QAs? NVICs?


#22

In the right column on my letter, except for a few items under A/II-2, every box says “The following tasks shall only be performed on a conventional vessel.”

Anyone else have this restriction? What’s a conventional vessel??? I’m on a U.S. flag 200m car carrier.


#23

Good question…:thinking:… anything not designed by Norwegians?


#24

Maybe “conventional vessel” means: not a high speed hovercraft, submarine, casino boat, or stationary drill rig.


#25

I think tugsailor is in the right ballpark as evidenced by the context here: (“conventional vessels” is not in the definitions in 46 CFR 10.107)

46 CFR 11.211

( c ) Service on mobile offshore drilling units.

(1) MODU service is creditable for raise of grade of an officer endorsement. Evidence of 1 year of service on MODUs as mate or equivalent while holding an officer endorsement or license as third mate, or as engineering officer of the watch or equivalent while holding an officer endorsement or license as third assistant engineer, is acceptable for a raise of grade to second mate or second assistant engineer, respectively. However, any subsequent raises of grade of unlimited, non-restricted officer licenses or endorsements must include a minimum of 6 months of service on conventional vessels.


#26

Wow, I know some Unlimited masters that NMC needs to review their seatime on drillships then. Or are the idiots at NMC thinking there’s something conventional about them just because it says “ship?” Just because they have a bow and stern doesn’t make them anything more than MODU’s with a pointy end.


#27

[quote=“Orniphobe, post:22, topic:46221”]In the right column on my letter, except for a few items under A/II-2, every box says “The following tasks shall only be performed on a conventional vessel.”

Anyone else have this restriction? What’s a conventional vessel??? I’m on a U.S. flag 200m car carrier.
[/quote]

I did some checking and since there is an STCW endorsement for operating high speed vessels I’ll go with that in regards to being able to QA on conventional vessels. I have the same restriction since I don’t currently operate high speed vessels.


#28

“Wow, I know some Unlimited masters that NMC needs to review their seatime on drillships then. Or are the idiots at NMC thinking there’s something conventional about them just because it says “ship?”” Do you care to elaborate on that? I’ve worked on both drilling and blue water cargo. As mate there isn’t much you don’t do on a drillship other than frequent mooring and pierside shiphandling.

My original question though was what defines a conventional vessel for the purpose of these QA letters and is that restriction standard? Is a training ship a conventional vessel? A ferry? A Navy or MSC ship? A pipeline or cable layer?

Capt_Phoenix above didn’t quote the whole thing… “(2) Service on MODUs maintaining station by means of dynamic positioning, may be credited as service on conventional vessels for any raise in grade; however, time more than 8 hours each day will not be credited.”


#29

It can mean a lot of different things to different people but that does not make it correct. The QA is for STCW Assessments. So I focused on what other types of vessels there were in the context of STCW endorsements.

I just got off watch and am on my cell.

Merry Christmas

From what I recall when I checked back in June when I got the QA approval there is a STCW endorsement for high speed craft and if you look at what the limits are on your QA letter it would point in the direction of high speed craft.

MODU’s are not unique vessels in regards to STCW endorsements (you don’t need a special STCW endorsement to work on one). It’s a national license endorsement and on some other flag states it’s a flag state license or license endorsement.


#30

Ah, see, now that was the most important part of that. Nice of him to leave that part out… on purpose? I wasn’t being snide, I was simply commenting based on the information I was given.

And some of my sea time was as a Third Mate on the “Gonad Exploder”, so trust me, it was a dig at the imbeciles at NMC for not understanding regulations, and not at drillship folk.


#31

Not in relation to the topic of this thread it wasn’t.