Gentlemen,
There are those in the industry who consider ATBs to be a gross oversight on the part of the USCG and that limited licenses should not be allowed to cover what is essentially a full-sized tanker. I hear talk every so often, not very loud but “talk” nonetheless, that the “loop-hole” through which ATBs fit (that the license only has to cover the tug and not the unit as a whole) will soon be drawn to a close and unlimited licenses will be required for ATBs just as they are for comparably sized ships.
I would like to know what all of you here at gCaptain think about that. Are limited licenses on ATBs a bad idea? Is that going to be stopped soon by the coast guard? If so, has that process already begun, that is to say, is legislation to that effect being put into the works?
I doubt that will happen anytime soon. It would amount to the CG admitting that they have been wrong in the way ATBs are treated. Further, the powers that be in our industry would fight it and the CG often seem to listen to them.
As far as not needing an unlimited license being bad or not, I would say it depends. I’ve met 1600 ton guys that are highly competent. I’ve also met unlimited guys who didn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.
I’ve always felt the issue with ATBs does not lie in the regulations regarding them. It lies in the regulations regarding ships. A ship is more fuel efficient than a comparable ATB. Thus the savings from an ATB mostly comes from crewing. Allow them to take away a few guys from the ship and suddenly the ATB isn’t as attractive.
[QUOTE=Wolfesown47th;88677]A ship is more fuel efficient than a comparable ATB. Thus the savings from an ATB mostly comes from crewing. Allow them to take away a few guys from the ship and suddenly the ATB isn’t as attractive.[/QUOTE]
Wonder if the savings will diminish with ECA zones now in effect.
I second that. There are a lot of ship guys out there that have never had to maneuver a unit which in some cases are larger then ships and put it alongside berths without pilots or docking masters.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;88673]Gentlemen,
There are those in the industry who consider ATBs to be a gross oversight on the part of the USCG and that limited licenses should not be allowed to cover what is essentially a full-sized tanker. I hear talk every so often, not very loud but “talk” nonetheless, that the “loop-hole” through which ATBs fit (that the license only has to cover the tug and not the unit as a whole) will soon be drawn to a close and unlimited licenses will be required for ATBs just as they are for comparably sized ships.
I would like to know what all of you here at gCaptain think about that. Are limited licenses on ATBs a bad idea? Is that going to be stopped soon by the coast guard? If so, has that process already begun, that is to say, is legislation to that effect being put into the works?
Thank you very much,
PaddyWest2012[/QUOTE]
Let history be your guide. Changing the loophole won’t happen until after a disaster of some sort involving the manning of the ATBs, might take a couple of disasters. Only a loss of lives and/or an environmental catastrophe has ever changed anything with USCG safety requirements. It’s the politicians and the money that they pull in that rules the USCG.
Being currently employed on such a large vessel. Word is that the mates on my vessel will be allowed to upgrade their unlimited licenses with a letter from the office for tbe combined unit. Engineers can upgrade due to unlimited horsepower. ECA zones for us looks like switching to Low Sulfur Diesel on the main propulsion. Granted we will not know till the day arrives. I started a good thread on the comparison of product tankers against a large atb.
I read in Professional Mariner magazine that someone was building (or making designs to build) platform supply vessels of the ATB configuration. The reasons sited of course were cost savings due to manning requirements etc. I already think it’s a sham that some of these “100 ton” mini supply boats companies (like ACO) have are ridiculous. This seems to be a step further of heaping more responsibility and liability on guys with limited licenses and limited experience.
[QUOTE=jthomas1600;88704]I read in Professional Mariner magazine that someone was building (or making designs to build) platform supply vessels of the ATB configuration. The reasons sited of course were cost savings due to manning requirements etc. I already think it’s a sham that some of these “100 ton” mini supply boats companies (like ACO) have are ridiculous. This seems to be a step further of heaping more responsibility and liability on guys with limited licenses and limited experience.[/QUOTE]
I be one of those limited licensed engineers on an ATB, aaargh! How do you figure we have limited experience? Most of us “limited” guys worked are way up from entry level OS and are now running 500 ft units (150k barrel barges and above 6k HP tugs) all by our lonesome. Would are lack of attending ice cream socials, regimental band practice, or name dropping be what you are refering to as limited experience?
As someone who sailed ATBs and blue water ships, the complexity of the are completely different. The ATB plants are smaller and less complicated. Now, I am in no way shape or form knocking those guys and what they do. Some of the guys I sailed with in ATBs are great engineers. What I would like to see is 3 mates, one Captain, two Tankerman PIC, two ABs, one OS, and 3 engineers, and one steward. From what I saw, the Tankermen where getting very minimal rest with changing their watch schedule all the time. Plus an ice cream social makes a better engineer…duh
I just did 30 days on an ATB to get my TOAR signed off. That was pretty ridiculous. The Engineers were all tug guys, but the Mates and Captains all needed unlimited licenses. I think that’s company policy, not the law though.
[QUOTE=seadog6608;88733]I just did 30 days on an ATB to get my TOAR signed off. That was pretty ridiculous. The Engineers were all tug guys, but the Mates and Captains all needed unlimited licenses. I think that’s company policy, not the law though.[/QUOTE]
An ATB is NOT a Tugboat. It is two distinct and separate pieces of equipment used to transport Cargo. As the ATB Boom began, guys who were tired of getting their asses beaten up on wire and hawser boats started making the switch. Years of actual TOWING and BOAT HANDLING experience came with these people. This was from years of dropping a barge, grabbing another and doing it all over again. And you Prayed for an outside trip for a break. An ATB job was given to the cream of the crop, with proven Boat Handling Skills. Companies were happy, move more cargo for less $$, no weather delays, minimal crew increases. And better living conditions for the crew. A win-win.
