Maybe I’m reading my sea service letter wrong? That website looks like my GRT is actually 465. Which then yeah I’d need stcw ii/2
Yep. Good luck convincing the office, though. If they follow the rules, that would just introduce too many headaches for the manning.
Or the office wrote it wrong.
That’s what it looks like.
I’m surprised they don’t already know this moving oil though. There’s so much liability involved that they should be squared away. If there’s an incident the company will get strung up for running a boat with improper manning.
@jdcavo is there a method of proposing changes to the USCG? The COI manning really needs to specify not just what US licenses and endorsements are required but also whether STCW is required and exactly what endorsements they need to carry. Too much guesswork is left up to the companies.
1 Like
Absolutely.
Exactly, what, if any, STCW is required needs to be clearly and unequivocally stated on the COI.
1 Like
There is, but I am out of the office all week so I don’t have the CFR cite handy. I think “petition” is in the title if you want to search for it
Addendum: 33 CFR 1.05-20
All the office thinks is if people have basic training they are good. From my experience. .even with COI inspections they don’t check to see if the crew has the corresponding stcw endorsement
Which is exactly why the USCG should have refused to issue 1,600 ton licenses without the corresponding STCW (that was their plan but they caved to the numerous comments insisting they do otherwise). It shouldn’t be an option to not have the matching officer endorsements and all extras like ECDIS and ARPA should be universally required.
Maybe if enough of us write in they’ll make a rule change.
“Petitions should be addressed to the Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG–LRA), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7213, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593–7213”
The way ive always understood it is that if a vessle has a GRT then your regular old CG license was the one used.
If the vessel just has a GT then your STCW license is whats used.
From PIX looks loke your vessel just has a Gross Tonnage so all the fun STCW rrquirments come into play.
That said tugs are weird and seem to have alot of loop holes that get exploited, but that could just be the ones under 200GRT. Maybe GT boats tend to play more by the rules?
Most tug companies don’t know the rules.
They think that taking a BT course means that the guy “has STCW.”
Most of the tug companies have been violating the rules for a long time without the USCG or anyone else saying anything about it. They are content to just keep doing what they’ve always done.
All the newer vessels I’ve seen have both ITC and Domestic GRT
???
He posted the pix. Vessel is 1052 GT and 465 GRT
As far as which license tonnage is used that’s generally true. If a vessel is dual tonnage it’s generally in a company’s best interest to operate that vessel in accordance with the lower GRT tonnage.
Operating under the domestic GRT doesn’t mean that STCW isn’t required though.