I have AB unlimited, but no RFPNW. Any thoughts on the best way to get the RFPNW? I currently have a seasonal job that gives me plenty of time off from November til April. I would work for free to get the time I needed in order to get the rfpnw signoff.
( I currently have 500 ton Master on Oceans)
Have you sailed on your license. If you have the 180 days of watches all you need is your assessments… you can get those at several schools…mid atlantic maritime, MPT, etc. If you got your 500 ton recently RFPNW is an inherent requirement and you essentially already have it. There is no shortcut to getting around the watches, 90 days of your 180 has to be over 200 tons…and all of your time has to be signed by someone who holds an STCW.
policy letter 14-02 will give you all the info you need, also do a forum search on RFPNW, you will come up with a wealth of infomation
[QUOTE=Mr 100-ton;28120]policy letter 14-02 will give you all the info you need, also do a forum search on RFPNW, you will come up with a wealth of infomation[/QUOTE]
Man I’ve said that to so many people by PM, on here. Now I just explain it to get my post count up. I never thought 14-02 was that hard to understand, but there is like 2 or 3 questions a week on this topic. Maybe the mods can make it a sticky to reduce the questions.
[QUOTE=Flyer69;28112]I have AB unlimited, but no RFPNW. Any thoughts on the best way to get the RFPNW? I currently have a seasonal job that gives me plenty of time off from November til April. I would work for free to get the time I needed in order to get the rfpnw signoff.
( I currently have 500 ton Master on Oceans)[/QUOTE]
Do you also have OICNW? If so, that trumps RFPNW.
How did you get a 500 Master Oceans without RFPNW?
I had to do the simulator training down in Ft Lauderdale to upgrade to 500 Master NC
[quote=TxKingfisher;28195]How did you get a 500 Master Oceans without RFPNW?
I had to do the simulator training down in Ft Lauderdale to upgrade to 500 Master NC[/quote]
I got the 500 Master Oceans before the changeover in 1992.
I believe the Coast Guard is misunderstanding and misapplying the STCW provisions on RFPNW when they require it as a prerequisite for a license. The qualification provisions for OICNW (Mate) in STCW do not mention RFPNW, so international standards do not require it. The fact that you are required to serve as an AB to qualify for mate means that you have experience and training superior to RFPNW, so the provision adds no value to the qualification process. In fact, holding RFPNW must not add value to an AB because you can get AB without it. Many people applying for a mate or master license of 500 GRT or more will have valid and valuable experience on vessels of a size that are not affected by requirements for RFNPW endorsements and therefore will not hold that credential at the time they apply. In fact, many of these applicants are already serving as officers on vessels of less than 200 GRT. To make them qualify as RFPNW to satisfy an application checklist is like asking a high school graduate to make-up some missed reading assignments in “Dick and Jane” books to qualify for entrance to college. It’s disrupted the lives and drained the wallets of mariners for years without basis in the convention, regulations, or law. It’s a shame.
365 days at sea between 1986 & 1991 grants you RFPNW
[QUOTE=boat21;28229]365 days at sea between 1986 & 1991 grants you RFPNW[/QUOTE]
Boat21 is totally correct. For you naysayers:
Policy Letter 14-02, Enclosure(1), page 2:
- This STCW certification (RFPNW) may be issued to any mariner who provides proof of one year of sea service in a relevant capacity within the deck department between 1 October 1986 and 30 September 1991 without requiring completion of the assessments of skills. Completion of basic safety training is required.
Well, I guess that would make him good to go.
Flyer is just fine holding a master 500 oceans.
All that past seatime is irrevelant.
Norleen at maritime licensing has said NMC will not place
RFPNW on a MMC because ‘IT IS INHERENT IN THE QUALIFICATION OF OICNW.’
She even went as far to say that an unamed person at NMC gave the following
information to a mariner.
IV. RATINGS FORMING PART OF A NAVIGATIONAL WATCH
Rating Forming Part of a Navigation Watch (RFPNW) is an inherent
qualification of all Officers in Charge of a Navigation Watch (OICNW)
and-is not entered as a regulation for mariners qualified as master or
mate (OICNW)
This is a certainly a USCG F-up in that many mariners and
employeers don’t know this and that they flat out refuse to put 4 key strokes (II/4)
on the document.
