Another RFPNW boondoggle!

Maritime Topics Maritime Training & Licensing
1

Short version of an on going problem. Took the RFPNW assessments simulator class at MPT in Ft lauderdale last month and recieved assessments sign off sheets.

Sent them in to my evaluator. She contacted me and said I need 180 days of sea time being trained for navigation watch still to get the full RFPNW.

I was told by the evaluator that I can get a [B]RFPNW Lookouts Only[/B] good for a year, then get my 180 days training in, but I will need to take a different course! MPT tells they offer the course, but are not actually conducting classes for it even though they are cleared to, because they have been steering everyone into the more expensive assessments simulator class claiming that is all that is required! The cost difference is $795 vs $295. I complained to the NMC course overlook department today to see what will happen. My school has been putzing around with this for about a week, not being very helpful at all. They seem to think that they are right and NMC is wrong in requesting the extra course for RFPNW for the Lookout Only. Also told me that about 20-30 of their clients are having simular problems. I would suggest not messing with MPT until they get their head out their ass and get on board with NMC or get an agreement worked out.

I am now in a holding pattern while the muck mucks at MPT get togeather for a few meetings to discuse the course of action to take regarding this matter. I rember hearing some talk last month about this problem between them and NMC. It does not look like I am going to get results anytime soon. Only real options are get the course somewhere, even if out of state, or just get my AB without any RFPNW on it of anykind. It is my understanding that having the Lifeboat and RFPNW are critical to getting a job in the GOM right now? Anyone have anything refreashing to add or first hand expeience with this situation. It would be muched appreciated.

:eek::mad::confused:and :slight_smile: to show that the rat bastards aren’t gonna get me down!

2

studbuzzar - which class did you take? [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]
[LEFT][SIZE=2]RATING FORMING PART OF A NAVIGATIONAL WATCH (LOOKOUT DUTIES ONLY)
OR[/LEFT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][LEFT][SIZE=2]RATING FORMING PART OF A NAVIGATIONAL WATCH ASSESSMENT

Or better yet, what does your certificate from MPT say? Your evaluator is correct in saying you need 180 (8 hour days)(120 12 hour days) to qualify for AB. In the approved courses section, nothing is mentioned about taking the class and not having to do the sea time. Hate to be the bearer of bad news. I feel that is incorrect saying you have to work for a year before you can apply for AB. I am real surprised that the NMC is not requiring you to complete PSC also. I have worked with several guys that have to take PSC before NMC would even issue AB-OSV. Disclaimer: This is soley my opinion. It may be (hopefully not) inaccurate. :slight_smile:

[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

3

Policy letter 14-02 states for training purposes 8 hour days, 2 watches ,are all that will be counted towards the watch standing portion of the requirements…

The dirty little secret is that 180 days of two-…4 hour watches per day, total 360 watches…They never come right out and say that do they???

The school I attended had a record book for the assessments and the watches that needed to be signed off…When I asked the question of why there were 360 watches they explained that if you do the 2 watches per day then it will only be 180 days of watch standing…Now you see how NMC views the time…

I just submitted mine earlier this month with all assessments signed off on a 300 Ton boat along with 98 days of seatime hoping that the wording
" Training and Experience " that is stated in 14-02 might help . So I asked the company to add this to my sea service letter as that is what I have been doing…

I got a very sharp evaluator who was very familiar with 14-02 and stopped me cold on the total underway days …He did go the extra mile for me and looked at a couple of exceptions that may have applied but the bottom line is I’ve got to do 180 total days of 2- 4 hour watches, Period!

4

Sorry for not giving a clearer picture of what I am trying to do.
I am renewing an unlimited AB which I let expire over 10 years ago.
I have gotten TWIC, STCW-95, PSC/Lifeboatman, AB/Malinspike and the 21 assesments signed off and dated. I believe you call that the RFPNW (without restrictions). The course was presented by MPT to be all that was needed to get either RFPNW-Lookout Only or RFPNW-without restricitions. NMC has been very helpful and even walked me through the NMC website to show me the different things need for my AB renewal and the RFPNW no matter which way I choose to go. NMC told me that I can get RFPNW Lookout only now on my MMC. Then get my 180 days of watch training completed. Turn that in along with mt assesments and get full RFPNW. This is not the same as plain old sea time, I have more than that already and am not being asked for more. It is 180 days of navigation watch training, and like Shellback says they sent me forms to complete and keep track of the training as I go along.

The FORM MCP-FM-NMC5-62 PRETTY CLEARLY SPELLS OUT WHAT IS NEEDED! However MPT is insisting that I don’t need the additional training for Lookout Only to go along with the assesments. I believe they are wrong! They have admitted to having over 20 other clients who have paid for the assesments traiing and can’t get their RFPNW put on either. They say they offer the cheaper Lookout course but won’t schedule a class because they seem to think you don’t need it and are locked in a pissing contest with NMC. Meanwhile I sit dockside for another week! And to add another monkey wrench there is not another maritime training center in Florida that I can find that is offering the RFPNW Lookouts Only course or the RFPNW Unrestricted Assessments course for that matter!

