Chúc ACE mua may bán d?t
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;91904]They got certified for a 1600 ton license through GMATS at Kings Point, which is now closed (why they moved their training to the USCG academy), thus they don’t get a license anymore.[/QUOTE]
Now that makes sense, I just couldn’t understand how after they moved to the CGA they STILL could get a license.
[QUOTE=“commtuna;91903”]
I find this hard to believe seeing how both the Navy’s and CG’s training is not “approved” by the NMC for licensing, so why would NOAA’s be? And im not sure how 20 weeks at the CGA is equal to 4 years at a REAL maritime academy as far as earning a license.[/QUOTE]
Because 20 weeks is stretching it. The other 180 weeks at an academy seems necessary to ‘beat the stupid’ into the attendees’. I have yet to see a freshly minted thirds who was worth a shit until he/she had the humility thrashed back into their heads. Plus about a year of actual supervised watch standing to acquaint them to what is actually required to stand a watch.
[QUOTE=JasonGreene;91915]There are various commissioning programs for Navy, Coast Guard, and NOAA Corps at the maritime academies. Take your pick of school and branch of service, graduate with your Third Mate ticket and serve in whatever capacity you want to pursue. SSO for Navy, MARGRAD for CG, and BOTC for NOAA are all currently available. Any of these combo’s would allow you to pursue a degree in Biology, a license to sail commercial vessels, and a commission in one of the services. Some of the commissioning programs are completed during your time at the academy, while others are completed after you graduate. Good luck[/QUOTE]
Besides the uniform and the benefits, the similarity between NOAA corps and others services stop there. I personally think that the NOAA corps is unnecessary and a waste of tax dollars. Here is an interesting article from Stars and Stripes.
Eliminating the NOAA Corp and it’s ships etc, was a govenment watse/cost cutting talking point of candidate Bill Clinton’s first run for President. We see how that promise fizzeled out.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;91969]Eliminating the NOAA Corp and it’s ships etc, was a govenment watse/cost cutting talking point of candidate Bill Clinton’s first run for President. We see how that promise fizzeled out.[/QUOTE]
No. Keep the ships- lose the NOAA corps. NOAA has an important mission. The job could be done a lot cheaper and more efficiently with licensed officers. Doing away with the corps would also create around 125 jobs for upper level deck licenses.
From Wikipedia-
“The NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps, established on May 22, 1917, as the Coast and Geodetic Survey Corps due to the events of World War I, and then as the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) Corps from 1965 to 1970,[7][8] traces its roots back to the former U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dates to 1807 under President Thomas Jefferson.[B] Coast and Geodetic Survey officers were commissioned so that under the laws of war, they could not be executed as spies if they were serving as surveyors on a battlefield.[/B]”
Last I checked WW1 was over. Why are we still commissioning officers to survey battlefields?