3rd Mate Assessments

Professional Mariner Forum
21

  1. I can’t see anywhere on the RYA website (who administer the MCA licenses) that you get II/2 with yacht master. Show us your source for that?

  2. The commercial endorsement you get with yacht master entitles you to work on vessels up to 200gt. The requirements to sign off that assessment are II/2 authorized for service on vessels GREATER THAN 200grt / 500 gt.

From the RYA website, talking about the foreign endorsement:

“The following wording would appear on your certificate: The certificate holder complies with STCW 95 regulations V1/1 Sections V1/1-4. This certificate is valid for use as a Master of yachts of up to 200gt on commercially and privately registered yachts until (date of expiry).”

22

Cut and paste specific wording because I can’t tell what you are trying to point out as significant.

23

"Read page 3 paragraphs 8 and 9 "

That is precisely where I quoted from.

Keep looking and find anyplace it says that the vessel on which assessements are performed must be of any particular tonnage or service.

Let me know if you find any regulation that says the assessor must hold a USCG ticket, have any experience on a commercial vessel, or have any qualifications other than an STCW certificate endorsed as II/2.

24

See my reply to you steamer. The II/2 must be valid for vessels greater than 500 gt. A yacht master license is not that.

25

[I]"1) I can’t see anywhere on the RYA website (who administer the MCA licenses) that you get II/2 with yacht master. Show us your source for that?

  1. The commercial endorsement you get with yacht master entitles you to work on vessels up to 200gt. The requirements to sign off that assessment are II/2 authorized for service on vessels GREATER THAN 200grt / 500 gt."

[/I]Here you go … from the horse’s mouth so to speak, everything you ever wanted to know about yacht licenses.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga-mnotice.htm?textobjid=A2972962E00EF8DA

The RYA is sort of a private club to which the MCA has turned over recreational licensing. The RYA issues the recreational “licenses” then the MCA tacks on a couple weeks of courses plus BST and stamps them with a “commerical” notation and somehow the IMO allows them to use the II/2 code even though they are limited to yacht use only. The following is a cut and paste from a yacht training school in Fort Lauderdale that offers an upgrade with II/2 to the RYA “yachtmaster” ticket.

http://www.mptusa.com/professional/mca_deck.html#master_limited

Officer of the Watch (OOW) Yachts less than 500GT – unlimited area
Upgrading from Yachtmaster Offshore to a Master 200gt/ OOW Yacht 500gt:
The Master 200 ton will have an Offshore Mileage Limit of 150 miles from safe haven. The OOW (yacht) 500gt has Unlimited Area
[ul]
[li]Valid UK Medical Fitness Certificate - ENG1 [/li]
[li]Successful Completion of the MCA Recognised Yachtmaster Shore-based Theory Course* & Holding an MCA Recognised Yachtmaster Offshore CoC [/li]
[li]Basic Safety Training (STCW A-VI/1-1 – A-VI/1-4) [/li]
[li]MCA GMDSS (ROC or GOC) [/li]
[li]MCA Oral Exam [/li][/ul]* Not required where the CoC was issued before 31st July 2003
[B]Note: [/B]You can remove the mileage limit by obtaining YM Oceans Course & CoC and MCA GMDSS GOC without further exam.
Prerequisite Experience Required:
[ul]
[li]Ocean Passage as Skipper or Mate of the Watch [/li]
[li]Hold RYA Yachtmaster Offshore[/li]
[li]Practical (done either before or after class during a passage on your boat) Sights taken and passage planning notes during a 600nm voyage at sea for +96 hours, & +50 miles from land [/li]
[li]6 day Shore-based Theory Program [/li]
[li]Oral Exam administered by an RYA Examiner[/li][/ul]

The whole thing is a scam that seems to have passed beneath the USCG radar so far as STCW is concerned. Sometimes when I am feeling really cynical about the whole process I think back to that announcement last year about “recognizing foreign certificates” and wonder just what they plan to recognize.

26

[I]" The II/2 must be valid for vessels greater than 500 gt. A yacht master license is not that." [/I]

Never said it was, the yachtmaster can be converted to an OOW 3000 tons (II/2) by spending a couple more days at sea.

Well not really at sea, read what counts as “sea time.”

27

[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;59145]Cut and paste specific wording because I can’t tell what you are trying to point out as significant.[/QUOTE]

I tried friggin’ PDF wouldn’t let me…I’ll try and figure something out.

28

[QUOTE=jdcavo;59137]Most days I have a lot of patience for explaining things that can easily be answered without asking here. Today ain’t one of those days. I’ll give you the same response I gave before, read the policy letter.[/QUOTE]

LMFAO! Good Stuff, thanks for all your help on here.

29

[QUOTE=Diesel;59155]LMFAO! Good Stuff, thanks for all your help on here.[/QUOTE]

Still haven’t seen any answer to how a 200/500 ton yacht restricted skipper or mate holding an STCW II/2 certificate can sign off an unlimited assessement for an American license applicant.

