CM/M assessments and STCW

Professional Mariner Forum
41

[QUOTE=anchorman;85589]Really??? Holy hell… If you had a management level license as a 6,000 ton OSV Master, then why in the hell would you be doing the assessments for it when upgrading to Chief Mate??? YOU WOULD HAVE IT ALREADY!

“”“Attention all personnel. All 6,000 ton Masters are Management Level Personnel now. This means that anyone that ever had this license ’ never had to take all of those courses’ or do any of the assessments because they were already qualified by STCW.”"" This is a joke.

Come on guys, Management Level is Chief Mate and Master…not a 1,600 ton Master, or a 6,000 ton Master which is simply the same thing with a trade restricted endorsement on it. A 6000 ton Master does not have to qualify for the Management level and that was the whole damn reason why industry came up the endorsement to begin with (to not have to #1 take the courses (now dropped), and #2 the assessments); I got one of the first 6,000 ton endorsements in 1997, thanks to ECO for the M/V Gary Chouest, the first large OSV. Been there and done that - been at this for a while up to Master…but, if you guys want to keep assuming things, go right ahead, but it will bite you. I would even go as far as saying that you would even get approved to test because NMC would most likely not even catch it…to each his own.

My problem is the misinformation… Cavo may have said that you can get the CM/M assessments done on a large OSV, but he certainly didn’t say that they could be signed by a 6,000 ton OSV Master…I’ll put my 401k, wife, and dog on that one my friends.[/QUOTE]

Can you please tell me why the 500, 1600, and Master 6,000 all bear the A- II/2 STCW ? Are these not “Management” level licenses with that code? Again, I submit the Master 6,000 IS in fact a Management level license. See the chart in link. http://www.jf-recruiting.com/a/pdf/STCW_codes.pdf

42

Damn, I am going to act like a politician here and flip flop on the issue. I believe Iron Horse has it there. The A-II/2 STCW is the determining factor on the management level license.

43

Damn, I am going to have to act like a politician and flip flop on the issue again. I believe Iron Horse has it there. The A-II/2 STCW is the determining factor for a management level license.

44

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;85820]Can you please tell me why the 500, 1600, and Master 6,000 all bear the A- II/2 STCW ? Are these not “Management” level licenses with that code? Again, I submit the Master 6,000 IS in fact a Management level license. See the chart in link. http://www.jf-recruiting.com/a/pdf/STCW_codes.pdf[/QUOTE]

Just to cut through the mustard - You are basically saying that a 6,000 ton OSV Master can sign off assessments needed for an Unlimited Chief Mate and Unlimited Master. Because of two reasons. (1) That person is a Master of a vessel over 3,000 tons ITC (one requirement needed), and (2) That person has A-II/2 on their license. That is what you are proposing, not what is management level, but we can get into that too.

The thing that is getting lost here is the level of competency needed to sign off assessments, an STCW requirement, and clear in policy.

No matter what we are talking about, OSV licenses, towing endorsements, or that of STCW you must be qualified within the context of not just a code, regulation, or policy, but level of competency for which you are assessing - which is always reinforced within that same code, regulation, and policy. That should be absolutely clear, and why assessments are a valid means in determination.

Policy letter 04-02 is within the context of mariners for vessels over 3,000 ton (for which the policy applies), not those for which the policy letter doesn’t apply. A 6,000 ton OSV Master does not need to comply with 04-02. At the same time, these mariners are not qualified to assess for 04-02.

You can convince yourself, which you seem to have done already, otherwise, but you are not going to convince me to defy common sense by putting what you have submitted as the truth after it being turned down time and time again by NMC.

45

I am in agreement that it defies common sense and your argument is sound. But as it stands, the STCW code is written in such a convoluted way, this situation exists in which, by following policy letter 04-02, the holder of a “management” level license can sign off the CM/M assessments. The Master 6,000 falls under this whether it is consistent with common sense or practicality, or not.

