[QUOTE=injunear;176761]Vessels less than 200GT require no licensed engineer. I think that’s supposed to drop to 100GT if it hadn’t already. The INVADER class tugs are less than 200GT.[/QUOTE]
In other parts of the world the grade of licenses required for Engineers are dependent on engine size and trade area, not the GT of the vessel only. Are you talking tugs in domestic trade only here?
[QUOTE=ombugge;176765]In other parts of the world the grade of licenses required for Engineers are dependent on engine size and trade area, not the GT of the vessel only. Are you talking tugs in domestic trade only here?[/QUOTE]
Not just tugs…any commercial vessel over 200 gt needs a licensed engineer. That may not be necessary if it stays in inland waters. I don’t recall those particulars.
The engine license scheme is a bit more confusing and convoluted than the deck licenses if you ask me.
No USCG engine licenses are only based on tonnage. They have tonnage and hp restrictions when applicable. Now as far as the DDE licenses go, for example, if your 360 days for the DDE 1000 were on a boat that is classified as 5000 hp, you’ll still only get a DDE 1000. Non-dde licenses, trade restricted or not, go by a hp calculation from the sea time.
Since all three grades of DDE have a 500 ton restriction, one may suspect they were created mainly for smaller workboats i.e. tugs, and that have automation of some kind to only require a sole engineer.
[QUOTE=ombugge;176765]In other parts of the world the grade of licenses required for Engineers are dependent on engine size and trade area, not the GT of the vessel only. Are you talking tugs in domestic trade only here?[/QUOTE]
The US has a unique GRT tonnage measurement system that bears little relationship to vessel size.
95 percent of the coastal and ocean tugs in the US are under 200 US GRT. These same vessels are typically about 500 GT ITC.
US tugs under 200 GRT are exempt from STCW, exempt from inspection (and many other things) under US law, but they nonetheless make voyages all over the world.
Tonnage is important for engineers because tugs under 200 tons are not required to carry an engineer. So anyone can be an engineer with no license at all. On some tugs there is no engineer and the deckhands cover the engine room.
This is changing slowly due to charterer and insurance requirements, sms, and foreign port state control. Canada now requires licensed engineer(s) on US tugs calling in Canadain ports. Canada also requires that US tug officers retake STCW Advanced Firefighting every five years.
More and more of the larger quality tug companies are requiring officers to have more licenses and endorsements than the USCG requires, including licenses for the engineers, and full STCW compliance for everyone. For example one large company requires that all Masters of their under 200 GRT tugs hold Master 1600 GRT / 3000 GT ITC, Oceans with all the appropriate STCW endorsements.
The US has been in the process of establishing an inspection requirement for US tugs for 20 years. I am not up to date on this, but it will probably turn out to allow self-inspection, and inspection by third party surveyors. I have given a little thought to becoming one of these new third party tug inspectors.
[QUOTE=ombugge;176765]In other parts of the world the grade of licenses required for Engineers are dependent on engine size and trade area, not the GT of the vessel only. Are you talking tugs in domestic trade only here?[/QUOTE]
200 GRT is simply the threshold at which point a licensed engineer is required.
[QUOTE=Tugs;176756]Back in 1991 (Give or Take) I was taking Advanced Fire Fighting in New Jersey and there was a Guy from Eklof (Became K-Sea). So we were BS’ing during a break and said that he just became an Un-Licensed “Chief”. He said that they picked him over other Deckhands because he went out and purchasd New INJECTORS for the Mains and brought them back to the boat at CC.
So, when I told him that I would never work for a company where I had to buy anything like that out of my own pocket, He said that was what he had to do to get the “Chief’s” job.
He did say that the did finally reimburse him for the Injectors.
You just can’t make shit like this up![/QUOTE]
I was on a K-Sea (old Eklof) tug in Texas in the 2008 and the Chief Mate called everyone who was awake together to the galley. He had just gotten off the phone with the office & the Chief Mate was instructed to get all of us to pool our money together to buy a $500 flange so we could pump off the barge to the terminal. We were all laughing so hard we were crying. The Chief Mate thought it was hilarious too & made a joke saying he thought the office would promote him to Captain if he bought that flange. I guess the only difference between Eklof and K-Sea was the name?
[QUOTE=Ctony;176768]Not just tugs…any commercial vessel over 200 gt needs a licensed engineer. That may not be necessary if it stays in inland waters. I don’t recall those particulars.[/QUOTE]
I believe with passenger vessels 100grt and over requires a licensed engineer if more than 12 pax are carried but with fishing vessels, you need no licenses at all unless over 300grt.
of course there are 250’ passenger vessels with 100 or more pax and only 99grt
[QUOTE=tugsailor;176770]The US has a unique GRT tonnage measurement system that bears little relationship to vessel size.
