I have been in the process of upgrading I hold a 1600/3000 master oceans and have been working on it for many years. When I apply for a 3rd mate any gross tons the CG wants to put a 3000 restriction on it. What have I missed CFR 46 11.407 © seams to state master 1600 with one year master vessels over 200gt will qualify for 3rd mate any gross tons. Any help with what I am overlooking would be greatly appreciated this is getting a little frustrating
Thanks
[QUOTE=Miek;50800]I have been in the process of upgrading I hold a 1600/3000 master oceans and have been working on it for many years. When I apply for a 3rd mate any gross tons the CG wants to put a 3000 restriction on it. What have I missed CFR 46 11.407 © seams to state master 1600 with one year master vessels over 200gt will qualify for 3rd mate any gross tons. Any help with what I am overlooking would be greatly appreciated this is getting a little frustrating Thanks[/ [/QUOTE]
See 46 CFR 11.402(b). If all of your time is not on vessels over 1,600 GRT, you get a tonnage restriction.
How much time on vessels over 1600GRT/3000GT is required to remove the restriction?
Thank you I overlooked 11.402 (B) wishful thinking I guess.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;50801]
See 46 CFR 11.402(b). If all of your time is not on vessels over 1,600 GRT, you get a tonnage restriction.[/QUOTE]
I never been the type of person that said, “OK”…'cause that’s what the little book said. Somethings just defies reason, and this is one.
You have a mariner, a seasoned 1600 ton Master, that more than likely, has been working on something 1599 tons because that is exactly the tonnage operators will build their vessels up to…because of this reg. He wants to upgrade to 3rd Mate Unlimited, which is a junior officer/green officer rating that cannot even sign off OICNW assessments, even for a 500 ton Mate, which the 1600ton Master can do, even for the 3rd Mate, and this seasoned mariner is going to get the following evaluation from NMC 1599 tons X 1.5 = 2,398.5 rounded up to 3000 tons. That license is nearly useless, except for maybe the vessel that the upgrading Master was on to begin with. Only if that vessel could have been 2 more tons for a year and a half while this guy was an AB on it, all would be forgiven.
Welcome to the roadblock and the invention of the large OSV license that industry managed to convince CQ headquarters of because of the above rule. Now, I am happy it was done (my career depended on it, and it makes sense to me), but considering the fact that it has been done, and there was a recognition by CG Headquarters… Why is the individual mariner, that decides to shoot for the moon, not get the same recognition? Hello…see something wrong with this picture? No sense at all, none at all. If you hold a 1600 ton Master, and hold that for a year, while using the damn thing, there in no way in this world the Coast Guard can convince any REAL Mariner of logic in 46 CFR 11.402(b).The little book says so, but who wrote the little book? Where is the logic and how does this correlate to the Coast Guard’s mission? Can someone educate me and point this out? I REALLY would like to know.
[QUOTE=anchorman;50809]The little book says so, but who wrote the little book? Where is the logic and how does this correlate to the Coast Guard’s mission? Can someone educate me and point this out? I REALLY would like to know.[/QUOTE]
I believe it is all about protecting the Academies’ progeny. Nothing else makes sense to this seasoned 1600 ton Oceans Master who isn’t allowed to stand a mid watch on a ship because of 46 CFR 11.402(b).
What also pisses me off is the fact that a 2nd Mate, with a year’s seatime as a 3rd Mate, is offered the opportunity to test for 1600 Master. Why it doesn’t go both directions is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Well put. Looking at the tonnage requirements under 11.402 you can’t even lift the tonnage restriction using the large osv route 6000itc is only equivalent to 9000 tons. It sure would be nice to know the logic behind this hopefully someone can shed some light on this subject with this ruling the USCG has effectively locked the lower level licensed persons out of the upper level stuff. I now have an endorsement that is utterly useless.
I have maintained for years that the entire limited license structure is BS. No other country in the world has a license structure like the US.It was invented many years ago for the oil industry in order to give licenses to mariners in the Gulf of Mexico many of whom could not read or write. The oil companies and their insurance companies demanded this and it served its purpose for many years. It also kept pay low and the unions out. BUT since then it has become a nightmare as far as regulation goes yet the entire program is written by the industry the USCG supposedly regulates. Why in the world does the USCG come up with a new license every time the OSV guys decide to build a bigger boat? Geez, at one time I had a USCG guy laugh and tell me that in order to operate a vessel the size of the Gary Chouest you had to have a Gary Chouest license.
If one came on board a vessel as a OS or Wiper and put in their sea time they could get an unlimited license in about the same time they could go thru all this limited 100 ton, 500 ton, 1600 ton, “large OSV” bullshit. To complain about the USCG not being able to keep up with all these “special” OSV licenses in disingenuous. It is the OSV industry that demanded these special licenses, they wrote the regs, bought and paid for these special licenses, talk to them. Have them smooth things out for this nightmare they created.
If one is intelligent enough to post on this forum one is intelligent enough to get an unlimited license.
