What is the point in having one chief license limited to 500 and another limited to 1600? In this age of regulatory tonnage and rule beater vessels there is no practical difference between 500 or 1600 GRT.
There used to be two chief limited licenses. One near coastal and one oceans.
Dde licenses go by seatime alone, no horsepower calculation.
So, I can see if someone would want to get a dde unlimited if they would have a hp limitation on their chief limited. Itâs worth it because the chief limited is a 1600 grt ticket and time sailing under the dde unlimited can be used to remove the limitation on the other licenseâŚassuming the dde unlimited is sailing on something 4k hp or more.
1 Like
Theoretically, With DDE Unltd, I could have sailed on a 500 GRT or less vessel on oceans where I could not have with the Chief Ltd NC only.
When I went to upgrade to 1A/E and Chief Ltd Oceans, I was dropping the DDE but couldnât get through medical hence the license in continuity and shoreside since 2012 ⌠damn sleep apnea.
I posted under boatelectrician earlier, I did not have to sit for the chief limited to upgrade. I originally sat for my DDE unlimited and a month later sat for my 3rd asst. When I reached my 360 days on my 3rd I asked for the 2nd and my chief limited and they gave me both. I currently dont use either now because Iâm shoreside doing a fast ferry program in the puget sound.
Thereâs usually a big difference in the engine rooms of vessels under 500 GRT (usually a tug under 200 GRT) and one thatâs maybe 1,200 GRT.
1 Like
But that is still about the engine room and the plant. The tonnage of the vessel alone shouldnât have any bearing on an engineers license.
Might have something to do with how big a bridge the vessel can bring down if there is a screw-up.
1 Like
There are so many games played with tonnage, that I doubt there is much relationship between GRT/horsepower and actual vessel size, complexity, or deadweight tonnage.
As far as I know, relatively few tugs or Towboatâs require a licensed engineer. Under 199 GRT does not require a licensed engineer. I do not know anything about the Mississippi River, but apparently the big linehaul Towboatâs pushing 25 barges donât require a licensed engineer.
A large linehaul Towboat pushing 25 barges with a make up 1000 feet long and 200 feet wide on the Mississippi certainly has the potential to takeout major interstate bridges and locks, yet they donât require licensed engineers?
Some tugs tandem towing two heavily loaded 400âx100â barges are only 99 GRT and do not require any certificated personnel, except a master and one Mate. There are lots of oil barges being pushed by 99 GRT or 199 GRT tugs with no licensed engineer.
According to the USCG, a 4500 GRT factory trawler may have engineers with licenses restricted to fishing vessels (in theory licenses that an illiterate person can get with an oral exam) yet it is a much bigger and more mechanically and electronically complex vessel, with a lot more people onboard, than most other vessels. Regardless of how little the USCG requires, most factorytrawler engineers are well educated and have unlimited licenses.
No. I donât believe there is any meaningful purpose for having engineer licenses that are limited to 500 GRT rather than 1600 GRT.
It seems to me that the USCG is over complicating this. Why not have 3rd AE become the entry level exam and license for all engineers? Why not just say anyone with 2nd AE or better may serve as Chief on vessels under a certain size?
1 Like
Thatâs right. I did read I believe in the marine safety manual vol 3 that over 300 grt inland requires a licensed engineer tooâŚso technically 200 grt and over would only apply offshore.
Regardless of tonnage I know a lot of the oil companies want a licensed engineer on the tug thatâs moving their product, however.
Sure, there are two opposing principles at work, standard risk assessment and mitigation but on the other hand the regulators doing what industry wants. ATBs are another example of industry preference winning out over basic principles.
Maybe you have to be a Coast Guard Admiral with a six figure post-retirement job lined up to fully grasp how it makes sense.
1 Like
Well since Iâm not a USCG Admiral hoping to retire soon at a young age with a six figure pension, and then go to work then next day at AWO, OMSA, Chouest, Crowley, or TOTE for a much bigger salary, I really cannot understand why the USCG has turned the entire US licensing system into a incomprehensible clusterfâk.
1 Like
Some of it could be the history as well. Didnât JDC say one time that during a comment period pre-STCW that mariners wanted to keep the old structure?
I was referring to the deck tonnage structure, specifically the Master 500 Ton endorsement. The only recent proposal we had made on limited engineering licenses was consolidating the near coastal and oceans Chief Engineer-Limited endorsements. I donât think any comments were submitted ion that proposal. However, the issue of conflicting interests and opinions would apply to any substantial change to the current limited engineering licenses structure.
1 Like
i went to 2ae on sea time only, some time after, maybe at a renewal I asked for CME to be added and âpoofâ. no prob. (it was a while back) !!
With maybe a few exceptions the engineroom on even a 6,000 HP container ship (lower end of unlimited tonnage) is significantly more complex than that on a 12,000 HP tug or 30,000 HP AHTS.
Basically, a ship has a more complex engineroom than a workboat regardless of horsepower.
Also, the tonnage of the vessel has no bearing on the license you receive (lucky engineers) but the license limits the tonnage of the vessel you can work on. It takes less sea time to get a workboat license than a ship license.
How do you figure?
1080 eight hour days for 3rd assistant engineer.(âshipâ license)
1080 eight hour days for DDE unlimited. (âWorkboatâ license.)
I figure thatâs the same time for a third assistant ship license as that required for a chief workboat license.