Hello all. I’ll admit I’m being lazy and not actually trying to research this myself but here it is. I know there is a crossover exam for Chief mate to 1600 ton ocean master but is there one for the reverse? Screwed up the header but you get it. Thanks in advance, DRI
Nope. It’s been discussed to death here.
Ok, I knew it when I typed it, or should I say figured it had been (discussed to death) but will admit I was too lazy to figure out how to search the forum for it. Thanks, DRI
There is no crossover exam, but if you took a Mate 500 or Mate 1600 exam after 2/1/02, you don’t have to test (except (maybe) for rules).
Mr. Cavo,
What about 1600 master, do they have to test if they took the test after 2/1/02?
Yes. It’s the Mate 1600 exam that determines. The reason is that the Mate 500, Mate 1600, 3rd Mate and 2nd Mate exams were made the same on 2/1/02. If you did not take that exam, there are required subjects for 3rd Mate (per 46 CFR 11.910) that were not on any exams you have taken previously (these subjects were formerly for unlimited licenses only)…
[QUOTE=jdcavo;46778]Yes. It’s the Mate 1600 exam that determines. The reason is that the Mate 500, Mate 1600, 3rd Mate and 2nd Mate exams were made the same on 2/1/02. If you did not take that exam, there are required subjects for 3rd Mate (per 46 CFR 11.910) that were not on any exams you have taken previously (these subjects were formerly for unlimited licenses only)…[/QUOTE]
Mr. C,
I have been looking for that answer for over a year. Now I can stop fighting about having to take the test.
One more stupid question from a stupid person; Being that a Mate works for the Master (normally) I do not understand the logic of the Master having to take the Mate’s test. Would not the Master’s test be more difficult and logically rate higher than the Mate’s test and therefore qualify him for the lesser (sort of for lack of a better term) license?
While ther is a lot of redundancy in the exams, the concept is that you do not have to show knowledge of something you have already demonstrated before. The limitations of our current exam system don’t allow us to do that completely, but the intent is that the Master exam will not just repear what you have before, but test for the increased resaponsibility, greater knowledge required for Master. Keep in mind also that there are a lot of subjects that are ort were considered for “big ships” only, and wouldn’t be on any test given for a limited tonnage vessel, at any level. Also, our current regulations aren’t necessarily consistent with your premise as they require the Master 1600 to “cross-over” to 3rd Mate. We proposed to change this in the rulemaking proposed in Nov. '09 that is currently under re-evaluation.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;46801]While ther is a lot of redundancy in the exams, the concept is that you do not have to show knowledge of something you have already demonstrated before. The limitations of our current exam system don’t allow us to do that completely, but the intent is that the Master exam will not just repear what you have before, but test for the increased resaponsibility, greater knowledge required for Master. Keep in mind also that there are a lot of subjects that are ort were considered for “big ships” only, and wouldn’t be on any test given for a limited tonnage vessel, at any level. Also, our current regulations aren’t necessarily consistent with your premise as they require the Master 1600 to “cross-over” to 3rd Mate. We proposed to change this in the rulemaking proposed in Nov. '09 that is currently under re-evaluation.[/QUOTE]
I can’t hardly wait to see what becomes of that. I have always agreed with the intent, but the unintended consequences was the guys that went up the ranks as Masters only, then the next thing you know, they’re 1600 ton Masters with 5 years experience, and go to take a 3rd Mate exam, one that they have never taken, and have to submit remedial requirements just for the approval. Like the OICNW courses and assessment requirements. That just defies reason after “Master exam will not just repear what you have before, but test for the increased resaponsibility, greater knowledge required for Master”.
The rule making seemed to fix that with the 1600 Master to Chief Mate crossover at the Management level. It’s just very hard to get all onboard to conform to a new system if that meant a new requirement of the 1600 ton Master, just to become a 1600 ton Master - to make a crossover possible, that most mariners will not do anyway.
[QUOTE=anchorman;46804]I can’t hardly wait to see what becomes of that. I have always agreed with the intent, but the unintended consequences was the guys that went up the ranks as Masters only, then the next thing you know, they’re 1600 ton Masters with 5 years experience, …[/QUOTE]
Good point. That’s one of the things being looked at, to make sure that needless redundancy is avoided without leaving any back doors around anything.
