does anyone know if old school academy grads are “grand-fathered” over the requirements to get assessments & do the “Management Level Training” when upgrading?
No one is “grandfathered”, or grandmothered for that matter.
But if you pursue this, the NMC will make you feel like an unwanted stepchild, if that helps…
If you were under the “old” program you weren’t required to complete the Chief Mate/Master courses until January 31, 2007. It was then extended for another year to January 31, 2008. We are now all officially under one system.
For what it’s worth, it was a surprise to me when I found out about it. I walked my application into REC Baltimore (remember the good old days?), was approved to sit two weeks later, studied my a$$ off and sat two weeks after that. The date on my original master’s license? January 31, 2007. It was a bit of a letdown when I found out that they’d extended it.
[quote=RichMadden90;20539]If you were under the “old” program you weren’t required to complete the Chief Mate/Master courses until January 31, 2007. It was then extended for another year to January 31, 2008. We are now all officially under one system.
For what it’s worth, it was a surprise to me when I found out about it. I walked my application into REC Baltimore (remember the good old days?), was approved to sit two weeks later, studied my a$$ off and sat two weeks after that. The date on my original master’s license? January 31, 2007. It was a bit of a letdown when I found out that they’d extended it.[/quote]
I BELIEVE YOU’RE WRITING ABOUT IF ONE WAS ALREADY A CHMATE FROM THE OLD SYSTEM; 2ND MATES FROM THE OLD SYTEM HAVE HAD TO TAKE THE CHMATE/MASTER COURSES ALL ALONG. Sorry about the caps, I’m not yelling :o
Thanks guys. looks like I’ll be doing the assessments with all those recent academy grads. damn. you’ll be able to tell me apart only in that I can handle a vessel really well and that I sit around off watch reading books rather then playing XBOX.
fair winds…
Hey Grandpa,
Usually any time someone says what a good ship/boat handler they are is when a piling gets broken, concrete gets chipped, and steel gets dent. Just Saying!
There are segments of the industry that are much less insulated from disaster and “incidents” than deep-sea shipping. When I started on tugs, it was explained to me by a crusty old captain that it wasn’t IF you’d ever have an incident or go aground, but WHEN.:eek:
It’s actually become a topic of conversation in some segments of the industry that many are not prepared for failure, never having experienced that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.
[quote=MMA-90;20578]Hey Grandpa,
Usually any time someone says what a good ship/boat handler they are is when a piling gets broken, concrete gets chipped, and steel gets dent. Just Saying![/quote]
Yeah. I did a claim on a grounding down in Mexico some 11 years ago. Flying down there, with his boat on a reef and his Captain under arrest, the Owner tells me, "He can’t read or write, but he is a good navigator . . . . "
“tugboatin 101”…the skill set for damage is about not when but how much and the ability to see “it” coming and to minimize “it”…suspect those who claim they have never done damage, ran aground, or got a line in the wheel have never really “worked” a boat…have worked with a few that made that claim and when “it” does happen “it” usually happens in “spades”…was informed very early in my career that “tugboatin is a contact sport”…feces happens and “it” most always finds a fan!!
good points all. I have had a few really hairy moments and concur with SEADAWG: its the ability to see “it” coming and take action. I’m NOT saying I’m the Warren Buffett of ship handlers, I’m pretty good but I do see a lot of the younger officers using DP joysticks to maneuver alongside the quay and this is what led to my comment.
I remember once on the St Lawrence Seaway in Tres Riviores (?) going out to paint over a green racing stripe on our quarter we got from a buoy during my watch. crew loved seeing that. hmmm… there was that time on the Bonny River too…
fair winds.
There is no shame in Racing Stripes! Buoys are Magnetic! Of course it is better to spin them rather than running them over.
I tried to get ‘grandfathered’ in Jan 2002 as soon as I had passed my second mate unlimited exam since I had taken all of the required chief mate classes at a USCG approved school but was told that even tho the classes I took were much more in depth and better all around, they were taken before STCW was put into effect so therefore useless! I tried to formally protest but got no where with that and finally just gave up since I had taken almost all the classes by then. USCG would not let me apply for the chief mate license until I had all of the classes finished and I could not formally protest until I had the letter from the USCG turning me down for not having them. So- catch 22 all the way. I gave up and just went ahead and took the test (and passed it last November after 5 years of taking classes every chance I could). I sure would like to see someone in your position actually challenge the requirement to take these classes all OVER AGAIN once you have already taken them all at a USCG approved facility. I was not successful, I hope someone else can be…
[quote=RichMadden90;20585]There are segments of the industry that are much less insulated from disaster and “incidents” than deep-sea shipping.
It’s actually become a topic of conversation in some segments of the industry that many are not prepared for failure, never having experienced that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.[/quote]
I know what you mean and I agree to a certain degree. I wouldn’t say deep sea is insulated from incidents. Instead I would say that a deep sea vessel has to maintain a larger safety margin then a smaller vessel. On a smaller vessel mistakes can be corrected more easily on the fly and the consequences of an incident are general less severe. A deep-sea vessel typically has more resources available to stay out of trouble but these resources have to be utilized wisely to reduce risk.
.
As far as sinking feeling, because of the consequences of a major event, the degree of risk has to be estimated based on minor incidents and close calls.