"This is a certainly a USCG F-up in that many mariners and
employeers don’t know this and that they flat out refuse to put 4 key strokes (II/4) on the document. "
They had enough bitching about this that my understanding is that they are now putting thison your MMC if you indeed have the rating.I received my new MMC dated Jan 05 and is it spelled outand listed as II/4 also.
(I also hold a 1600 Master)
This is taken from the new proposal, check out the last sentence…1600 ton Mate says the same thing just different tonnage …
§ 11.407 Requirements to qualify for an
STCW endorsement as OICNW and an
officer endorsement as third mate of ocean
or near-coastal, self-propelled vessels of
unlimited tonnage.
To qualify for an STCW endorsement
as OICNW and an officer endorsement
as third mate of ocean or near-coastal,
self-propelled vessels of unlimited
tonnage, an applicant must comply with
paragraphs (a), (b), or © of this section.
(a) To qualify for these endorsements,
an applicant must:
(1) Provide evidence of 36 months of
service in the deck department on selfpropelled,
seagoing vessels, at least 6
months of which must have been as able
seaman or quartermaster while holding
both a rating endorsement as able
seaman and an [B]STCW endorsement as
RFPNW[/B].
[quote=Capt. Fran;28235]Boat21 is totally correct. For you naysayers:
Policy Letter 14-02, Enclosure(1), page 2:
- This STCW certification (RFPNW) may be issued to any mariner who provides proof of one year of sea service in a relevant capacity within the deck department between 1 October 1986 and 30 September 1991 without requiring completion of the assessments of skills. Completion of basic safety training is required.[/quote]
[B]Based on number 9 above, does the service need to be on a specific tonnage vessel? [/B]If not can any tonnage master or mate sign off on the sea service time or is there a tonnage restriction there too?
The requirements for the assessments have tonnage stipulations but this particular route doesn’t require assessments, interesting take on this…Technically, the way I read it a person who owns a ski boat could sign them selves off the same way an owner can for sea time on vessels <200.
.The only hang up I can see would be the wording that 50% of the time must be on vessels 100 Tons and above and the other 50% must be on vessels over 200 …But as you question, does this paragraph stand alone???
[quote=shippedout;28244]Flyer is just fine holding a master 500 oceans.
All that past seatime is irrevelant.
Norleen at maritime licensing has said NMC will not place
RFPNW on a MMC because ‘IT IS INHERENT IN THE QUALIFICATION OF OICNW.’
She even went as far to say that an unamed person at NMC gave the following
information to a mariner.
IV. RATINGS FORMING PART OF A NAVIGATIONAL WATCH
Rating Forming Part of a Navigation Watch (RFPNW) is an inherent
qualification of all Officers in Charge of a Navigation Watch (OICNW)
and-is not entered as a regulation for mariners qualified as master or
mate (OICNW)
This is a certainly a USCG F-up in that many mariners and
employeers don’t know this and that they flat out refuse to put 4 key strokes (II/4)
on the document.[/quote]
So I apologize for not doing a bit more digging before posting my question.
My recently issued MMC says I am duly qualified for II/2; IV/2.
My STCW certificate issued May 2007 had II/2, II/4, IV/2, and VI/2.
I guess I am all set with OICNW and RFPNW, then?
This is very confusing …lol
Tell me about it.
[quote=Shellback;28278]The requirements for the assessments have tonnage stipulations but this particular route doesn’t require assessments, interesting take on this…Technically, the way I read it a person who owns a ski boat could sign them selves off the same way an owner can for sea time on vessels <200.
.The only hang up I can see would be the wording that 50% of the time must be on vessels 100 Tons and above and the other 50% must be on vessels over 200 …But as you question, does this paragraph stand alone???[/quote]
[B]Mr Cavo, care to chime in on this? Am I to understand as read that there is no tonnage requirement to receive a RFPNW provided my documented seatime falls between the dates outline in paragraph 9?[/B]