46

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;85856]I am in agreement that it defies common sense and your argument is sound. But as it stands, the STCW code is written in such a convoluted way, this situation exists in which, by following policy letter 04-02, the holder of a “management” level license can sign off the CM/M assessments. The Master 6,000 falls under this whether it is consistent with common sense or practicality, or not.[/QUOTE]

It’s not an argument so to speak. Policy letter 04-02 was only to cover Chief Mate and Master. You decided the 6,000 ton OSV license falls under this and can sign off assessments, not NMC. Ask the policy makers. They will agree with me. The only reason it defies common sense is you choose to read it a certain way.

47

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;85856]I am in agreement that it defies common sense and your argument is sound. But as it stands, the STCW code is written in such a convoluted way, this situation exists in which, by following policy letter 04-02, the holder of a “management” level license can sign off the CM/M assessments. The Master 6,000 falls under this whether it is consistent with common sense or practicality, or not.[/QUOTE]

Have you read the assessor manual?

48

[QUOTE=anchorman;85860]It’s not an argument so to speak. Policy letter 04-02 was only to cover Chief Mate and Master. You decided the 6,000 ton OSV license falls under this and can sign off assessments, not NMC. Ask the policy makers. They will agree with me. The only reason it defies common sense is you choose to read it a certain way.[/QUOTE]

Son, I am not going to make a pissing match of this. This issue does not effect me in any way whatsoever. I was merely stating information that could be of benefit for some mariners. I happen to know “policy makers” , having spent over 30 years in the USCG and USN. They will not agree with you on all accounts. None of this is my interpretation, it is from NMC. I respect your professional opinion and hold you in high regard on this forum, but there are some facts that you may need to re-check to be completely clear on this.
I am in agreement with you on how it “should be”. But no system is perfect, especially our our government. This situation exists due to industry trying to “manipulate” the system by bastardizing the license structure to suit their needs.

Congratulations on the new position. You deserve what you have worked hard for.

Good day

49

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;85879]Son, I am not going to make a pissing match of this. This issue does not effect me in any way whatsoever. I was merely stating information that could be of benefit for some mariners. I happen to know “policy makers” , having spent over 30 years in the USCG and USN. They will not agree with you on all accounts. None of this is my interpretation, it is from NMC. I respect your professional opinion and hold you in high regard on this forum, but there are some facts that you may need to re-check to be completely clear on this.
I am in agreement with you on how it “should be”. But no system is perfect, especially our our government. This situation exists due to industry trying to “manipulate” the system by bastardizing the license structure to suit their needs.

Congratulations on the new position. You deserve what you have worked hard for.

Good day[/QUOTE]

This is not a pissing match; I am just trying to understand this position that you have, and more importantly that “accurate information” prevails for those that seek this forum for guidance. The last thing that I’m sure anyone wants is to have the wrong interpretation flying around. This does not effect me either, only that I care about those that is does effect. It takes a lot of effort to comply with these assessments, and I certainly do not want to be the one that has to say sorry after someone spent the better part of a year doing something that ultimately gets shot down by NMC. I am insistent for that reason only, not to be called son. If you have a problem coupling logic to your interpretation, then there is no logical justification for the interpretation. That interpretation did not work for me or any other person that tried over the last decade; I wish it did. It would have saved myself a lot of effort because I was on the large OSV’s where 6000 ton Masters were readily available. Being that you were in the Coast Guard and know the policy makers, then get with Stew Walker. He was the one around during publication of the policy letter in question and guided the REC Chiefs in it’s interpretation.

