Closing the ATB "loop-hole"?

Professional Mariner Forum
61

[QUOTE=captbbrucato;89081]So will having an unlimited license magically infuse said watch stander with the gift of omnipotent skill and knowledge to know exactly what to do to avoid disaster…I call bullshit. The limited or unlimited license has no bearing on this argument. Towing experience is the only answer to the ability to deal with an emergency requiring breakouts. Everything else is just crap. Increased manning as one post suggested (12 crew members) will help the fatigue issue to a degree although any of the designs I’ve seen so far won’t handle more than ten.
IMHO the unlimited community has their panties in a bunch because they aren’t at the top of this particular food chain. So what if we ask for the tonnage to grant an upgrade, we’re pushing the damn tonnage aren’t we? If we pass the exams, so be it. If I went to medical school and pass the board exams I’m a doctor right? So if I pass all the assessments and exams I’m an upper level license holder working on an ATB who actually has towing experience, scary huh?[/QUOTE]

No it is not the license that is the crux of my point. It is the fact that the USCG is allowing the industry to dictate policy, law and ultimately safety. There are fewer unlimited license holders than limited license holders. These companies know that they would have to increase wages to compete for qualified people. Also, if ATBs are such a splendid idea why don’t more countries have them? The USA moves a small portion of the worlds cargo yet they have this odd ball class of vessels. Why?

62

[QUOTE=tengineer;89120]The USA moves a small portion of the worlds cargo yet they have this odd ball class of vessels. Why?[/QUOTE]

Because sailors can’t afford to buy admirals.

63

EXCELLENT question. IMHO, industry has created this idea to get around manning requirements. Using ‘uninspected’ tugs to move COI inspected barges (with a 2 man ( when transferring cargo) and unmanned underway) in order to slash manning. Some of these barges are at least as large ( both net tonnage and DWT wise) as small ships. There is an artificial ‘glass ceiling’ also. Any vessel OVER 10,000 tons MUST have 1st class pilot aboard when in ‘Pilot Waters’. Almost every ATB has the barge so it is under 10,000GRT thus avoiding the mandated pilot requirement. Thus, the ‘company mandated’ loophole of ‘Self certified recency’ to ACT as a Pilot’ comes into play. (See 46 CFR 15.812(b)(2) ). And don’t think for a second this grey area of 1,600 tons to 10,000 tons didn’t magically appear from thin air! The companies had more than a ‘little bit’ to do with this!

Can anyone say: Who has the CG in their pocket?

64

[QUOTE=cappy208;89123]EXCELLENT question. IMHO, industry has created this idea to get around manning requirements. Using ‘uninspected’ tugs to move COI inspected barges (with a 2 man ( when transferring cargo) and unmanned underway) in order to slash manning. Some of these barges are at least as large ( both net tonnage and DWT wise) as small ships. There is an artificial ‘glass ceiling’ also. Any vessel OVER 10,000 tons MUST have 1st class pilot aboard when in ‘Pilot Waters’. Almost every ATB has the barge so it is under 10,000GRT thus avoiding the mandated pilot requirement. Thus, the ‘company mandated’ loophole of ‘Self certified recency’ to ACT as a Pilot’ comes into play. (See 46 CFR 15.812(b)(2) ). And don’t think for a second this grey area of 1,600 tons to 10,000 tons didn’t magically appear from thin air! The companies had more than a ‘little bit’ to do with this!

Can anyone say: Who has the CG in their pocket?[/QUOTE]

Precisely my point. The USCG could well be called the United States Corrupt Group. All you have to do is look at where the retired admirals and captains go to work upon retirement to figure this out. They go to work for the companies they purportedly claim to be regulating prior to their retirement. The ones that roll over for the big boys get the best post retirement jobs and some of them are making million dollar salaries post retirement. That being said the USCG is not that different from the other services in the way they roll over for the big money contractors. There is very little honor and courage left in the whole bunch when it comes to money.

65

The charters, cargo owners, vettors, and insurance companies are dictating most of the requirements now, and as a result determining what is “safe” in the industry. The threat of becoming potentially liable for a $1 billion oil spill over-rides everything else. USCG regulation, and the USCG’s opinion of what is safe, has become almost irrelevant. The primary driver of industry decisions is potential liability mitigation.

