I worked on a foreign going unlike tonnage cargo ship with a COI like that. My discharge was written as Chief Mate and I had no problems turning it in to the NMC. They don’t check the COI of the boat you were on when you turn in sea time… Also, there is NO legal requirement to have a COI that requires a “Chief Mate” in order to get sea time as Chief Mate.
OSVs are work boats, like tugs. The Master stands a watch and when he’s off watch you don’t fuck with him. The Chief Mate is expected to load cargo, sail, go alongside the rig, etc on his own with no help or input from the master. Otherwise the master would never get any sleep.
The good old days before Paperwork.
I’m a Master and I have a plaque on my day-room door to prove it.
There sure as shit was until recently. That was the whole reason Chief Mate was as far as you could advance on OSV’S. Why people like myself, Anchorman, and anybody else had to get on something not operating under Subchapter L, if we wanted to advance.
It has now been worded in CFR stating that the person next in line to the Master is defacto the “Chief Mate.” Now you have a whole separate dilemma of getting a special “letter” from your company stating you were “chief mate.” Because the COI just calls for a gaggle of Mate or Mates…
-You had a Chief Mate discharge, that’s a horse of an entirely different hue.
-I’m also sure they run your seatime against your discharges or seatime letters in MISLE.
No, there was NO legal requirement for the COI to say Chief Mate.
That was only NMC policy, not an actual regulation.
It was always defined like that.
OSVs could issue discharges too…
Touche’ I guess it only mattered if you actually wanted credit for it.
I understand the point you’re making, you like pissing in the wind much?
I guess I need to be more precise with you. Yes, but not the part about vessels not having Chief Mate on their COI. That came later, not sure when, but definitely after and as as a result of the 2011 Manila convention and the resulting 2012 NPRM.
“Chief Mate” is defined in 46 CFR 10.107 as “the deck officer next in rank to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of incapacity of the master.” In the event that a vessel’s Certificate of Inspection does not require that a licensed chief mate be assigned, service credit will be granted to the officer onboard who serves the chief mate’s function.
Good luck with that one.
that’s a similair interpretation to someone without an engine license using the chief engineer title on a boat under 200 grt. It is legitimate if they are the sole engineer, with no license required regulatory wise.
As it always has been.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to but they put out guidance to this effect back in early 2015 announcing that they would accept Chief Mate sea time from OSVs.
I know many, many people who have done this. I got one from a company that I hadn’t worked for in a year and a half with no problems whatsoever.
The guidance came out then, because the CFR’s changed. What I’m referring to is that prior to that, It “MATTERED” what your COI called for.
It never mattered in the CFR, the NMC was just requiring it because they wanted to.
The same way all the classes were being required by the NMC even though they weren’t required in the CFR.
Hell no…that’s just more paperwork.
Alright, another question. If the billeted chief mate does not have his masters license and the billeted 2/M is a licensed master does that make the 2/M the deck officer next in rank to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of incapacity of the master?
I’d figure not but you’ve all been talking technicalities so…
It would definitely be a pain in the ass, but I’m still unsure how they get away without using them. As far as I can tell it’s required.
If none of the mates have a master license but one of the ABs does, does that make him next in rank to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of incapacity of the master? (Yes, it’s an extreme example but it illustrates my point.)
In short, no. It makes no fucking difference.
@uniqueusername, were you actually the Chief Mate or just an OICNW with a master’s license?
It did matter because it was not clear in the CFR. The revised wording made it clear. NMC ruled on what they felt was the intent.
Entirely different. The classes were NOT in the CFR, they attempted to rule by Policy Letter. This could be and was beaten on appeal successfully. Which is why Policy Letter 11-07 came out.
The same CFR revision that clarified qualifying time for Chief Mate…brought back the classes.
The CG only requires a sea time letter from the office as proof .