50

[QUOTE=anchorman;85881]This is not a pissing match; I am just trying to understand this position that you have, and more importantly that “accurate information” prevails for those that seek this forum for guidance. The last thing that I’m sure anyone wants is to have the wrong interpretation flying around. This does not effect me either, only that I care about those that is does effect. It takes a lot of effort to comply with these assessments, and I certainly do not want to be the one that has to say sorry after someone spent the better part of a year to do something that ultimately gets shot down by NMC. I am insistent for that reason only, not to be called son. If you have a problem coupling logic to your interpretation, then there is no logical justification for the interpretation. That interpretation did not work for me or any other person that tried over the last decade; I wish it did. It would have saved myself a lot of effort because I was on the large OSV’s where 6000 ton Masters were readily available. Being that you were in the Coast Guard and know the policy makers, then get with Stew Walker. He was the one around during publication of the policy letter in question and guided the REC Chiefs in it’s interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Duly noted…You sir are correct. I am a dumb old man and nothing I have said here has any credibility, whatsoever. I will not contribute any more fodder, so as to confuse the fold.

Anchorman is doing his duty to help, I am certain he means well. I can tell he is a man of integrity.

51

[QUOTE=rjbpilot;85412]Mr. Cavo, could you respond please…[/QUOTE]

No, I can’t. This issue is one that is ripe for an appeal, and when it does come to an appeal, I will likely be involved int he evaluation of the appeal. I need to recuse from answering a question that is directly involved with the a pending application a the NMC or one that has a strong likelihood of coming to our office on an appeal.

52

[QUOTE=jdcavo;85961]No, I can’t. This issue is one that is ripe for an appeal, and when it does come to an appeal, I will likely be involved int he evaluation of the appeal. I need to recuse from answering a question that is directly involved with the a pending application a the NMC or one that has a strong likelihood of coming to our office on an appeal.[/QUOTE]

Thanks anyway Jim. We know your obligations.

Just to point out, the only reason Jim could be involved is NMC must have turned down someone for turning in CM/M assessments with an unqualified assessor. The application was reconsidered to NMC’s Commanding Officer, turned down once again, then on to USCG HQ in Washington DC on appeal, or close to it…

I hate to say it; I do not think this person will win because of what I have previously stated, but everyone is due the process.

53

[QUOTE=anchorman;85971]Thanks anyway Jim. We know your obligations.

Just to point out, the only reason Jim could be involved is NMC must have turned down someone for turning in CM/M assessments with an unqualified assessor. The application was reconsidered to NMC’s Commanding Officer, turned down once again, then on to USCG HQ in Washington DC on appeal, or close to it…

I hate to say it; I do not think this person will win because of what I have previously stated, but everyone is due the process.[/QUOTE]

Or the person will win because of the exact wording of policy letter 04-02…

54

[QUOTE=Capt Leigh;85994]Or the person will win because of the exact wording of policy letter 04-02…[/QUOTE]

It seems the person won already

55

I was assuming yoi had the hard work covered.

56

[QUOTE=anchorman;85850]Just to cut through the mustard - You are basically saying that a 6,000 ton OSV Master can sign off assessments needed for an Unlimited Chief Mate and Unlimited Master. Because of two reasons. (1) That person is a Master of a vessel over 3,000 tons ITC (one requirement needed), and (2) That person has A-II/2 on their license. That is what you are proposing, not what is management level, but we can get into that too.

The thing that is getting lost here is the level of competency needed to sign off assessments, an STCW requirement, and clear in policy.

No matter what we are talking about, OSV licenses, towing endorsements, or that of STCW you must be qualified within the context of not just a code, regulation, or policy, but level of competency for which you are assessing - which is always reinforced within that same code, regulation, and policy. That should be absolutely clear, and why assessments are a valid means in determination.

Policy letter 04-02 is within the context of mariners for vessels over 3,000 ton (for which the policy applies), not those for which the policy letter doesn’t apply. A 6,000 ton OSV Master does not need to comply with 04-02. At the same time, these mariners are not qualified to assess for 04-02.

You can convince yourself, which you seem to have done already, otherwise, but you are not going to convince me to defy common sense by putting what you have submitted as the truth after it being turned down time and time again by NMC.[/QUOTE]

To satisfy the needs of providing accurate information to the “fold”,do you still hold to your argument on this issue? Or will you admit that it is indeed true that a Master OSV 6,000 can sign off the CM/M assessments.