OK, this is not exactly on topic but I have a question for Mr Cavo re: 1600 ton master to chief mate…
Is time sailing as 1600 ton master able to count towards required time sailing as chief mate unlimited while holding a license as chief mate unlimited???
I see in the CFRs that you need at least 6 months sailing as chief mate and then another 6 months sea time can be as OICNW. Isn;t sailing master at least counted as much as sailing as chief mate? If not, can anyone give me a reason for this to explain why?
[QUOTE=JP;46823]OK, this is not exactly on topic but I have a question for Mr Cavo re: 1600 ton master to chief mate…
Is time sailing as 1600 ton master able to count towards required time sailing as chief mate unlimited while holding a license as chief mate unlimited???
I see in the CFRs that you need at least 6 months sailing as chief mate and then another 6 months sea time can be as OICNW. Isn;t sailing master at least counted as much as sailing as chief mate? If not, can anyone give me a reason for this to explain why?[/QUOTE]
You can use OICNW time, on a two-for-one basis, up to 6 months of the required service (while holding a Chief Mate license), for an upgrade to Master. That being said, a 1600 ton Master is not necessarily an OICNW. The short answer is No.
[QUOTE=JP;46823]. Isn;t sailing master at least counted as much as sailing as chief mate? If not, can anyone give me a reason for this to explain why?[/QUOTE]
That’s a good question, I’d like to see an explanation of the underlying philosophy behind licensing regulations myself.
I think the key is not the level of seamanship required but the level of management. The owner / operator of "Uncle Pat’s Pizza"on the corner might make a better pizza then an employee of Pizza Hut but that doesn’t mean Uncle Pat is qualified to be vice president at the larger company.
I don’t know which ’ master for 1600ton you are talk about. there are so many type of certification of competence out there, some belong to yahtmen, some for fishing and some for coasters. i have had master ticket for 1600ton 25 yeas ago.It was permitted act as master on a vessel under 1600 and limited sailing within 200 miles from nearest land. it was so called coaster ticket. Well,
the requirement for that sort of master was; two year sea time on deck, one year been enlisted in the maritime officer institutes, and examen, then one year acting as mate aboard a coaster. After all that you could ask have the master ticket, but .
Is needless to say to them who have been at sea long enough to know which is which, that the work of the masters of 1600ton
- talking about working sector of the maritime industry -is most hazardous and need high skill and experience to perrform the job ropely, for example most of tug masters have the 1600ton’s ticket.
Yes, Martin, I had 1600 ton master oceans (any kind of vessel, actually steam and motor- which got restricted semi- recently and can no longer work tugs, etc) since 1986. Since as master I am responsible for everything on the entire vessel including management and have to supervise the chief mate and chief engineer and chief steward, it seems to me that master should count as least as much as the people I had to supervise. I already served plenty of time as mate (only mate so supervising all deckhands) on vessels under 1600 tons and also as 2nd and 3rd mate on unlimited tonnage vessels. I just don;t understand why the USCG puts this roadblock up there where you can;t use time on a higher license for chief mate time.
On another related issue, am I completly mistaken on my reading of the STCW? It only mentions A-ll/2 for this rating. I am seeing that rating as equivalent to our 500 ton master, 1600/3000 ton master and CHIEF MATE UNLIMITED. I would think that means that my time sailing as master 1600 tons is equivalent to sailing chief mate unlimited under the STCW. If our USCG is insisting on becoming STCW compliant, then they could fix this right now. I an very surprised to find out the rest of the world thinks that a 500 ton master is equivalent to an unlimited chief mate. Is thier training THAT different than ours??? I thought the entire point of the STCW was to make everyones trainging EXACTLY the same.
[QUOTE=JP;46929]Yes, Martin, I had 1600 ton master oceans (any kind of vessel, actually steam and motor- which got restricted semi- recently and can no longer work tugs, etc) since 1986. Since as master I am responsible for everything on the entire vessel including management and have to supervise the chief mate and chief engineer and chief steward, it seems to me that master should count as least as much as the people I had to supervise. I already served plenty of time as mate (only mate so supervising all deckhands) on vessels under 1600 tons and also as 2nd and 3rd mate on unlimited tonnage vessels. I just don;t understand why the USCG puts this roadblock up there where you can;t use time on a higher license for chief mate time.
