3rd Mate on Limited Vessels

[Capt_Phoenix]

@"anchorman"

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.

Upon closer examination of my initial post on the matter you well see I actually said:

“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…”

So obviously I understand the truth of the matter. Both that not being mentioned means you do not qualify and that the cfr does not say someone does not qualify for any given license (I chose that one at random for the purpose of my statement).

[Capt_Phoenix]

@"jdcavo"

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.

No it does not say a 1600 ton master does not qualify. It also does not say that that section is the only place in the cfrs where qualifications for 2m might be listed. There just so happen to not be other qualifications listed elsewhere but there could be.

[anchorman]

@"Capt. Phoenix"

Upon closer examination of my initial post on the matter you well see I actually said:

“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…”

So obviously I understand the truth of the matter. Both that not being mentioned means you do not qualify and that the cfr does not say someone does not qualify for any given license (I chose that one at random for the purpose of my statement).

As long as you know the intent, that’s all that really matters. Obviously, there will be those like myself that will always argue that intent through interpretation with regard to regulation is as unequivocal as the term “does not” (minus exact text) if that is the determination. Otherwise, how would you know or understand anything at all? Minus what you said is not there, you came up with the same conclusion and must have gotten there in a similar fashion.

Anyway, it’s easy to talk in circles when we both have the same conclusion.

[rammerjammer]

Hey guys just some “insight”. A 3rd Mate is an AGT license (Any Gross Tons) meaning UNLIMITED TONNAGE. A 1600 GRT 3000 ITC is limitd to vessels no bigger than that. So 3rd Mate means you can sail on ANYTHING with an engine.

[rjbpilot]

@"rammerjammer"

Hey guys just some “insight”. A 3rd Mate is an AGT license (Any Gross Tons) meaning UNLIMITED TONNAGE. A 1600 GRT 3000 ITC is limitd to vessels no bigger than that. So 3rd Mate means you can sail on ANYTHING with an engine.

No shit Sherlock…

[KPEngineer]

[QUOTE=rammerjammer;81951]Hey guys just some “insight”. A 3rd Mate is an AGT license (Any Gross Tons) meaning UNLIMITED TONNAGE. A 1600 GRT 3000 ITC is limitd to vessels no bigger than that. So 3rd Mate means you can sail on ANYTHING with an engine.[/QUOTE]

Isn’t it possible to get a 3rd Mate with a tonnage limitation? So maybe not quite ANYTHING with an engine …

[captainbryan]

Yes it very possible to have a third mate with a tonnage restriction. Such as a 3rd mate with a 2000 ton restriction.