95 percent of the coastal and ocean tugs in the US are under 200 US GRT. These same vessels are typically about 500 GT ITC.
US tugs under 200 GRT are exempt from STCW, exempt from inspection (and many other things) under US law, but they nonetheless make voyages all over the world.
Tonnage is important for engineers because tugs under 200 tons are not required to carry an engineer. So anyone can be an engineer with no license at all. On some tugs there is no engineer and the deckhands cover the engine room.
This is changing slowly due to charterer and insurance requirements, sms, and foreign port state control. Canada now requires licensed engineer(s) on US tugs calling in Canadain ports. Canada also requires that US tug officers retake STCW Advanced Firefighting every five years.
More and more of the larger quality tug companies are requiring officers to have more licenses and endorsements than the USCG requires, including licenses for the engineers, and full STCW compliance for everyone. For example one large company requires that all Masters of their under 200 GRT tugs hold Master 1600 GRT / 3000 GT ITC, Oceans with all the appropriate STCW endorsements.
The US has been in the process of establishing an inspection requirement for US tugs for 20 years. I am not up to date on this, but it will probably turn out to allow self-inspection, and inspection by third party surveyors. I have given a little thought to becoming one of these new third party tug inspectors.[/QUOTE]
It is hard for any foreigner to understand the USCG licensing system, or lack of it.
Why not just adapt the internationally accepted STCW’10 standard?
Isn’t it embarrassing when US flag vessels are held back in foreign ports for non-compliance to universally accepted rules and regulations, yet are are in full compliance with US Flag State Authority’s requirements?
Or when even US companies do not want to hire American ships and/or personnel because they don’t hold the necessary qualifications as required by underwriters and Port State inspection regimes outside US?
If anybody has wonder why US shipping cannot compete in the international market, look no further.
[QUOTE=ombugge;176793]It is hard for any foreigner to understand the USCG licensing system, or lack of it.
Why not just adapt the internationally accepted STCW’10 standard?
Isn’t it embarrassing when US flag vessels are held back in foreign ports for non-compliance to universally accepted rules and regulations, yet are are in full compliance with US Flag State Authority’s requirements?
Or when even US companies do not want to hire American ships and/or personnel because they don’t hold the necessary qualifications as required by underwriters and Port State inspection regimes outside US?
If anybody has wonder why US shipping cannot compete in the international market, look no further.[/QUOTE]
No one outside the US understands the US licensing system. Few in the US actually understand it. The US licensing system is an over complicated mess with at least twice as many types of licenses than are needed. The US should either refuse to participate in STCW or it should harmonize its licensing system to be identical to STCW.
Unlimited tonnage US officers seem to be able to sail on foreign flag vessels with few problems. However, the US licensing system really screws limited tonnage mariner’s, and makes it very difficult for them to work foreign flag.
US employers want to keep it that way. They want to maintain a huge surplus of US licensed mariner’s desperate for jobs. They do not want limited tonnage US mariner’s to have viable foreign flag options.
No significant number of US vessels are detained by foreign port state control. It’s only a handful. So there is not much embarrassment.
The above topic about licensing is informative, but I was wondering something about the original thread.
If the giant companies may be in horrible shape and disappear, think about the little mom and pops? Do they have it way worse?
[QUOTE=injunear;176761]Vessels less than 200GT require no licensed engineer. I think that’s supposed to drop to 100GT if it hadn’t already. The INVADER class tugs are less than 200GT.[/QUOTE]
But are they under 200GT under ITC?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;176770]The US has a unique GRT tonnage measurement system that bears little relationship to vessel size.
95 percent of the coastal and ocean tugs in the US are under 200 US GRT. These same vessels are typically about 500 GT ITC.
US tugs under 200 GRT are exempt from STCW, exempt from inspection (and many other things) under US law, but they nonetheless make voyages all over the world.
Tonnage is important for engineers because tugs under 200 tons are not required to carry an engineer. So anyone can be an engineer with no license at all. On some tugs there is no engineer and the deckhands cover the engine room.
This is changing slowly due to charterer and insurance requirements, sms, and foreign port state control. Canada now requires licensed engineer(s) on US tugs calling in Canadain ports. Canada also requires that US tug officers retake STCW Advanced Firefighting every five years.
More and more of the larger quality tug companies are requiring officers to have more licenses and endorsements than the USCG requires, including licenses for the engineers, and full STCW compliance for everyone. For example one large company requires that all Masters of their under 200 GRT tugs hold Master 1600 GRT / 3000 GT ITC, Oceans with all the appropriate STCW endorsements.