The USCG, per Usual, allowed it self to be manipulated by the companies, using the Grey Tonnage Area, by which manning and hour requirements are different between Inspected and Uninspected, as we all know. The prevailing industry standards and attitude of the Tug/Barge came with new equipment. 6/6, 6 or 7 crew members, ect…
The came the Pin-Boat idea-ah, retrofit! ATB, maybe-hard to figure out What they are…that “Grey” area again.
Yes, there NEEDS to be a Distinct And Separate Class for the Actual ATB, the Crowley Class, the new Reinauer Boats, the US Shipping Vessels, the OSG Units.
It is unfathomable that a Towing Endorsement can be signed off on from a boat which has No Tow Gear!
As the older Tug Guys who were the first on the ATBs retire, those years of experience go with them. There is No Way someone is going to “String Out” Crowleys 255 Series Barge, or the RTC-135… .The Unit is made to PUSH, not TOW. The only people who have a Chance of this are becoming Scarcer and scarcer. Ship work is ship work-and a REAL ATB is a Ship, not a Tug.
If you have an ear to the Industry, you can listen to the frustration of Tug Boat Captains who get Whole crews who have Never so much as hooked up a tow wire, rigged a bridle or even made up along side.
For the Safety of all Mariners a Separate and Distinct Class of Vessels is a Must!
This has already been done. There are TWO official distinctions of ITBs. Single Mode ( ITB ). And Dual Mode ( ATB )
As you so succinctly noted, AWO and the industry have successfully bought their way into regulatory acceptance with Uncle Sams Confused Group.
It IS currently NOT possible to have a Conventional Tug TOAR signed off on just a ATB. A candidate for a conventional tug TOAR must be ON a conventional tug. A candidate who only has ATB TOAR can only work on ATBs.
You are EXACTLY correct about the level of boatmanship that is being lost, not honed, and just undiscovered by crew that has NEVER even put anything on the hawser. It WILL be interesting (albeit unfortunate) when one of these top heavy ATBs is ejected from the notch in weather and the crew is unable to hook up And we then read about how ATBs are a threat to the environment!
An ATB is a towing vessel. They have to do a bollard pull witnessed by ABS for their towing cert.
The last 7 years I sailed on ATBs, I worked with a mixture of deep sea, tugboatmen, tankermen and engineers of various backgrounds. The knowlege pool was vast and this morphed into the best bunch of guys I ever sailed with. (with the exception of a few) I’ve posted before that I slept well knowing that the captains and most of the mates had towing experience should we ever get knocked out of the notch. Towing on these vessels was stringing out on a preconnected emergency towline and station keeping until a REAL tugboat arrived to pick up the barge. The captain still needs to have experience towing something. I’ve seen several unlimited masters have their asses handed to them on a tugboat.
[QUOTE=ForkandBlade;88718]I be one of those limited licensed engineers on an ATB, aaargh! How do you figure we have limited experience? Most of us “limited” guys worked are way up from entry level OS and are now running 500 ft units (150k barrel barges and above 6k HP tugs) all by our lonesome. Would are lack of attending ice cream socials, regimental band practice, or name dropping be what you are refering to as limited experience?[/QUOTE]
I’m talking specifically about the oilfield. My comment had to do with the guys on the supply boats that are under 100 tons. My comments weren’t meant to be despairing. What I’m saying is if you build an ATB supply vessel and have a 100 ton captain and unlicensed engineers/deckeneers who are part of a 4-5 man crew doing the same job it takes 1600 ton captains and licensed engineers who are part of 6-12 man crew that there seems to be a big gap in experience.
Maybe this response is as poorly written as my first one and will still bug you. I didn’t mean to to offend anyone.
Also I didn’t mean to imply that I have a big license or anything. I too have a limited license.
It should have read: A candidate can get a Tug TOAR only on an actual towing vessel. A candidate for an ATB TOAR can get one on a ATB. However, a full tug TOAR IS valid on an ATB. BUT an ATB TOAR is NOT valid on a conventional tug.
The significance of this is that soon (if not already) there will be licensed ATB operators who have NEVER put a tug on the wire. Nevermind trying to do this in a ‘breakout’ condition with a crew that has never.done it either! Sounds about right. A policy supported by industry, codified by the CG, and approved by the AWO. Great!
If the oilfield ATB units will be similar sized tugs it will still be 1600 ton masters/mates running the boat. Earlier in the thread one of the posts mentioned that the tug portion of their unit was 1565GRT. I don’t think you will see 100 ton licenses running newer purpose built ATB units any time soon.
[QUOTE=cappy208;88759]sorry. That was an incomplete sentence.
It should have read: A candidate can get a Tug TOAR only on an actual towing vessel. A candidate for an ATB TOAR can get one on a ATB. However, a full tug TOAR IS valid on an ATB. BUT an ATB TOAR is NOT valid on a conventional tug.
The significance of this is that soon (if not already) there will be licensed ATB operators who have NEVER put a tug on the wire. Nevermind trying to do this in a ‘breakout’ condition with a crew that has never.done it either! Sounds about right. A policy supported by industry, codified by the CG, and approved by the AWO. Great![/QUOTE]
It’s already here from what I hear from the guys I sailed with. Many of the young sharp engineers I sailed with (and a couple of old guys) have left for the drill ships. A couple of captains and mates have taken DP courses on their own and have moved , or about to move. It sad when you have to vote with your feet.