On another related issue, am I completly mistaken on my reading of the STCW? It only mentions A-ll/2 for this rating. I am seeing that rating as equivalent to our 500 ton master, 1600/3000 ton master and CHIEF MATE UNLIMITED. I would think that means that my time sailing as master 1600 tons is equivalent to sailing chief mate unlimited under the STCW. If our USCG is insisting on becoming STCW compliant, then they could fix this right now. I an very surprised to find out the rest of the world thinks that a 500 ton master is equivalent to an unlimited chief mate. Is thier training THAT different than ours??? I thought the entire point of the STCW was to make everyones trainging EXACTLY the same.[/QUOTE]
STCW is a minimum standard, not that every flag state is following the same text verbatim. Any flag state can exceed that standard - just not go below what STCW mandates as a minimum. STCW A-ll/2 differentiates between vessels 500 gross tons or more, and 3000 gross tons or more. There are distinct differences in the standard of competence, assessments, and training - by looking at the tables. There is no truth in the rest of the world thinking a “500 ton master is equivalent to an unlimited chief mate”. You are talking operational level versus management level with each having their own requirements.
If you have a 2nd Mate and 1600 ton Master, you can go to Chief Mate after completing the assessment and training that is required. The road block isn’t there, but the requirement certainly is. That is a STCW minimum standard that all must adhere to.
I am angry now, for, the bloody STCW is nothing but a way to make fast many to by making compulsory of those courses to be study and pay big money, and what good is it, there is possible have a/b certificate under code of this stcw withing a three months course. Can that sort of study be worth of nothing? When the former request for a/b was three years on deck.It sound now just a business for money.
There are plenty of those new form of STCW deck officers, and also many of them with exam as sea captain, young boys and girls, but how on earth anybody can trust a vessel to hands of them when too many of them are not able even to handle a water -bus to get her alongside.
Let me tell a example from the reality, I’m retired and already been for year- how many precisely -never mine. Anyway five year ago I made two strips on a roll on roll off vessel, she was 9000 ton of her capacity and made 20 knots of speed through the water. Well the bridge was equipped with all the technique request for navigation - the third mate said that he have counted up 80 switches on the switch board, the bridge was large and there were two soft and comfortable leather chair, one for the outlook, and second one for the watch keeping officer, It was that night when we were in the Baltic Sea and were off the coast of west Gotlan and there was a lighthouse to be seen on our starboard side, I at once recognized that lighthouse by visual, and said to the mate in charge that there is the ‘Halshuk’ on our starboard side-" Oy jes," said the mate,then added; "there are so many lighthouse out there, nobody can know the name of them.
That was sad to hear that a seafarer not know anymore the name of these lighthouse he make past.
Martin - Good post. It’s true, with all the new gadgets something is gained and something is lost. But don’t lose hope, no matter what he said - next time that mate passes Halshuk he’ll remember the name and he’ll remember you.
Thanks for the replies guys
I totally agree with Martin that its all about money. I already had all the training I needed back in 1978 in school as an AB! I did not get anything extra out of a single one of the management level classes I had to take to get my chief mates license. Besides, the USCG already gave me an unlimited second mates license in 1986 so why is it necessary to do it all over again when they told me at the time I could go back and get that 2nd mates license whenever I felt like it and then they changed the rules with no notice (except possibly in the federal register that no one looks at including them!).
If you have a 2nd Mate and 1600 ton Master, you can go to Chief Mate after completing the assessment and training that is required. The road block isn’t there, but the requirement certainly is. That is a STCW minimum standard that all must adhere to.
There is a roadblock when you can not find a chief mate position on a vessel but you are already sailing as master and that does not count??? That does not make any sense at all. Master of 1600 ton vessel certainly entails more than chief mate on a lot of ships I have been on.
[QUOTE=JP;47177]
There is a roadblock when you can not find a chief mate position on a vessel but you are already sailing as master and that does not count??? That does not make any sense at all. Master of 1600 ton vessel certainly entails more than chief mate on a lot of ships I have been on.[/QUOTE]
If i’m not mistaken this particular roadblock was one the recent NPRM and the 2012 amendments was trying to rectify.