STCW just imperfect or actively bad


#23

Could 80000 Pinoy seafarers be out of work soon?:

If so, who wlll replace them??


#24

Every country is free to set a standard ABOVE the STCW minimum and some do.


#25

Some may differ with that assumption.


#26

In some cases, the U.S. does that. See the discussion here.

That guy meets the STCW requirements for “Second Engineer Officer” but not the U.S. requirements to get that STCW endorsement. Until STCW2010, bridge resource management was another example. The US had required it for tankers since 1992, and for all deck officer STCW endorsements since 2002. And unlike STCW2010, BRM was not something you could be grandfathered to. Even mariners grandfathered to STCW had to take BRM training.


#27

At what point does this cross over to trolling?

It’s not an opinion, it’s an assumption made for the sake of the argument, arguendo… This assumption was implicitly made in the OP and in the linked article.

Unless that assumption is accepted nothing in this thread makes sense.

You accepted the premise of this argument in post #11


#28

Well, if their STCW’s are found to be false or the training does not meet the set “Standards”, then they should not be sailing for anyone!

It’s not the “vacuum” created by the change in leadership but rather the suspected fraud of issuing of fraudulent STCW Documents that might lead to them losing the jobs.
So, @ombugge how is this the fault of the evil Americans, as that is usually were you place all blame?


#30

This has nothing to do with Americans. It is a fear that not having a Head of Marina will result in EMSA not approving Pinoy seafarers on European ships, which is unlikely since there are no replacements to the found.

As to American shipping; it will not affect any US flag ships as USCG does not recognize any foreign qualifications, but it will affect US owned ships that is flying any EU flag. (There are some)


#31

A post was split to a new topic: What does "for the sake of argument mean?


#32

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Does it Make Sense for Individual Nations to Have Higher Standards than STCW


#33

Yes this is what I meant. Establish a minimum standard as others have called it. Then you get people with same documents of varying quality of competency. There remains no economic reason to look beyond the COC. Not (just) levelling the playing field but lowering it.

Wasn’t quite at solutions level yet in my mind but IF one was attempting to come down to the lower playing field I don’t think getting rid of the academies would help. It would be more like, two years of high school to make sure you can read and write and do some applied mathematics. Transfer to a 2 year maritime vo-tech school get all the basics and STCW stuff out of the way (IMO model course minimum). Two years might be padding it, here is a 15 day course to become “proficient” in the things you need for OICEW! Do 6 months as a cadet and then sit for your license. (yes all the requirements in the CFR would have to change)

Now what does that get you? Someone who meets the new minimum standard (and only that), still lives in the USA and is expecting to make a paycheck he can live on. What are his/her employment prospects? Move overseas, find a ship and sign an 8 month contract no benefits.

No I don’t think reducing whatever training levels we are at now would help much. The answer might be a renewed commitment to a US based flag fleet. Fund ODS, CDS, R&D programs, etc, etc. On the employees side have more uniform expectations of pay and time off to help control manning costs? Moving to a “single union” type arrangement? Who knows? Will all that return US to a dominant merchant marine position? No, but it might help maintain a somewhat healthy but small one.

I think that sums up what I’m thinking. Unless you have a vessel and/or trade that requires a “boutique” crew.


#34

That might be something to consider. Insurance companies would then influence owners to use officers trained to the higher standard instead of the bare minimum.


#35

MEBA used to “make” engineers in 2 years. AMO does it now with the tech program. Is there a similar program out there for mates?


#36

Those MEBA School guys were really good hands on engineers. I don’t know of anything similar for mates.


#37

There are 2-year programs for Mate 500/1600, (MITAGS-PMI and SUNY Maritime). There are none for 3rd Mate.

After the Calhoon school was shut down, and before 2013, the regulations for 3rd AE and 3rd Mate required programs for these license to be 3 years. The STCW rulemaking in 2013 removed “three year” and now it only has to be a Coast Guard approved program.