1600t mate to 1600t master


Is there a limited test for this or do I have to take all the tests over again? Seems a little much to have to retake all those tests, there should be a limited test for this in my opinion. Thanks.


I am going to be upgrading in the near future also and would be interested in this too.


You have to take it all over.


Lee is right,
You must take all the modules. They are not the same as the mates test though. That’s why you must take them all, its a different test than your mate’s was. And its not a bit much, to prove your knowledge to receive a Masters License.


If by “it” you mean do you take the same tests as you took for Mate 1600, the answer is no. You take a full set of DIFFERENT tests. The only one that’s the same is Rules.


I have had several guys ask me on board what are the requirements for 1600 Master. Am I wrong in my thinking on this? The math does not add up on the NMC Checklist under the Service Requirement section(#14), 720+720+360=1800 days yet the CFR states only 4 years of sea time. Did NMC miss something on this one?

This is what is in that section, followed with the 46CFR10.412

NMC Checklist:

[B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT]1440 [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]days service on ocean or N/C; (up to 720 days credit may be granted for
Great Lakes/Inland waters); [/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]WITH (10.412)

  1. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]720 days service on vessels of 100GRT or over; [/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][U]AND[/U]
  2. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]720 days as a master, mate, or equiv. supervisory position while holding a
    license [/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][U]AND[/U]
    3[/B][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]. 360 days as licensed master, mate, or equivalent on vessels of 100 GRT or[/LEFT]
    over; [/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]OR[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
    [B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
    [B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]46CFR10.412:[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
    [B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=MIonic][SIZE=1][FONT=MIonic][SIZE=1][LEFT]SIZE=2 [U]Four years total service on ocean [/U][U]or near coastal waters.[/U] Service on Great Lakes and inland waters may substitute for up to two years of the required service. [U]Two years[/U] of the required service must have been on vessels of [U]over 100 gross tons[/U]. [U]Two years[/U] of the required service must have been as [FONT=MIonic][SIZE=1][FONT=MIonic][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]a [U]master, mate master or mate (pilot) [/U][U]of towing vessels, or equivalent supervisory [/U][U]position while holding a license[/U] as master, mate master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels. One year of the service as master, mate master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, or equivalent supervisory position must have been on vessels of over 100 gross tons;[/LEFT]


You’re misinterpreting. The total is 4 years, the rest are separate requirements that define how the 1440 total can be comprised. Note the “WITH” that follows 1440 days total. You need a total of 4 years (1440 days). Of the total of 14450, at least 720 of it must be on over 100 GRT, at least 720 of the 1440 must be as mate or master, and at least 360 of the 1440 must be as mate or master over 100 GRT.


Mr. Cavo - What is getting me is the AND between the 720 days and 360 days. Should that not read WITH 360 days as mate or master over 100 GRT?

Thank you for the reply,



two years holding a License one of which must be on vessels greater than 100t as mate or master


What generated my posting was a friend who submitted his app for Master (currently holding a Mate OSV) and was told by the NMC that he needed 720 days AND 720 days AND 360 days. I thought that was rather odd considering what the CFR stated. What it seemed like to me was someone who wrote the checklist up got the verbage correct but misused a word in the requirements “AND” instead of “WITH”.


Capt Brian, I think you’re on to something…