Apparently, the industry has decided that ATBs are safe enough for now, so that is what we have.

If and when, someone has to pay for a $1 billion oil spill, and it appears that could have been avoided if a tanker had been used instead of an ATB, then ATB’s will disappear virtually overnight.

How much would it raise the price of gas if all Jones Act oil were transported in new US built and manned, twin screw (separate engine rooms and controls) tankers with every conceivable state of the art safety feature, triple the current manning levels with all unlimited licenses, two pilots aboard all the time, and two escort tugs always at hand ? (Did I leave anything out?) A few extra pennies a gallon?

With gas at $4 per gallon, and the the oil industry able to pass on any and all costs of production, refining, and distribution to the public, there is no reason not to have the safest and best manned vessels possible. It does not matter if that raises their costs, they can just raise the price of gas to $4.01 per gallon to pass those costs on to consumers.

No consumer wants to pay more for gas, but no one would complain about paying an extra few pennies per gallon “for the environment.”

In America, if its “for the children” or “for the environment” no extra cost is too great.

66

Other than a slight to one’s ego, why complain about the “Uninspected” classes? It’s not economical to man an ATB like a ship. The USCG isn’t gonna change the regs, industry would just de-evolve and go back to conventional towing with the same size barges (some staffed with 200 ton deck officers FYI). When foreign shipowners can hire 10 filipinos for the price of what American shipowners pay 1 AB, We’re at an economical disadvantage and can’t compete. Let’s keep as many exemptions as possible and keep our Jones Act jobs intact!

67

There is NO way the industry would be allowed to de evolve back to conventional towing. I don’t understand HOW companies like Vane and Hornbeck can afford hull and cargo insurance while running NON ATBs! Never mind the insurance difference, the delays involved are astronomical. How customers tolerate this is??? The daily rate they charge is not only reflected in their pay, but it hugely undercuts the dayrate for more professional companies that HAVE invested in ATB technology.

68

ATB’s don’t have a COI as far as I know. They are the “rule beaters” remember?

69

ATB’s don’t have a COI as far as I know. They are the “uninspected rule beaters” remember?

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;89115]Do any current ATBs actually do “drop and swap”? All the ones I have observed are married to their one barge.

Their idea of crew savings is bullshit, at least where I work. Our crews are mandated by the client, in excess of the COI.

I wonder what the majors will say when someone tries to bring one of those on contract. I don’t think they will be very thrilled with the idea…[/QUOTE]

70

[QUOTE=“captbbrucato;96377”]ATB’s don’t have a COI as far as I know. They are the “uninspected rule beaters” remember?

[/QUOTE]

Actually the B of an ATB does have a COI. But it is only in regards to the transfer of product, not the underway part.

71

I worked on an old lash vessel in Diego Garcia on charter to MSC and we carried 2 push boats on the last hatch which we would lift with our 500 ton crane,. As my job as 1st engineer, I had to start the plant on the push boats every Sunday run both generators, air compressors, both main engines ahead and astern, and flanking rudders. As far as engines go most diesels are similar until you get up to large slow speed diesels which an ATB would not have anyway. Diesel= Suck,Squish,Bang,Blow with jewelry hanging off her. ATB engineers should have no problem anywhere else.

72

[QUOTE=silverbk;89022]Here is a link that I have discovered while researching this topic. If anything is incorrect or outdated please advise:

… The law that the [I]Near Coastal/Oceans[/I] route tonnage limit is derived from, called the [I][B]Officers Competency Certificates Convention of 1936[/B] (aka the Officers Competency Act),[/I] is located in the U.S. Code at [I][B]46 USC § 8304[/B][/I], while the implementing regulations are at [B]46 CFR § 15.701[/B]. It stipulates that [I]“[/I][I]A person may not engage or employ an individual to serve as, and an individual may not serve as, a master, mate, or engineer on a vessel to which this section applies, if the individual does not have a license [B]issued under section [/B][/I][I][B]7101[/B][/I][I][B] of this title[/B] authorizing service in the capacity in which the individual is to be engaged or employed.” [/I]With a few exceptions, this section applies to all [B]documented vessels[/B] of [B]200GRT[/B] or [B]greater[/B] operating on the [B]high seas[/B], including [B]towing vessels[/B]. In this case the [B][I]High Seas[/I][/B] are defined as waters seaward of the [B][I]Boundary Lines[/I][/B], which are, as per [B]46 CFR § 7.5©[/B], [I]“lines drawn following the general trend of the seaward, highwater shorelines across entrances to small bays, rivers and inlets.”[/I] The exact location of all boundary lines can be found in [B][I]46 CFR § 7.10 through 7.180[/I][/B]. As it happens, our towing licenses are [B]not[/B] issued under section 7101 of Title 46 of the United States Code. So if you want to operate a towing vessel of 200GRT and up on the high seas then you must have a license that [B]is[/B] issued under section 7101, which are the 500/1,600GRT and unlimited tonnage licenses.[/QUOTE]

I’m bumping this thread because it shows up on Google searches.

The way I read the rules now after the recent reorganization a Towing license falls under the officers competency act so the 200 ton threshold for going past the boundary line no longer applies to towing licenses.

Am I correct or am I missing something?

[B]Note that master and mate of towing vessels are issued under 46 CFR part 11.464 and 11.465 respectively.[/B]

46 CFR 15.701

(a) This section implements the Officers Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 (see 46 U.S.C. 8304), and applies to each vessel documented under the laws of the United States navigating seaward of the Boundary Lines in part 7 of this chapter, except:

(1) A public vessel;

(2) A wooden vessel of primitive build, such as a dhow or junk;

(3) A barge; and

(4) A vessel of less than 200 gross tons.

B The master, mates and engineers on any vessel to which this section applies must hold a license or MMC officer endorsement to serve in that capacity issued by the Coast Guard under parts 10 and 11 of this subchapter.[/B]

73

How on earth are mariners supporting this practice? What are your cut from the rule bending? With a ship you would get more jobs and less fatigue. You got the Jones act protection your ass, something we other westerners only could dream about. From a self interested point, you have dropped the ball.

74

We don’t! Jeaux boss supports it though.

75

I don’t agree, it you look at it one way it’s a step up from a conventional tug another way it’s a step down from a ship. As a tug guy it’s merely the evolution of a tug boat into a more complete package that can go in more diverse weather and is essentially manned the same as a conventional tug and barge.

76

yes, some of that is like saying winches are cheating on hawser, diesel reduction cheating on direct reversing etc. Better technology, that’s all.

77

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;166045]I’m bumping this thread because it shows up on Google searches.

The way I read the rules now after the recent reorganization a Towing license falls under the officers competency act so the 200 ton threshold for going past the boundary line no longer applies to towing licenses.

Am I correct or am I missing something?

[B]Note that master and mate of towing vessels are issued under 46 CFR part 11.464 and 11.465 respectively.[/B]

46 CFR 15.701

(a) This section implements the Officers Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 (see 46 U.S.C. 8304), and applies to each vessel documented under the laws of the United States navigating seaward of the Boundary Lines in part 7 of this chapter, except:

(1) A public vessel;

(2) A wooden vessel of primitive build, such as a dhow or junk;

(3) A barge; and

(4) A vessel of less than 200 gross tons.

B The master, mates and engineers on any vessel to which this section applies must hold a license or MMC officer endorsement to serve in that capacity issued by the Coast Guard under parts 10 and 11 of this subchapter.[/B][/QUOTE]

Can we stay on topic please? I am hoping someone with legal expertise will chime in here.

78

I’m sorry for straying Capt. Phoenix but I’m not sure I fully understand what the question is here. Could you try asking it a little more concisely perhaps? I’m not trying to impugn your manner of writing, I just seem to have gotten lost on this one.

Thanks!