Thank you

57

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;86271]To satisfy the needs of providing accurate information to the “fold”,do you still hold to your argument on this issue? Or will you admit that it is indeed true that a Master OSV 6,000 can sign off the CM/M assessments.

Thank you[/QUOTE]

I will put it this way; you may or may not get approved as it stands now, since there are on-going appeals, but considering what I have been told, you will win on appeal. Not only can a 6,000 ton Master sign off assessment, but a 6,000 ton Master is already qualified and does not need to do them at all when applying for CM/M. Hey, if there is a back door to get around requirements, by all means take it.

58

[QUOTE=anchorman;86274]I will put it this way; you may or may not get approved as it stands now, since there are on-going appeals, but considering what I have been told, you will win on appeal. Not only can a 6,000 ton Master sign off assessment, but a 6,000 ton Master is already qualified and does not need to do them at all when applying for CM/M. Hey, if there is a back door to get around requirements, by all means take it.[/QUOTE]

That’s the convoluted system created by the manipulation of the license structure by industry. I had to go at it the “long way” also. All who had to spend heaps of money for classes, and precious vacation time, not to mention the hours of dedicated time of learning the competencies that are designated for CM/M, are fuming at these revelations. On the other side of the coin, there are a mass who could not be happier. Right or wrong, it is what it is…Mariners are not “safer” or “more competent” based on the the rule of the pen…
Those who exude exemplary skills will do so with or without codified written regulations. Those who are marginal or incompetent will still slip through the cracks at any level of regulation.

59

[QUOTE=Iron Horse;86275]That’s the convoluted system created by the manipulation of the license structure by industry. I had to go at it the “long way” also. All who had to spend heaps of money for classes, and precious vacation time, not to mention the hours of dedicated time of learning the competencies that are designated for CM/M. There are many who are fuming at these revelations. On the other side of the coin, there are a mass who could not be happier. Right or wrong, it is what it is…Mariners are not “safer” or “more competent” based on the the rule of the pen…
Those who exude exemplary skills will do so with or without codified written regulations. Those who are marginal or incompetent will still slip through the cracks at any level of regulation.[/QUOTE]

Luckily, it did not cost me anything as far as the previous requirements, and always held the OSV license scheme in higher regard because of the practicality in the assessments. Industry had a very good point when being critical of what was asked of the mariner, and I played a part in this as far as submissions to NOSAC, at the request of some members when those large OSV assessments were being developed. I cannot complain because my Master 6000 OSV was before STCW, and it took only a letter from USCG HQ and 5 minutes in New Orleans and I had the endorsement. There was no assessments back then.

What strikes me, is how this change-of-tide is just pulled out of thin air. There is no memo, or no indication whatsoever for the mariner, except private messaging on gCaptain, and these issues are kitchen table life decisions for the typical mariner trying to navigate through their career.

But, like you said. The piece of paper means nothing. Even with 10 years as Master, it took over 2 years to find a decent job as Chief Mate on a drill ship, because most companies would not even touch me without the drilling experience, probably, like you have said, the marginal or incompetent slipped through the cracks creating a stereotype about people coming from the “boats”.

60

[QUOTE=anchorman;86274]I will put it this way; you may or may not get approved as it stands now, since there are on-going appeals, but considering what I have been told, you will win on appeal. Not only can a 6,000 ton Master sign off assessment, but a 6,000 ton Master is already qualified and does not need to do them at all when applying for CM/M. Hey, if there is a back door to get around requirements, by all means take it.[/QUOTE]

So if one were already a Master 1600/3000-2nd Mate and getting hired by a compamy with a Master 6000 OSV program notwithstanding, which path to CM/M has the most grease? Do the Master 6000 OSV program -or- get the CM/M assesment signed off by the Master on your 6000 OSV?