5

I recently went thru many sleepless nights wondering if I would be held to the letter of the policy. Evidently, I was lucky.

I had acumulated my seatime to obtain my AB Special OSV, however, I was worried about documenting my “training” that is required per the policy as you stated it. I held my breath and turned in my upgrade paperwork consisting of 1: My seatime. 2: My AB certificates which came from attending class and it included my Marlinspike requirement. 3: My Lifeboatman certificate from attending class. 4: My assesments from MPT in Ft. Lauderdale. All went well and I received my credentials with the RFPNW rating just as I was told I would. So, either they kicked you out for not having recent seatime or you actually got caught in the red tape snare.

I researched far and wide, and everyone, including the folks at MPT, said that I had everything that I needed; all the while I am feeling like no one was addressing the very finely worded statements in the policy letter, kind of a “head in the sand” techniqe. So I am not sure to this day how I got past that; was it an error on their part or is the policy letter poorly written?

I have copies of letters from the 2 captains that I served under documenting my watchstanding training while underway that I wrote, and they signed, just in case I was called on the policy letter. I had written these letters myself as I could not find the form that you would think would accompany the policy letter requesting the training be signed off by the master. I did not submit these letters fearing that it might cause confusion. I try my best to “do the right thing” and honestly and diligently submit a completed package to the NMC, so it was not an easy choice. Leave out what it clearly states I must have and risk being delayed or complying with the policy letter and risk being delayed.

I have used the money from my ugrade to buy extra Q-tips so I can clean the sand from my ears now that I am past that process.

I think the thing you should ask is what are they requiring for seatime. If you submit a seatime letter without any reference to watchstanding and also submit the assesments will the assesments suffice to prove your training? The class that is refered to in the policy letter only reduces your required training from 6 months to 2 or 3 months I believe, and I could not find an exact match to what class is needed to fulfill that requirement, even though the schools try to steer you toward the 2 or 3 day RFPNW restricted to lookout duties classes, but I am not 100% sure that this is the class that the policy letter references. And then there is the question of; must you have the restricted class prior to obtaining seatime if you are trying to reduce the training from 6 months to 2 or 3 months.

Long story with no clear direction, but you can see why I feel your frustration. I think your issue lies with the NMC and not MPT. It seems to me that the schools are there to make money and comply with STCW/USCG training requirements specific to each class, so buyer beware of any free advice you receive outside of the specifics of each class.

You received your assesments which definetly are a requirement for the RFPNW, however, you are caught in the wording of the policy letter requiring “training” which is seatime underway and there is no class for that at any school.

I wish you well.

6

[I][quote=studbuzzar;17413]…However MPT is insisting that I don’t need the additional training for Lookout Only to go along with the assesments. I believe they are wrong! …[/quote][/I]

See my discussion of RFPNW programs and lookout only courses in the “RFPNW/Evaluator” disciussion.

You can check the approval the Coast Guard gave MPT at: http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/training/rfpnw.pdf

As you’ll see, it was only approved for the assessments. You still need to provide your own documentation of the six months service. MPT may be saying that if you already have the six months of service performing watchkeeping functions, then you only need to complete the assessments., you can use your prior service to meet the RFPNW service requirements.

There’s a comment above asking what’s on the certificate. What’s on the certificate isn’t what counts, it’s what the NMC approved the course or program for. On occasion we have seen certificates where the school noted the course was approved for something it was not. It’s what the Coast Guard says the approval is for, not what the school says on their certificate. If we find false or misleading certificates, we make the school change them, and in serious cases, to re-issue certificates.

7

After reading Mr. Cavo’s responose, I realize my miss wording of my response. Anyone can put anything on any certificate. I guess I just assume (yes that is a word that means a lot) that the school, in wanting to keep their USCG approval, will put the proper wording on the certificate. I apologize for any miss leading information asking about what is on the certificate.

I am curious who at MPT told you that. Or is a miss understanding of what was told? My experience with MPT has been very good and consistent with what is required by the USCG.