79

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;166101]I’m sorry for straying Capt. Phoenix but I’m not sure I fully understand what the question is here. Could you try asking it a little more concisely perhaps? I’m not trying to impugn your manner of writing, I just seem to have gotten lost on this one.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Significantly earlier in this thread there was talk about how running a towing vessel over 200 GRT outside the boundary line required an inspected vessel license in addition to a master or mate of towing. This was because of the officers competency act (which was described in a comment quote in my original question yesterday if you had bothered look back a page).

It appears that NOW Master of Towing and Mate of Towing ARE covered by the officers competency act and thus the effective limit of 200 GRT no longer applies. I’m asking people that know if my interpretation is correct.

A discussion of old and current laws is below:

[QUOTE=silverbk;89022]Here is a link that I have discovered while researching this topic. If anything is incorrect or outdated please advise:

The law that the [I]Near Coastal/Oceans[/I] route tonnage limit is derived from, called the [I][B]Officers Competency Certificates Convention of 1936[/B] (aka the Officers Competency Act),[/I] is located in the U.S. Code at [I][B]46 USC § 8304[/B][/I], while the implementing regulations are at [B]46 CFR § 15.701[/B]. It stipulates that [I]“[/I][I]A person may not engage or employ an individual to serve as, and an individual may not serve as, a master, mate, or engineer on a vessel to which this section applies, if the individual does not have a license [B]issued under section [/B][/I][I][B]7101[/B][/I][I][B] of this title[/B] authorizing service in the capacity in which the individual is to be engaged or employed.” [/I]With a few exceptions, this section applies to all [B]documented vessels[/B] of [B]200GRT[/B] or [B]greater[/B] operating on the [B]high seas[/B], including [B]towing vessels[/B]. In this case the [B][I]High Seas[/I][/B] are defined as waters seaward of the [B][I]Boundary Lines[/I][/B], which are, as per [B]46 CFR § 7.5©[/B], [I]“lines drawn following the general trend of the seaward, highwater shorelines across entrances to small bays, rivers and inlets.”[/I] The exact location of all boundary lines can be found in [B][I]46 CFR § 7.10 through 7.180[/I][/B]. As it happens, our towing licenses are [B]not[/B] issued under section 7101 of Title 46 of the United States Code. So if you want to operate a towing vessel of 200GRT and up on the high seas then you must have a license that [B]is[/B] issued under section 7101, which are the 500/1,600GRT and unlimited tonnage licenses. Simple, eh? So the commonly expressed misconception that there’s some magical 300GRT towing license has no basis in regulatory fact. If you have a towing license, and only a towing license, then on [B]near coastal[/B] or [B]oceans[/B] voyages you are restricted to vessels of [B]less[/B] than [B]200GRT[/B]. On any of the other routes there is [B]no[/B] tonnage limit.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;166045]The way I read the rules now after the recent reorganization a Towing license falls under the officers competency act so the 200 ton threshold for going past the boundary line no longer applies to towing licenses.

Am I correct or am I missing something?

[B]Note that master and mate of towing vessels are issued under 46 CFR part 11.464 and 11.465 respectively.[/B]

46 CFR 15.701

(a) This section implements the Officers Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 (see 46 U.S.C. 8304), and applies to each vessel documented under the laws of the United States navigating seaward of the Boundary Lines in part 7 of this chapter, except:

(1) A public vessel;

(2) A wooden vessel of primitive build, such as a dhow or junk;

(3) A barge; and

(4) A vessel of less than 200 gross tons.

B The master, mates and engineers on any vessel to which this section applies must hold a license or MMC officer endorsement to serve in that capacity issued by the Coast Guard under parts 10 and 11 of this subchapter.[/B][/QUOTE]

80

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;166105]Significantly earlier in this thread there was talk about how running a towing vessel over 200 GRT outside the boundary line required an inspected vessel license in addition to a master or mate of towing. This was because of the officers competency act (which was described in a comment quote in my original question yesterday if you had bothered look back a page).

It appears that NOW Master of Towing and Mate of Towing ARE covered by the officers competency act and thus the effective limit of 200 GRT no longer applies. I’m asking people that know if my interpretation is correct.

A discussion of old and current laws is below:[/QUOTE]

seems to be the case, but there’s very little that will change in practice on account of it, if in fact that is the case.