[QUOTE=fishyluke;163479]So I’m getting Master of Towing Inland after doing an inland TOAR… Would like to request the Mate of Towing Vessels NC once I have the 30 days training and observation on NC route.[/QUOTE]
You do not need any days of observation or a TOAR to get Mate of Towing NC if you have Master of Towing Inland. Sail on your Mate NC for 90 days and do a NC TOAR then you get Master of Towing NC.
Thanks for that Capt. Phoenix, I did request Mate of TV Near Coastal and they are giving it to me , I just have to take rules and deck gen/deck safety and enviro protection.
I think this is the right. This is the reason. Also I think it has to do with the ITC tonnage of the vessel. Which is the tonnage recognized internationally. The officers of a vessel on an international voyage must have a license that covers the ITC tonnage of the vessel. You should have a Safe Manning Document on board that spells that out.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;171840]Not according to 46 CFR 11.463. According to the current CFR someone holding [I]just[/I] MoT [B]CANNOT[/B] sail international (on any route, even inland) or oceans, regardless of tonnage of the tug, and domestic near-coastal routes are limited to 200 GRT. To sail international or oceans one must have STCW II/1 or II/2 which means at least a 500 ton domestic license.
46 CFR 11.463 - General requirements for national endorsements as master, mate (pilot), and apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(f) Deck officers who serve on the following seagoing vessels must comply with the requirements of §§11.309 and 11.311 of this subpart for the appropriate STCW endorsement:
(1) A towing vessel on an oceans voyage operating beyond near-coastal waters.
(2) A towing vessel on an international voyage.
B A towing vessel of 200 GRT or more on a domestic, near-coastal voyage.[/B]
For reference:
§11.309 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as Officer in charge of a navigational watch (OICNW) of vessels of 500 GT or more (operational level).
§11.311 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as master of vessels of 500 GT or more and less than 3,000 GT (management level).[/QUOTE]
Be very careful with blanket statements about Canada transits.
The MOU modifies STCW, and license requirements for operations in and thru Canada, and there are Canadian manning requirements that aren’t addressed in US regs, specifically licensed engineers.
[QUOTE=Tom_Tugboat;171935]Be very careful with blanket statements about Canada transits.
The MOU modifies STCW, and license requirements for operations in and thru Canada, and there are Canadian manning requirements that aren’t addressed in US regs, specifically licensed engineers.
MOU[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the link. I’m not exactly sure how a Canada transit works because the MOU says that crewing has to follow the rules of the home country and the rules of the home country (the CFR) says you cannot go international without STCW. Is there a USCG published exemption somewhere that says passages to or through Canada don’t count as international?
the big thing I have seen is a licensed chief with STCW. A DDE wasn’t cutting it for the Canadians although it was fine here.
The only thing I’ve had a problem with in Canada is crewmen with drunk driving convictions.
No problem yet for engineers with DDEs.
It all goes by what your CG-issued Safe Manning Document has listed on it.
I’ve seen some requiring C/E and some where DDE was okay.
The wording has, in my experience, been unambiguous.
My company has issued multiple memo’s about Canadian issues when sailing without a chief’s license. They could be making it up but it’s come up several times in a pretty serious tone (oil barges).
Allegedly it’s not a big deal to get a limited chief STCW endorsement with certain licenses though.
Over 1000hp you need a dde equivalent in Canada. Over 4,000hp and longer than 24hrs in Canadian waters calling on a Canadian port you need 2 dde 4,000 or better.
[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;171948]It all goes by what your CG-issued Safe Manning Document has listed on it.
I’ve seen some requiring C/E and some where DDE was okay.
The wording has, in my experience, been unambiguous.[/QUOTE]
Except most tugs don’t have safe manning certificates (a COI) because they’re uninspected.
Safe Manning Document is not a COI… It’s a separate document for vessels subject to SOLAS, capable of foreign voyages… SMD
[QUOTE=fishyluke;171955]Safe Manning Document is not a COI… It’s a separate document for vessels subject to SOLAS, capable of foreign voyages… SMD[/QUOTE]
Gotcha. That must be something unique to uninspected vessels subject to SOLAS and since the only SOLAS boats I’ve ever been on we’re inspected I’m not familiar with them.
The first ATBs I sailed in 2002 were uninspected and SOLAS. The vettors were always scratching their heads.
yep, and they’re voluntary as in you have to ask the USCG for one. It’s a way of proving to port state control that the vessel is properly manned in accordance with the flag state; as there is no COI to refer to.
I have gotten them for non-solas boats as well.
Nothing is more confusing than obtaining a stcw endorsement
The USCG needs to do away with this silly two track (domestic license and STCW CoC) program. Since we have signed on to the British flavored STCW treaty, we should switch to only STCW compliant CoCs for outside vessels.
The notion of having a separate domestic ocean or near coastal license which appears to authorize service on ocean or near coastal waters, but in fact does not authorize such service without also holding an STCW CoC is ridiculous.
I cannot imagine how the USCG came up with this?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;171972]I cannot imagine how the USCG came up with this?[/QUOTE]
I’m fairly certain it’s a matter of trying to institute the new rules while not “overburdening” the industry.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;171972]The notion of having a separate domestic ocean or near coastal license which appears to authorize service on ocean or near coastal waters, but in fact does not authorize such service without also holding an STCW CoC is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. I also wish they’d do away with the domestic GRT and make life even simpler.
Example: the CFR says a tug over 200 GRT on a domestic near coastal voyage needs II/2 or II/1 but what if the vessel is 250 GRT and 450 GT. You’d think II/3 would cover that but the CFR is very explicit. (Also, what about a tug that only has ITC measurement and is 450 GT?). The authors of these rules don’t think then through fully before implementation.
Just like a 500 ton mate advancing all the way to 2nd mate without testing again, but a 1600 master has to retest completely to go to 3rd mate. Makes no sense.