^ snipped from the MOTV checklist
I’m doing research on adding the NC towing route to my MMC, according to the checklist for adding a route, it appears I only need the TOAR and an exam or course for the route as well as 90 days on “ocean” vessels.
Since I already have a tonnage NC route that is not for towing, would that apply to meet the course/exam requirements to add the towing NC route or is the checklist course/exam towing specific ?
You need the sea service in addition to the TOAR and exam. The service has to be on towing vessels.
If you have Master Towing Inland you can get MATE towing inland with just an exam. See footnote 1 to 46 CFR 11.464(a) Table 1.
Thanks for the reply. I didn’t mention it above but I already have Master of Towing Inland / WR.
I also have national 200GRT NC which is the focus of my question. Since I’ve already tested for the national 200GRT NC, would that satisfy the exam/ course for adding a NC towing route to my MMC ?
Is this true they have removed Great Lakes sea time from qualifying for Near Coastal? And now Near Coastal qualifies for Ocean?
No.
It always has. Go look at the definition of “near coastal” in 46 CFR 10.107.
“Oceans” is outside the boundary (200miles generally) Near Coastal is defined as within the boundary line. But my main question was GL not counting for Near Coastal.
Wrong. That’s the definition of inland.
Directly quoted text:
“Near-coastal means ocean waters not more than 200 miles offshore from the United States and its possessions, except for MMCs endorsed as Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) for which near-coastal is limited to waters not more than 100 miles offshore from the United States and its possessions. This also includes those near-coastal waters identified by another Administration when the United States has entered into a treaty or an agreement with that country respecting the recognition of the U.S. near-coastal endorsement.”
You are correct. I was wrong on that term.
“The boundary” defines the line between Inland and “Near Coastal”. Depending on licence, “Near Coastal” is not past either 200 miles beyond the boundary line or 100 miles for OUPV.
Is that an accurate description?
The definitions are better. But not you’re close. It’s not 200 miles from the boundary line it’s 200 miles offshore (100 for OUPV).
Is the boundary line not the definition of where “offshore” starts?
“Oceans means the waters seaward of the Boundary Lines as described in part 7 of this chapter. For the purposes of establishing sea service credit, the waters of the Inside Passage between Puget Sound and Cape Spencer, Alaska, and the inland waters of another country are not considered oceans.”
No. Offshore is off the shore. Like land.
Well, for purposes of sea time, the USCG describes any time shoreward of the Boundary Line as Inland (Box 3 on the form), and any time seaward of the Boundary Line as Near Coastal (Box 4). At least on the Small Vessel Sea Service Form.
Section II, page 8
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/professional_qualifications/crediting_sea_service.pdf
Your mixing definitions and usages. Near coastal licenses are good out to 200 nm from the US shoreline (land) but the “boundary line” is not the same as the shoreline. (Near coastal licenses get confusing in places where you exit the US EEZ some still within 200 nm of shore.)
This is for towing licenses. A lot of things are different than for regular licenses.
The above questions and discussions are good examples of the USCG licensing scheme being unnecessarily and ridiculously complex and confusing.
Do you know who has the poorest understanding of licensing? It’s the USCG personnel at the local OMCI, and the boarding officers.
There are too many different licenses with too many distinctions that make no practical difference. This is a tremendous waste of the USCG’s limited resources, and an unnecessary burden on mariners and vessel owners.
Over the years, the USCG has greatly simplified licensing from the even more complex mess that it used to be. There is still a lot of room for improvement, and it’s time to simplify licensing again.
All of the trade restricted licenses should be eliminated.
Towing should either have serious and extensive requirements that do make a difference, or it should be eliminated. I am not aware of any other country that requires an additional towing endorsement (although some do have towing only CoCs).
Tonnage limitations should be harmonized with the IMO scheme using only GT: 500, 3000, and Unlimited. Any additional tonnage restrictions should be rare.
These changes would save the USCG, mariners, and owners $$$ billions over a few years.
Also get rid of Near Coastal. Any license that isn’t inland should be Oceans. Too many people (owners, crying personnel, inspectors, etc) don’t understand exactly when a near coastal license is allowed vs not allowed.
It is certainly true that few people correctly understand the limitations of Near Coastal (such as no foreign waters other than Canada). Yet, owners send mariners with near coastal licenses to The Bahamas, Caribbean, Mexico, and even through the Panama Canal all the time. The USCG captains of the port and boarding officers don’t know any better either.
However, owners and most mariners would never stand for requiring everyone running up and down the coast to need to learn celestial and pass the oceans exam.
If Near Coastal were eliminated in favor of solely Inland and Oceans, that would be the end of the celestial requirement.
I’m not in favor of that. To some extent, celestial does separate the men from the boys that only know how to follow the green line.