8

[B]Ok so this:[/B]

[LEFT][B][I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Maritime Professional Training[/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000081]1915 South Andrews Avenue[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000081]Ft. Lauderdale FL 33316-[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]COLOR=#000081 525-1014[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=#000081]COURSE APPROVAL[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]RATING FORMING PART[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]OF A NAVIGATIONAL[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]WATCH (LOOKOUT DUTIES[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]ONLY)[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Any applicant successfully completing your 16-hour Rating Forming Part of a Navigational[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Watch (Lookout Duties Only) course will satisfy the training requirements for certification as[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Rating Forming Part of a Navigational Watch RESTRICTED to lookout duties only. This[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]certification will be valid for one year and may not be renewed.[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[B] or this[/B]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]RATING FORMING PART[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]OF A NAVIGATIONAL[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]WATCH ASSESSMENT[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Approved to conduct the following assessments from the national assessment guidelines for[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Table A-II/4 of the STCW Code for Rating for Forming Part of a Navigational Watch: RFPNW-1-[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]1A; RFPNW-1-1B; RFPNW-1-1C; RFPNW-1-2A; RFPNW-1-2B; RFPNW-1-2C; RFPNW-1-2D;[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]RFPNW-1-2E; RFPNW-1-2F; RFPNW-1-2G; RFPNW-1-2H; RFPNW-1-2I; RFPNW-1-2J;[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[B]Is not the same as this:[/B]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][B][I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Alaska Vocational Technical Center[/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]RATING FORMING PART[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]OF A NAVIGATIONAL[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][B][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]WATCH[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Any applicant successfully completing your Rating Forming Part of a Navigational Watch[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]program, including all practical assessments will satisfy the service, training and assessment[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]requirements of 46 CFR 12.05-3© and Table A-II/4 of the STCW Code, Specification of[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]which is being offered by another school![/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]It looks like to me that MPT is trying to get the same approval rating as this school in Alaska? [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]If they would offer the RFPNW Lookout Only course as they claim on their webpage. I would take it and be done then go get my 180 days met since I can’t document my old sea time from my original AB (see below), leaving them to work out their differences with NMC. But the front office is telling me that I don’t need it and they are not currently scheduling course for RFPNW Lookout Only because it is not needed once you complete their assessments course. I have not found a school in Florida that is conducting the RFPNW (Lookouts Only) course as of yet. I would go do that and be done as well. Maybe I need to expand my horizons and go out of state.[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I have a problem proving my sea time because I have been away from the maritime industry for quite awhile. I have tried to recieve/recover my sea time records from archives and NOLA REC directly. But no one can find them in paticular the two letters of sea time from the companies I worked for down in the GOM back when I applied for my original AB Unlimited. I believe they reflected over 1400 days of sea time which met my 1080 days requirement for the AB Unlimited.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I am just getting back into the industry and getting my credentials in order trying to get as much done as possible before packing my gear and heading out. I have no bone about the 180 day requirement not being met even though I rountinly held watches and navigated 300GT vessels between the sea bouys. The electronics have changed and getting the onboard training with them will be a good thing for me.[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]

[LEFT][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]My next [I][B]challenge [/B][/I]as Mr Cavo says it should be worded will be with getting some sort of credit for sea time turned in back with my AB towards a [I][B]new issue[/B][/I] of a [B]100GT Masters license[/B] I went to school for two months ago. I made the mistake of taking the course along with RADAR and ENAV thinking it would speed things up while waiting for my sea time records to appear! Being unemployed and reading all the horror stoories makes a man think like that! For now I am letting that sleeping dog lie. Once I get my AB and get recency time then I will go to battle over that.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Instead I am currently high and dry upon the rocks stuck in the fog without sounding my old rusty horn! Maybe the USCG will come by and help me get past the NOLA REC hurricane Katrina lost records thing or maybe they will sit just of the rocks and ask me for my passport or just determine I might be a decendent of Jean Lafitte’s and blast me off the rocks as a terroist or pirate! Who knows! …at least is it comforting to know that these rocks have been inhabited before by seafarers who have survived the ordeal if only some oen would have thought to leave some toilet paper behind! or a few hooks to fish with! [/LEFT]

[LEFT]One day, one issue at a time! Lie is good even when one has to climb up the moutain… even thought coming down mountains I have discovered can be even tougher! Maybe being on top of the mountain is the place to be! …someday[/LEFT]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

9

Almost forgot

Mr. Cavo

If the [B]RFPNW Lookout Only[/B] is designed to get you started on the road to full RFPNW, is it still requiring that I provide 180 days of written sea time documentation before I can get it on my MMC? I do not read the check sheet that way? see link.
http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/checklists/MCP-FM-NMC5-62%20RFPNW.pdf?list1=checklists%2FMCP-FM-NMC5-62+RFPNW.pdf&B1=GO%21

I have a problem with my old sea time records being un-obtainable from national archives at NMC or NOLO REC. Evidently Hurricane Katrina destroyed them or they were misplaced. Also, not working on a vessel recently has left me with no new sea time that I can add to my file.

NMC is willing to reissue my AB Unlimited based on having already held the postion and the fact that I presented them with a certified copy of my old AB Unlimited card with my application? I have no way of proving what type and size of vessels I worked on other than my word.