Its dumb but get a limited license and go work as an AB for 360 8hr days on an unlimited ship
[QUOTE=tengineer;50818]I have maintained for years that the entire limited license structure is BS. No other country in the world has a license structure like the US.It was invented many years ago for the oil industry in order to give licenses to mariners in the Gulf of Mexico many of whom could not read or write. The oil companies and their insurance companies demanded this and it served its purpose for many years. It also kept pay low and the unions out. BUT since then it has become a nightmare as far as regulation goes yet the entire program is written by the industry the USCG supposedly regulates. Why in the world does the USCG come up with a new license every time the OSV guys decide to build a bigger boat? Geez, at one time I had a USCG guy laugh and tell me that in order to operate a vessel the size of the Gary Chouest you had to have a Gary Chouest license.
If one came on board a vessel as a OS or Wiper and put in their sea time they could get an unlimited license in about the same time they could go thru all this limited 100 ton, 500 ton, 1600 ton, “large OSV” bullshit. To complain about the USCG not being able to keep up with all these “special” OSV licenses in disingenuous. It is the OSV industry that demanded these special licenses, they wrote the regs, bought and paid for these special licenses, talk to them. Have them smooth things out for this nightmare they created.
If one is intelligent enough to post on this forum one is intelligent enough to get an unlimited license.[/QUOTE]
I’m glad you once again express your anomisity, but it’s clearly beside the point, and your personal frustrations do not help anything. I would welcome you to get your facts straight in the meantime.
[QUOTE=Miek;50811]Well put. Looking at the tonnage requirements under 11.402 you can’t even lift the tonnage restriction using the large osv route 6000itc is only equivalent to 9000 tons. It sure would be nice to know the logic behind this hopefully someone can shed some light on this subject with this ruling the USCG has effectively locked the lower level licensed persons out of the upper level stuff. I now have an endorsement that is utterly useless.[/QUOTE]
After re-reading Anchorman’s comment #4, I don’t think the assumption in the above quote is correct.
I believe 11.402 is saying tonnage restrictions will be applied if under 1600grt and to all ITC time. If you so happen to work on a boat that shows over 1600grt you won’t have any tonnage penalty. All of the large osv’s I have seen don’t show grt at all. So you are simply screwed trying to advance using that route. I don’t see any validly to this argument 3000itc is over 1600grt.
[QUOTE=Miek;50811]Well put. Looking at the tonnage requirements under 11.402 you can’t even lift the tonnage restriction using the large osv route 6000itc is only equivalent to 9000 tons. It sure would be nice to know the logic behind this hopefully someone can shed some light on this subject with this ruling the USCG has effectively locked the lower level licensed persons out of the upper level stuff. I now have an endorsement that is utterly useless.[/QUOTE]
My understanding was that if you serve on a vessel over 3000 ITC your tonnage restriction would be lifted? Are you baseing your statement only on the 11.402? My plan was/is to get on a vessel over 3000 ITC using the OSV card to get my restriction lifted.
Yes it’s based off of 11.402 you need 10,000+ITC tons or 1600+grt tons. The way I am reading the rule. it would be convent if the 3000itc route would work I just don’t see that being the case.
[QUOTE=anchorman;50809]Welcome to the roadblock and the invention of the large OSV license that industry managed to convince CQ headquarters of because of the above rule.[/QUOTE]
Where in the CFR’s would one find the rules that apply to this license?
I’m an interested party on the matter, I hold a Third Mate License with a 2000 GRT Restriction.
[QUOTE=dougpine;50810]I believe it is all about protecting the Academies’ progeny. Nothing else makes sense to this seasoned 1600 ton Oceans Master who isn’t allowed to stand a mid watch on a ship because of 46 CFR 11.402(b).
What also pisses me off is the fact that a 2nd Mate, with a year’s seatime as a 3rd Mate, is offered the opportunity to test for 1600 Master. Why it doesn’t go both directions is beyond my ability to comprehend.[/QUOTE]
Doug, I agree with you, it is the stupidest and most blatant form of discrimination against limited licenses out there.
But, the latest rumor is that the NPRM from 2010 is coming off the shelf. If so, then it means that you can’t get a 1600 Master without taking the STCW Chief Mate / Master courses, which essentially (and hopefully) will keep friggen green 2nd Mates from getting the 1600 Master.
Now there’s a rumor I’m eager to verify!
[QUOTE=Capt. Fran;50989]… then it means that you can’t get a 1600 Master without taking the STCW Chief Mate / Master courses, which essentially (and hopefully) will keep friggen green 2nd Mates from getting the 1600 Master.[/QUOTE]
I don’t get it.
[QUOTE=Capt. Fran;50989]Doug, I agree with you, it is the stupidest and most blatant form of discrimination against limited licenses out there.
But, the latest rumor is that the NPRM from 2010 is coming off the shelf. If so, then it means that you can’t get a 1600 Master without taking the STCW Chief Mate / Master courses, which essentially (and hopefully) will keep friggen green 2nd Mates from getting the 1600 Master.[/QUOTE]
You can say the same thing for a 1600 ton Mate trying to upgrade to 1600 ton Master.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;51002]I don’t get it.[/QUOTE]
You would if you were a 2nd Mate trying to get a 1600 ton Master and realized that it will cost about $35,000 in Management STCW courses. From 2nd Mate, there would be no more 70 question cross over exam for a 1600 ton Master license without taking those courses. Part of the problem and why this is being fought, is all of the management level courses are tailored to blue water ships,…tankers, bulkers, etc… And, the USCG wants to make this a requirement for a 1600 ton Master? Ha, back to the drawing board guys…another proposal that makes no sense whatsoever.