COI, inspected vessel need captain when guest on board dockside?

I have been ask to be master on a USA “T” inspected vessel. Her COI is for 149 day trip, 40 overnight. If the owner of the vessel wants to have 151 guest on board dockside can he legally do this ? No one pays to come on board dockside, personal friends.

When the vessel host non paying guest at the dock does it need to be manned to its COI?

Thank you you and links to cfr with answer would be ideal.

Try 46 CFR 176.204

I don’t believe for one minute you can have 151 people onboard a vessel without any money changing hands somewhere along the way but…

I believe it is legal to be dockside as a floating attraction without having a COI (or beyond the COI the vessel has) provided a special permit is obtainedfrom the local COTP.

[QUOTE=coldcreepin;140101]I have been ask to be master on a USA “T” inspected vessel. Her COI is for 149 day trip, 40 overnight. If the owner of the vessel wants to have 151 guest on board dockside can he legally do this ? No one pays to come on board dockside, personal friends.

When the vessel host non paying guest at the dock does it need to be manned to its COI?

Thank you you and links to cfr with answer would be ideal.[/QUOTE]

Why does he need a Captain if the COI doesn’t apply.

The boat is fully crew to exceed the COI, and regularly gets underway for profit. The owner wants to use it as a private vessel dock side. I just wanted to make sure if it got boarded in a marina with over 149 people I would not be fined or license pulled.

If the COI remains posted it must be followed exactly.

Technically, if one wants to operate beyond the scope of the COI, it should be surrendered to the UCSG first, and reapplied for afterwards.

However, it is, or at least use to be, a common practice to remove the COI from the vessel while operating beyond the scope, and repost it afterwards. The USCG use to accept this when it was being done by responsible operators for legitimate reasons. Typically,it was done when a vessel limited to inland routes was making an offshore passage without passengers from the summer route to the winter route. That is essentially what the Bounty was doing. I would not be surprised if the USCG has tightened up on this post Bounty.

It is also possible to get temporary permits from the captain of the port for special events, or at least it use to be.

If the owner is uncooperative about this, you probably don’t want to work for him. This is just the beginning of other violations he will expect you to do. If you need the job, you’ll need to make up your own mind about what to do.

Paying versus non-paying aside and for comparison, consider a ship that is alongside with contractors working onboard. There are many, many times where a vessel might have more people onboard than allowed by the COI when alongside. Just don’t try to leave the dock.

If you’re legitimate and worried about it call up the marine safety office and talk to them. Chances are you should already have a working relationship with them.

[QUOTE=z-drive;140135]If you’re legitimate and worried about it call up the marine safety office and talk to them. Chances are you should already have a working relationship with them.[/QUOTE]

That’s what I would do if there are doubts especially any that put one’s credential in potential jeopardy. Why risk it when a 10 minute phone call can clear it up? Get the name of the person you spoke to. A lot of private boat owners know bupkis about the rules and don’t care if you have to fall under the bus for them.

How many in the crew? Not leaving the dock I’d keep 2 by the gangway on the dock and name 2 of the guests as crewmembers such as owner and manager.

COI calls for , 6 crew total , 1 master 200grt / 1 mate 200grt / 4 deckhands. The owner wants to do everything legit and he was told dockside he didn’t need to meet the COI requirements. I was just looking for cfr or uscg written confirmation . We have our annual inspection coming up before we relocate to the Caribbean and I will confirm with the local marine safety office now and the onboard inspectors then also. If any one has a cfr confirming or proving wrong please send link.

Thanks ,

[QUOTE=coldcreepin;140194]COI calls for , 6 crew total , 1 master 200grt / 1 mate 200grt / 4 deckhands. The owner wants to do everything legit and he was told dockside he didn’t need to meet the COI requirements. I was just looking for cfr or uscg written confirmation . We have our annual inspection coming up before we relocate to the Caribbean and I will confirm with the local marine safety office now and the onboard inspectors then also. If any one has a cfr confirming or proving wrong please send link.

Thanks ,[/QUOTE]

there may be no CFR reference for this situation but doing some simple research, if there is NO financial consideration made by the attendees for access to the vessel then the “dockside attraction” permit would not be necessary per USCG MSM vol. 2, ch. 4. Read it yourself and you decide if it applies?

Now, I must ask why the owner is not willing to pay for the very few crew required on the COI during this party? It would certainly seem to be wise to have people aboard who can respond to an onboard emergency even if the law does not require them? Ships can burn at a dock as easily if at sea and people can fall (sometimes overboard). To me, this entire line of questioning comes across as an owner wanting to be painfully cheap! I would not want to work for someone like that!

[QUOTE=coldcreepin;140194]COI calls for , 6 crew total , 1 master 200grt / 1 mate 200grt / 4 deckhands. The owner wants to do everything legit and he was told dockside he didn’t need to meet the COI requirements. I was just looking for cfr or uscg written confirmation . We have our annual inspection coming up before we relocate to the Caribbean and I will confirm with the local marine safety office now and the onboard inspectors then also. If any one has a cfr confirming or proving wrong please send link.

Thanks ,[/QUOTE]

So, if they are not “passengers” then the must have TWIC cards? Or be escorted? Just by the few responses from some hacks on a forum leaning towards don’t do it, I would hate to hear the courtroom banter from some very experienced maritime attorneys seeking millions. I doubt what you are making in income would even pay a retainer fee for your defense. All legal wrangling aside… Do you think as a Master of your vessel that you are willing and capable of being responsible for that many people? Your crew has crowd experience? That crew serving drinks or just standing watch… No other duties?

simplest answer of all is allow exactly 149 persons aboard in addition to the crew and have the full required crew aboard as well…absolutely nothing is extended beyond the vessel’s COI and thus no special permission would be needed from the local COTP nor any legal risks taken in the process.

how can anyone argue with this?

end of discussion!

Unless the last 2 to get on are the Boss and the HR Manager.

Does the boss count as a passenger if he doesn’t pay to be on board?

This is a bit of a gap in regulation. If the boat were used as a floating restaurant and never left the dock with passengers, the boat would not need any COI at all from what I understand. It is considered a “permanently moored vessel” and not subject to inspection. But, if you had a boat that you wanted to run with a COI for passenger carry… but wanted to use it also as a “floating restaurant”… I guess you can’t just undo the COI constraints… while the barge next to you can have pretty much as many people as the fire marshall will allow.

Don’t those “permanently moored” casinos have licensed crew?

[QUOTE=z-drive;140258]Don’t those “permanently moored” casinos have licensed crew?[/QUOTE]

not anymore

If the boss is also the owner, and he has a couple hundred people partying on board for free, then yes he’s Gonna Pay!

Ps, SF Bay coasties told us (SPV) that we could have as many people O/B as we wanted so long as there was No money changing hands, there were enough pfd’s for everyone and (I think) tape over the window decal… I didn’t ask about a "manifestly unsafe voyage…