official" administrative hearing. &lt;strong&gt;BULL#%@ !!!</strong> <br><br>A perfect way of policing a system that was flawed to begin with. When is it do you suspect that we’ll finally catch up with our “Norwegian” and “British” brethren? Or are we going to make a few more exceptions, and excuses?


#8

<font color=#ffffff>.</font>


#9

TH


#10

test


#11

Todd,

you ahve another problem to add to the list… When I last submitted assessments they were not accepting signatures from foreign Captains. I was told this is because they have no recourse if a foreigner gundecks the assessment.

Just a heads up since this caused me much grief a few years back.


#12

<strong>test</strong>

[img]http://www.gcaptain.com/images/logo.gif" alt=“logo” />


#13


#14

<object width=“425” height="344]<param name=“movie” value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1]</param><param name=“allowFullScreen” value="true]</param><embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height="344]</embed></object>


#15

<code><object width=“425” height="344]<param name=“movie” value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1]</param><param name=“allowFullScreen” value="true]</param><embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height="344]</embed></object></code>


#16

<object width=“425” height="344]<param name=“movie” value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1]</param><param name=“allowFullScreen” value="true]</param><embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height="344]</embed></object>


#17

<embed src=“http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg&hl=en&fs=1” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=“true” width=“425” height="344]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg


#18

http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg


#19

http://www.youtube.com/v/6prEaKOvHDg


#20

test