That is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Now I am also hearing that a 3m needs a Mate OSV6000 to work on a large OSV. He claims to have seen 3rd mates be pulled off boats for audits because they didn’t have this license and the uscg wouldn’t give it to them without 180 days on an OSV under 3000gt. I doubt the NMC would give a 3m a Mate OSV 6000 ever because their 3m is a superior license but he insists he saw this happen. Has anyone else ever heard of this?
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79491]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…[/QUOTE]
There is a regulation that says you can’t - 46 CFR 11.406. With the exception of a master any gross tons Great Lakes and inalnd, you have to hold a license as “third mate” to qualify for second mate.
OK now I’m thinking he’s either an idiot or full of crap. The unlimited license covers all vessels of any tonnage, so why would someone with an unlimited license need to “down grade” their license to work on an OSV?
This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. I think the bottom line here is that someone is anti academy mate and they are spreading lies
I think it is that the office is stupid and his knowledge in this matter is based on what he has observed (pulling mates off for audits), not facts.
That cfr lists the ways to qualify, but nowhere does it say specifically that nothing else qualifies other than what is listed there. If you look at the cfr for master nc/ocean agt you do not see that master great lakes/inland agt qualifies as master nc agt, but they do. Not being listed as qualified does not equate to being disqualified.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79512]That cfr lists the ways to qualify, but nowhere does it say specifically that nothing else qualifies other than what is listed there. If you look at the cfr for master nc/ocean agt you do not see that master great lakes/inland agt qualifies as master nc agt, but they do. Not being listed as qualified does not equate to being disqualified.[/QUOTE]
The reason there are CFR’s to begin with, and administrative law in general, is because Congress does not have the time nor expertise to pass every single little detail of what their laws authorize in each department of government. Administration law, under the authority of Congress’s laws, and not contrary to, are written in regulation through a process that is in more detail, and with each departments expertise. In this case - USCG HQ. In doing so, Coast Guard Headquarters does not have the time nor obligation to regulate every single little detail in crayon so idiots can be educated about the obvious. There is obviously going to be gaps when questions are asked such as these.
The gaps can be covered in writing to “I ask NMC” which takes it even further through policy letters and has authority to evaluate “gaps”. That is your next step, have NMC tell you, and is their job to determine “Not being listed as qualified does not equate to being disqualified”.
Calm down. I’m not claiming a 1600 ton master qualifies for second mate (which they do but not via the means I mentioned here). I’m using that example to make a point. Read up the thread some…
My point being that the CFRs say what is allowed for licenses, not what is not. No where in the CFR does it say “a 1600 ton master does not qualify for second mate agt.”
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79524]Calm down. I’m not claiming a 1600 ton master qualifies for second mate (which they do but not via the means I mentioned here). I’m using that example to make a point. Read up the thread some…
My point being that the CFRs say what is allowed for licenses, not what is not. No where in the CFR does it say “a 1600 ton master does not qualify for second mate agt.”[/QUOTE]
Really? That was not calm? OK, if you say so. I read my post again, just to see if there was something I said, and I did not read what you did. Sorry if I offended thee.
I know what you are saying, and everyone knows that. There will be things not necessarily in any guidance to refer to. Scenarios will happen, and even regulations are changing because the Coast Guard has got things wrong themselves. What I am saying, it such situations, there is an avenue through NMC. It’s their job to determine such things…and I’m talking about educating your buddy (office guys, or whatever) with his questions (which started this), not yourself.
[QUOTE=lief70;79307]I currently hold and have held for 42 years, a third mates License of Steam and motor vessels of any gross tons, It takes 3 years as a limited master to sit for this license, and I am presently employed on the capacity of mate on a vessel of 3183 Gross tons. Anyone who tells you that a third mates is junior to limited mates is deeply misinformed.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the clarification, it took two decades from AB to Unlimited Master.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79512]That cfr lists the ways to qualify, but nowhere does it say specifically that nothing else qualifies other than what is listed there. If you look at the cfr for master nc/ocean agt you do not see that master great lakes/inland agt qualifies as master nc agt, but they do. Not being listed as qualified does not equate to being disqualified.[/QUOTE]
I’m intrigued. Double-secret alternatives to the CFR? Please explain.
No, it’s in the CFR, just not in the section on what qualifies one for master nc/ocean. Thus just because it isn’t in the section of CFR you cited, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t elsewhere. Thus your citation does not say that a 1600 ton master does not qualify as 2m like you claimed it does. All it says is who does qualify, which does not mean there is not something somewhere else that says a 1600 ton master does qualify.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79524]
My point being that the CFRs say what is allowed for licenses, not what is not. No where in the CFR does it say “a 1600 ton master does not qualify for second mate agt.”[/QUOTE]
Yes is does. The 1600 ton Master is “not” qualified for 2nd Mate because the 1600 ton Master is not even qualified for 3rd unless certain qualifications are met. Knowing that 3rd is lower than 2nd, it pretty such says it in no uncertain terms.
My point is that no where does it say a 1600 ton master is not qualified. You assume they are not because the cfr does not say otherwise.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;79687]My point is that no where does it say a 1600 ton master is not qualified. You assume they are not because the cfr does not say otherwise.[/QUOTE]
REPLY Generally, you appear very well informed, and I think you are right on most issues, but in this case, your naive and very superficial understanding of administrative law and regulatory interpretation is leading you astray. Its time for you to remember the First Law of Holes: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.”
Nor does it say anywhere that a Chief Engineer is “not qualified”. Does that mean that I can sail as Master?
[QUOTE=KPEngineer;79731]Nor does it say anywhere that a Chief Engineer is “not qualified”. Does that mean that I can sail as Master?[/QUOTE]
No because it says a Master has to have a license that a Chief Engineer does not have.
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This whole argument started from a simple, true statement. The CFR licensing section does not say anywhere that qualification X “does not” qualify. More does it say anywhere that only the qualifications listed in that paragraph qualify for any given license.
If I’m wrong, find an example…
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;80023]You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. This whole argument started from a simple, true statement. The CFR licensing section does not say anywhere that qualification X “does not” qualify. More does it say anywhere that only the qualifications listed in that paragraph qualify for any given license.
If I’m wrong, find an example…[/QUOTE]
It’s called interpretation and a very common in regulation and law. You can easily determine, without assumption, as you have put it, to factually determine if “X” does not qualify in the CFR. In the real world, your example does not qualify even though you are not finding the text to your satisfaction leaving people to think that you must assume since it’s not there how you think it should be, then you must qualify some how. Why else harp on the issue? That thinking will certainly get rebuke, and did.
You can come up with literally hundreds of examples of “simple, true statements” in the same fashion as you did, and that’s where the guys blew it out of proportion, but warranted nonetheless. Probably because you have not explained, “why?”. Is this an arbitrary statement? (which does not make too much sense), or, do you actually think X does qualify unless the CFR specifically says “does not”?(which makes even less sense)
At least that’s how I took it, and I’m sure several others.