The issue right now as of this morning is MPT says their RFPNW Assessments course is good enough for getting an RFPNW lookouts only or the full RFPNW with proper seatime with training? At this point not being able to prove my old seatime with proper training is a stubling block for me. But I still should be able to get the RFPNW Lookout only. This is my bone of contention. Office manager is waiting for the Academic Principal to get back in the office next Monday.

Just in case they can not get their differences resolved with NMC on this I am thini

10

Just an update to give MPT some props for doing right by me. Had a snag with them and the RFPNW , but they have come through and corrected themselves and made me happy. Figured I was quick to bitch, might as well be quick to say thank you too .

BTW - Be careful and clear with them on what course you want concerning RFPNW with them. They are approved for two different ones. Each is not a substitute for the other even though the website at this moment still leads one to believe so. It pays to pay attention the NMC Checklist rather than listen to a school of your choice!

11

[I][quote=studbuzzar;17605]…It pays to pay attention the NMC Checklist rather than listen to a school of your choice![/quote][/I]

It would also be a good idea to ask any school you’re thinking of attending to provide you with a copy of the course’s current approval letter from the NMC (not the certificate of approval, the approval letter, the certificate doesn’t tell you what they were approved for).

12

[quote=jdcavo;17626]

It would also be a good idea to ask any school you’re thinking of attending to provide you with a copy of the course’s current approval letter from the NMC (not the certificate of approval, the approval letter, the certificate doesn’t tell you what they were approved for).[/quote]

Navy SWO… Here is the discussion that I was referring to…

13

[quote=studbuzzar;17605]Just an update to give MPT some props for doing right by me. Had a snag with them and the RFPNW , but they have come through and corrected themselves and made me happy. Figured I was quick to bitch, might as well be quick to say thank you too .

BTW - Be careful and clear with them on what course you want concerning RFPNW with them. They are approved for two different ones. Each is not a substitute for the other even though the website at this moment still leads one to believe so. It pays to pay attention the NMC Checklist rather than listen to a school of your choice![/quote]

During MERPAC’s recent get together Policy Changes were voted on concerning some issues regarding RFPNW. They have not been published yet but are supposed to favor the Mariner in their content…

14

I must have been in the head when that happened. What I recall happening was that MERPAC voted to accept a task on qualifying for RFPNW with inland service. That means they will form a working group, evaluate the issues and make recommendations. The earliest any recommendations would be presented by the working group to the full membership of MERPAC is the Spring, 2010 meeting. The full membership would then vote whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendations. If accepted, they’d be presented to the Coast Guard.

The issue of miltary service was also mentioned as part of a seprate, on-going, and open MERPAC tasking. I don’t recall any recommendations being made on this.

After they are transcribed, the minutes of the meeting will be posted to the MERPAC page on Homeport. Copies of the various tasks accepted in the last meeting will also be posted around the same time.

15

[quote=jdcavo;19092]I must have been in the head when that happened. What I recall happening was that MERPAC voted to accept a task on qualifying for RFPNW with inland service. That means they will form a working group, evaluate the issues and make recommendations. The earliest any recommendations would be presented by the working group to the full membership of MERPAC is the Spring, 2010 meeting. The full membership would then vote whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendations. If accepted, they’d be presented to the Coast Guard.

The issue of miltary service was also mentioned as part of a seprate, on-going, and open MERPAC tasking. I don’t recall any recommendations being made on this.

After they are transcribed, the minutes of the meeting will be posted to the MERPAC page on Homeport. Copies of the various tasks accepted in the last meeting will also be posted around the same time.[/quote]

Chief Cavo, My apologies, I stand corrected. After reading your post, I called my source, who was at the meeting also, and he stated that I was wrong in saying a vote had been taken nor were any actually resolutions written in stone. As you said, that is yet to come. At least the RFPNW issue among other issues is being vigorously addressed and Mariners can look forward to favorable resolutions and changes regarding this subject. As to the military service issue, my only question to him was in reference to RFPNW so I don’t have any knowlege regarding that. Thanks for your post…

16

I agree Steve, at least something about this, @!%#*& thing is finally being addressed…

17

The MERPAC site I linked to is still worth looking at to see what issues are being worked on. It also lists the members of MERPAC, should you be inclined to contact them and express views on any of the issues.

Most of the new tasks presented at this last meeting were the direct result of mariner comments (including gCaptain). These included the RFPNW issue as well as what qualifications should be included on the MMC or whether they can be omitted as being included in another qualification. Note thst the site hasn’t been updated to reflect the recent meeting.

Finally, the Spring meeting is tenatively scheduled for early March in New Orleans. Both the working group session (day 1) and the "public meeting (day 2) are open to the public, and you do not need to be a MERPAC member to participate in the working groups. As with the last meeting at NMC, this MERPAC meeting is tenatively scheduled to run consecutively with a Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) meeting at the same location.