It may be that the office used this as a ‘reason’ more than the truth.
Wow, second day in a row I’ve suggested 46 CFR 10.403 as a reference.
It’s 11.403 and that chart does not officialy count for anything. One cannot use it as proof in any argument. Where is the actual cfr citation to equate 3m to 1600 ton mate?
360 days as master of vessels over 200grt while holding a license as master 1600grt.
And again, I realize the person is wrong. I am not trying to find the truth of the matter because I already know. I am trying to figure out where the citation is to prove what everyone on here already knows.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79347]360 days as master of vessels over 200grt while holding a license as master 1600grt.
And again, I realize the person is wrong. I am not trying to find the truth of the matter because I already know. I am trying to figure out where the citation is to prove what everyone on here already knows.[/QUOTE]
maybe there isn’t one…I’ve not seen a citation myself but it doesn’t mean that a 3rd mate sailing as mate on a 1600/3000 vessel is not legal. Maybe that chart is the closet you will find? In the end what determines the legal qualification of a person to fill a position in the safe manning is up to a USCG marine inspector who boards the ship. We all know that the USCG accepts 3rd mates as mate. It is simply intuitive and any person who argues that it isn’t acceptable because there isn’t a specific citation is being obtuse (I like that word these days it seems)
[QUOTE=c.captain;79356]maybe there isn’t one…I’ve not seen a citation myself but it doesn’t mean that a 3rd mate sailing as mate on a 1600/3000 vessel is not legal. Maybe that chart is the closet you will find? In the end what determines the legal qualification of a person to fill a position in the safe manning is up to a USCG marine inspector who boards the ship. We all know that the USCG accepts 3rd mates as mate. It is simply intuitive and any person who argues that it isn’t acceptable because there isn’t a specific citation is being obtuse (I like that word these days it seems)[/QUOTE]
Funny, there are some industrial unlimited vessels that actually have, (1) “Master” (3) Mate(s) “OICNW” on the COI. You can actually have (3) 3rd Mates and be legal, but according to Capt.Phoenix’s buddy’s conclusion, you could not even crew this ship, because “A”…a 3rd Mate cannot take a spot as just “MATE”, and “B”, there is no such thing as an unlimited just “MATE”.
surf challenger
VADM KR WHEELER in another.
Most of the unlimited US flag hopper dredges also classified as industrial vessels and call for (1) Master and (3) Licensed mates/OICNW on the COI.
How many 3rd captains are required on these vessels? Maybe the guy saying the third mate can’t sail as “mate” thinks you are required to have 2nd, 3rd or 4th captains license.
Its easy to imagine some office girl in HR, not knowing that a license as 3rd mate is superior to a license as “mate 1600.” I find it very hard to believe that any manager with hiring authority would not know that 3rd mate covers limited mate. Unfortunately, attempting to educate the ignorant and incompetent is one of our many duties.
For a possible solution to this problem. Ask the USCG in a letter to add “mate 1600” to your license. Hopefully, the USCG staffer that responds to your letter will be competent enough to write back denying your request and saying: "adding mate 1600 to your license would be superfulous because 3rd mate is a superior license that already includes the authority to sail as “mate 1600.” Then if you encounter an office girl who doesn’t know any better, or some exceptionally dim-witted and incompetent manager, you can just show them the letter from the USCG.
Ch. 19 of the MSM. To paraphrase, any license designated as Chief, 2nd or 3rd is authorized to serve where no grade designation is given.
Ch. 1 also has a chart showing “upper” and “lower” level licenses.
I was asked by the HR asst if I knew that my ARPA was about to expire. Frickin dipshit.
I’m not sure why you think something in a CFR doesn’t officially count for anything…it’s the law.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79346]It’s 11.403 and that chart does not officialy count for anything. One cannot use it as proof in any argument. Where is the actual cfr citation to equate 3m to 1600 ton mate?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;79468]I’m not sure why you think something in a CFR doesn’t officially count for anything…it’s the law.[/QUOTE]
nope
46CFR = Code of Federal REGULATIONS
46USC = United States CODE (Statute)
Statutes = LAW
statutes enable the regulations and are the foundation the the regulations are built upon
I knew some smart ass would challenge that, but I didn’t think it would be you C.captain. “The U.S. Code is a codification of legislation, while the CFR serves as administrative law.” There, I’m done with this stupidity. Anchorman had it correct many post back, somebody is full of shit.
[QUOTE=c.captain;79469]nope
46CFR = Code of Federal REGULATIONS
46USC = United States CODE (Statute)
Statutes = LAW
statutes enable the regulations and are the foundation the the regulations are built upon[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;79471]I knew some smart ass would challenge that, but I didn’t think it would be you C.captain. “The U.S. Code is a codification of legislation, while the CFR serves as administrative law.” There, I’m done with this stupidity. Anchorman had it correct many post back, somebody is full of shit.[/QUOTE]
ok by me…anchorman, please tell us who’s correct
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;79468]I’m not sure why you think something in a CFR doesn’t officially count for anything…it’s the law.[/QUOTE]
From another thread where I educated someone on this James Cavo agreed:
[QUOTE=jdcavo;76519]You’re correct. A summary chart only controls if there are full supporting regulations. Any conflcit must be resolved in favor of the specific, detailed regulation.
The crossover is in 46 CFR 11.401(e).[/QUOTE]
Therefore, I restate that the chart is meaningless without a specific CFR that states it in writing.
The licensing summary chart is NOT meaningless. It is indeed very meaningful and “persuasive” in regulatory interpretation, its just not “controlling” if its conflicting with a specific detailed regulation. “Controlling” and persuasive" are terms of art in regulatory interpretation.
In this instance, the licensing chart is not in conflict with any specific detailed regulation, therefore, although the chart may not be controlling, it is very persuasive.
Point conceded. But it won’t convince the nmc to give you a 2m from a 1600 ton master, even though there is no detailed regulation that says you cannot…