3M unlimited to 2M/1600 ton Master upgrade

Maritime Topics Maritime Training & Licensing
#1

I know there’s a ton of information out there regarding what’s required to upgrade from 3/M oceans unlimited to 2M/1600 ton master but many of the posts and info I’m finding is 5-10 years old. What is the current requirement? Are there any classes that I’d need to take for the upgrade?

I have 360 days + of sea time as 3M on unlimited vessels and I’ve also taken VSO and leadership and management (my understanding these are required now?)

What else do I need? Just the 70 question exam?

Thanks for the help

#2

Glad you thought twice and posted this as a new discussion and not bringing a 10-year old discussion back from the dead. But you also should have deleted your first post to that ancient discussion. There have been major changes since that discussion ended almost 11 years ago, and much in it may no longer be valid.

The general policy that you can sit for the national endorsement (license) of Master 1600 GRT when you qualify for 2nd Mate hasn’t changed. There have been some minor changes in exam content, but it’s still possible.

The major changes are to STCW, you don’t need to raise the grade of your STCW to get the national endorsement (license), but you will probably need it to work as Master outside the Boundary Line. For STCW, you will need to meet all of the requirements for the Master 500 GT or More and Less Than 3,000 GT. They are in 46 CFR 11.311 and NVIC 11-14. Note also that if you only have the minimum sea time to go from 3rd Mate to 2nd Mate, you may not have enough for the STCW endorsement Master 500 GT or More and Less Than 3,000 GT.

#3

Yes plus a stability exam as well now.

#4

This is a very major change that I was not really aware of. If I understood that NVIC correctly after a quick scan:

It takes 36 months of sea time sailing as OICNW, or 24 months of sea time, if it includes 12 months as Chief Mate, to upgrade to from 3rd Mate Unlimited , STCW II/1, to Master 500 or 1600, STCW II/2 500-3000 GT.

It also, basically requires most of the same STCW courses as STCW II/2 unlimited.

So while a 3rd Mate with II/1 can still upgrade with only 12 months of seatime to 2nd Mate and use the same II/1, and he can upgrade to national Master 1600 Oceans (same as before), he cannot get STCW II/2 500 to 3000 GT.

This would limit the 3rd Mate to Master 1600 Oceans guys with less than 36 (or 24) months of seatime licenses to only being able to sail on “Inland” waters, i.e., inside the Inland/Colregs boundary line (essentially, the Great Lakes fleet and a few ferries, and STCW exempt fishing vessels).

I see two possible effects: first, this should slow the flood of 20-something Master 1600s into the very crowded 1600 ton job market, and second, it should discourage the construction of self-propelled vessels over 200 GRT (which require STCW) and encourage the tug and barge trade.

1 Like
#5

If you get your 1600ton masters with minimal seatime you don’t need additional sea-time for the STCW endorsement. In table " Table 1 to §11.311(d)—STCW Endorsement as Master of Vessels of 500 GT or More and Less Than 3,000 GT " it shows you need no additional seatime if you hold a national 1600 ton masters license. Therefore if the evaluator is being picky just apply for the national endorsement first then once you get your 1600 ton placed on your license, apply for the STCW. It won’t cost extra to do it this way either because all STCW endorsements are free to put on your MMC.

A 1600 ton license is good to have if you also have your TOAR, there are a ton of opportunities in the workboat industry. Even in this “downturn” there are alot of openings.

1 Like
#6

You probably should clicky on the linky to the CFR’s that Mr. Cavo was kind enough to provide in his post above.

(3) Provide evidence of having satisfactorily completed approved training in the following subject areas:

(i) Advanced ship handling.

(ii) Advanced stability.

(iii) Advanced meteorology.

(iv) Leadership and managerial skills.

(v) Search and rescue.

(vi) Management of medical care.

(vii) ECDIS, if serving on a vessel with this equipment.

(viii) ARPA, if serving on a vessel with this equipment.

(ix) GMDSS, if serving on a vessel with this equipment.

#7

The ECDIS, ARPA, and GMDSS do not need to be repeated if you had them for your OICNW endorsement.

#8

It is my understanding that if you aren’t getting the assessments signed off on board from nvic 11-14 then there are even more required classes in order to fully sign off all the assessments.

#9

Not really, the courses and assessments are separate. What you describe applies to OICNW and OICEW where “Leadership and Teamworking” only requires demonstrating competence, that can be either in a course, or by assessments.

For Master, Chief Mate, Chief Engineer, and “Second Engineer Officer” (1st AE), Leadership and Managerial Skills has to be a course.

1 Like
#10

The summary table isn’t the rule and doesn’t override the rules.

#11

I hope that isn’t true.

The last thing that those of us with the seatime, completed STCW courses, and earned STCW II/2 need is more giveaway licenses.

However, it does seem like the evaluators do give away too many endorsements to unqualified people.

#12

Yes I did click on the link that Mr. Cavo provided lol. I was referring to the seatime If he has enough national endorsement he has enough for the STCW. Additional training to get the STCW may be required if he doesn’t hold the training in the items you kindly listed. If this is confusing I would suggest clicking on Mr. Cavo’s link.

#13

Its in the CFR therefore its the rule of law. The table specifically addresses cross overs from national to STCW

#14

It’s a summary table and that doesn’t overrule the actual text of the rules.

#15

The STCW courses would still be required but it seems like the seatime is a little bit of a loophole. And I totally agree, this just like the ATB time counting for unlimited its all messed up

#16

I don’t believe its a summary table as you think. It is a table that is in the actual text. There is many tables within the CFRs that specifically determine laws / regulations etc. Just because it is not written out word for word doesn’t me the table doesn’t count. But in the end the evaluator will make the determination

#17

Not entirely correct.
“In the end”, if you disagree with the determination of the evaluator, you can make a formal request for reconsideration.
The next step after that would be an appeal, which is handled at USCG headquarters.

Title 46 CFR Subpart 1.03 – Rights of Appeal

§1.03-40 Appeals from decisions or actions of the National Maritime Center.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action of an officer or employee of the National Maritime Center (NMC) involving any of the marine safety functions listed in §1.01-15© of this subpart may, after requesting reconsideration of the decision or action by the NMC, make a formal appeal of that decision or action to the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), in accordance with the procedures contained in §1.03-15 of this subpart. The decision of the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), on such an appeal will constitute final agency action.

clicky the linky

#18

That doesn’t change that it is. Here’s the similar discussion we had about this issue when dealing with engineering licenses.

The text of the regulation gives very specific sea time requirements with no exceptions for holding a US license.

#19

I am tired of hearing the tables described as “summary tables.” This is simply not accurate. The tables are as much a part of the regulation as any of the text that comes before it. The tables even have their own separate and distinct paragraphs. As much as I appreciate JD, I think he is stretching it with his prediction of legal interpretation.

Nonetheless, I have come to the same ultimate conclusion about the sea time. Since every table with the sea service column contains a footnote stating: “This column provides the minimum additional service required…” it would seem that the maximum required sea service should be as explained in the preceding paragraphs.

But I also suspect that some evaluators might miss that footnote. So who really knows until they pay their user fee and submit the application?

1 Like
#20

It’s hard to argue with one of the people that wrote those rules about what the tables are.

1 Like