I was looking over the sea service requirements for 500 ton mate (inland) license and I have a question about some of the wording.
The CG checklist states that in addition to 720 total days of service, 360 of them need to be on vessels above 50 gt, and 90 of them should be [I]as AB, Boatswain, Quartermaster or equivalent position on vessels over 50 gt[/I] while holding an AB.
I don’t have any time as an AB, so of course I’m intrigued by the “or equivalent” phrase. What I do have is time as a “Senior Deckhand” on passenger vessels. The reason I think this might count, though perhaps I am totally wrong here, is that the vessels i work on carry 350+ people, have no mate, and require 2 deckhands and 1 senior deckhand in the COI…
In this situation, as far as I can tell the CG doesn’t mandate, but recommends via NVIC 1-91 that the senior deckhand have extra training blah blah blah.
Anyhow, anyone have any ideas about this? Think senior deckhand time (with AB rating in hand) could count for these days? Think I should just get a job as an AB and stop goofing around reading checklists? Or…?
[QUOTE=Diesel;26924]You have to hold an AB/RFPNW credential and serve in that capacity or higher for at least 90 days.[/QUOTE]
If I’m not mistaken, RFPNW/STCW is not required for inland/domestic service. I think that ‘Senior Deckhand’ may indeed qualify, but have nothing in writing to back it up.
The CG checklist states that in addition to 720 total days of service, 360 of them need to be on vessels above 50 gt, and 90 of them should be [I]as AB, Boatswain, Quartermaster or equivalent position on vessels over 50 gt[/I] [B]while holding an AB.[/B]
Should mean just what it says. You do not need RFPNW for Inland but if you intend to work offshore then get it.
trekleader’s comment : "Apply. 50/50 Contract Evaluator Rule applies… " is 100% correct. go for it. whats the worst that can happen? you lose a couple bucks evaluation fee. what’s the best that can happen? lord only knows!! Master AGT? maybe your evaluator is in a good mood…
time and time again I have seen this in my +24 year career.
My gut feeling was that the 50/50 rule, as it has been referred to here, would apply. Something like this, with the added ambiguity of “equivalent” in the text, seems like it would really be up to the evaluator. Question would be if they bought my story of performing the duties of a bosun while being called “Senior Deckhand” and holding an AB (though unnecessary for the position…)
Anyhow, thanks for reaffirming that this does indeed fall under the “50/50 rule”, and not the “uh are you crazy, they’re never going to give you that rule.”
Could have something to do with a very well worded sea service letter. If your employer has the right wording for the description of your position, I doubt the 50/50 rule would even have to come into play…
[QUOTE=Cal;26954]Could have something to do with a very well worded sea service letter. If your employer has the right wording for the description of your position, I doubt the 50/50 rule would even have to come into play…[/QUOTE]
Its all about the wording in the sea time letter. If your company has boats that require AB’s then convince them that it would behoove them to write you the sea time letter as one. They could always use more people with mates licenses, especially ones they are paying as "Senior Deckhand."
Goodluck
This post came up in one of my searches, and I thought it might be worth an update.
I did submit for the upgrade, and the NMC granted it. The only other thing I did here that I didn’t mention in the original post is that I submitted the company produced job description. It described watchstanding duties among other things, and I felt it made the case that my job was “equivalent” to AB. I have no idea if the evaluator actually read the job description tho.
Thanks for the advice, and to anyone else with the same question, good luck.
Thats awesome congrat’s … sorry about my earlier answer on here, looking at it you totally said you were applying for inland, doh, yeah you didn’t need RFPNW. Thanks for the update congratulations again.