Still haven’t seen any response that says where it requires a USCG license or the assessments have to be performed on a vessel of any particular size.

I think that is really funny. It will get even funnier when no one from the CG can provide a citation to those requirements.

30

Steamer: I believe this is further example of how the USCG is kowtowing to IMO. No one will put up an argument since it would show how it is in world wide license equivalency and you KNOW how we have to toe the line to keep respectability!

31

[QUOTE=Steamer;59163]Still haven’t seen any answer to how a 200/500 ton yacht restricted skipper or mate holding an STCW II/2 certificate can sign off an unlimited assessement for an American license applicant.

Still haven’t seen any response that says where it requires a USCG license or the assessments have to be performed on a vessel of any particular size.

I think that is really funny. It will get even funnier when no one from the CG can provide a citation to those requirements.[/QUOTE]

You’re correct. The policy letter does not specify vessel size. If we did, it would have to be 50 GRT. Since this is the minimum tonnage for mate not more than 500 GRT, anything over this would cut off the path to getting mate 500 GRT. If we made it over 100 GRT, we cut off the path to mate 1600 GRT.

This notwithstanding, how about identifying specific assessments where the tonnage is relevant to demonstrating the competency. The assessments’ “performance condition” identifies the specific equipment and operational conditions the assessment has to be performed under. How about backing your unsupported statements with specific examples of assessments where the task would be performed differently and require different skills on a larger vessel? Most if not all of the assessments are basic enough that the skills required for the assessment are equally applicable on smaller vessels. This is not true for the management level (Chief Mate/Master) which is why there are separate requirements for less than 1600 GRT. Show us where the size of the vessel makes a significant difference.

You’re also correct that we don’t specify the assessor must hold a USCG license. The reason is to accommodate [U]American[/U] mariners. Many Americans work on foreign vessels, and by necessity have their assessments done by Chief Mates and Captains who do not hold a US license. Requiring the assessor to hold a U.S. license would make it extremely difficult for the American working on that foreign vessel to get their assessments done. While this makes it more difficult to perform oversight, it’s necessary to avoid an unreasonable burden to Americans who work on foreign vessels.

Can you back up your assertion that an RYA yachtmaster can sign an assessment?

32

[QUOTE=jdcavo;59189]While you’re at it, how about responding to the several requests to back up your flatus that an RYA yachtmaster can sign an assessment?

Today’s your lucky day.[/QUOTE]

There isn’t any luck involved, I posed a valid question and it seems to be embarrassing enough to the NMC that not responding only makes it look worse. I could care less who from the CG or NMC responds though I think it should be looked at from a much higher level, this should be about the issue. Personal attacks on the messenger, especially when posted above a USCG signature, seems a bit beyond the pale though so please try to keep it professional and on point.

I never said an RYA Yachtmaster can sign off an assessement. A Yachtmaster is not an STCW license. That is not too difficult to discover.

Rather than get all hissy about it, go back and read where I wrote in no uncertain terms:

[I] “The RYA is sort of a private club to which the MCA has turned over recreational licensing. [I]The RYA issues the recreational “licenses” then the MCA tacks on a couple weeks of courses plus BST and stamps them with a “commerical” notation and somehow the IMO allows them to use the II/2 code even though they are limited to yacht use only.[/I] The following is a cut and paste from a yacht training school in Fort Lauderdale that offers an upgrade with II/2 to the RYA “yachtmaster” ticket.”[/I]

Considering how possessive the USCG gets over sea time and training, I find it amusing that the CG refuses to question the IMO about its rationale for allowing the MCA to endorse a severely restricted license that requires virtually no sea time (babysitting a pleasure yacht at a dock 11 months a year counts as a full year of sea time) with the same STCW code as an unlimited master.

And to top it off, the USCG will accept that license holder as qualified to assess an American license applicant. There aren’t any “black helicopters” circling around this issue, it is a matter of common sense. Trying to blow off my questions by painting them with the foil hat brush is beneath what little dignity remains in the CG’s relationship with the American mariner.

The underlying context of my posts on this subject is that the USCG simply states that a II/2 is good enough but seems to have missed the fact that because the IMO has a very cozy relationship with the MCA, there are II/2s and there are II/2s that other flag states maritime authorities (including the issuing authority) will not accept for the type of service that a USCG OUPV holder can perform.

I don’t fear worldwide standards, I welcome them. When and if they ever exist it will “level the playing field” and make my job a lot easier but as is perfectly clear to anyone who follows international licensing and training standards, we are long way from working on a level field. The USCG seems Hell-bent on conforming, mostly to the detriment of the American mariner as evidenced by the thankfully retracted training requirements imposed and proposed last year, but then publishes policy letters that seem to show either indifference to or ignorance of commercial maritime operations or an understanding of the cultural differences between various components of the maritime industry.

33

The USCG seems Hell-bent on conforming, mostly to the detriment of the American mariner.

Ditto. Let’s all march right off the end of the gangplank, to meet Manilla (gee, isn’t that where such excellent examples of convenience registry is?)