The US has been in the process of establishing an inspection requirement for US tugs for 20 years. I am not up to date on this, but it will probably turn out to allow self-inspection, and inspection by third party surveyors. I have given a little thought to becoming one of these new third party tug inspectors.[/QUOTE]
Gross (and net) tonnage admeasurement was never really meant to give information about a vessel’s size, other than to give an indication of cargo carrying capacity so that taxes could be levied. . . even now, with ITC rules, it is just a number. . .
[QUOTE=tugsailor;176796]
No significant number of US vessels are detained by foreign port state control. It’s only a handful. So there is not much embarrassment.[/QUOTE]
No wonder, since there are only a few handful of US flag ships in foreign trade.
Actually only 1 has been retained by Paris MOU in 2012/14.
US is holding it’s position in the White List, at 9th position.
[QUOTE=ombugge;176827]No wonder, since there are only a few handful of US flag ships in foreign trade.
Actually only 1 has been retained by Paris MOU in 2012/14.
US is holding it’s position in the White List, at 9th position.[/QUOTE]
http://gcaptain.com/2012/07/26/us-flag-vessels-grey-lis/#.VpOH91LhcdU
[QUOTE=powerabout;177018]http://gcaptain.com/2012/07/26/us-flag-vessels-grey-lis/#.VpOH91LhcdU[/QUOTE]
OK an article from 2012 when US had a bad year with the Paris MOU. It has been returned to the White List now.
The affect of every one ship being detained is larger when that ship belong to a “small” register then to one of the large registers, which mostly affects the smaller FoCs.
The fact is that very few US flag ships gets inspected in foreign ports, since the foreign going US fleet is small and just a small percentage of the large (in number) US fleet. The US thus gets the best of both worlds. (Large fleet/few inspections)
Does US ships ever gets inspected for compliance to IMO rules per Paris MOU regime when in US ports? If so, how many gets detained and are such detentions reported through Paris MOU?
What is a bit disturbing is that relatively large ships/boats/barges under US flag is classed as “non-inspected”, yet some of them actually operate outside US waters, sometime operated by Masters, Officers and crews that does not meet the STCW standard required by similar ships under FoC flag.
How can this be justified for an ABT of nearly Panamax size, with engine power to match? (Or am I wrong here?)
Any large (even small) ATB is operated to STCW by their customers, many that go international (rarely) are SOLAS. You’re wrong, don’t comment on things you do not understand.
[QUOTE=z-drive;177040]Any large (even small) ATB is operated to STCW by their customers, many that go international (rarely) are SOLAS. You’re wrong, don’t comment on things you do not understand.[/QUOTE]
Many owners and vetters ( generally towing oil barges) require much more than the USCG.
As for what the USCG requires for coastal and ocean tugs:
Tugs < 200 GRT = no inspection (95 percent of US tugs) and no licensed engineer,
Tugs >200 GRT, but <300 GRT = no inspection, but a licensed engineer,
Tugs > 300 GRT, but < 1600 GRT = inspected as small cargo and misc. vessels,
Tugs > 1600 GRT = inspected as ships (AHTS inspected as OSV).
There are a few very old tugs just under 300, and a few newer tugs just under 300. There are afew tugs between 300 and 1600, mostly ATB. There are no US tugs over 1600, except some AHTS inspected as OSV.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;177054]Tugs >200 GRT, but <300 GRT = no inspection, but a licensed engineer,[/QUOTE]
That’s a nice and concise list. Just to clarify for anyone that might find this via Google, the licensed Chief Engineer is only necessary if sailing outside the demarcation line.
[QUOTE=z-drive;177040]Any large (even small) ATB is operated to STCW by their customers, many that go international (rarely) are SOLAS. You’re wrong, don’t comment on things you do not understand.[/QUOTE]
If I don’t raise questions about things I don’t know how am I going to learn the facts??
But I still have some questions on the use of ATBs and why it is widely used in the US but hardly by anybody else?
If it was such a great idea, why doesn’t all those greedy shipowners with vessel under FoC flag do the same??
I can see the advantage if serving a short sea route, where one tug had three barges, one at each end handling cargo and one with the tug, but I get the impression that most ATBs are “married for life”??
I can see that by classifying the “cargo section” as a barge and the “propulsion unit” as a tug you can get around a lot of rules that applies to a ship with the same capacity. Especially manning requirements with the USCG tonnage measurement system(GRT)and special licensing rules for tugs.
If this was a ship of similar size as the combined tug/barge and on an international voyage there would be no question, SOLAS and STCW’10 should apply fully and according to the vessel size, regardless of flag.
One major difference is that a barge does not have to have LSA as long as there are no personnel on board while under way.
Likewise the tug does not require lifeboat(s),as it would likely be exempt by flag state due to size and impracticability.
As stated somewhere here earlier, if the tug is under 200 GRT it does not even require to carry certified Engineers and the licensing requirements for Master and deck officers are different from STCW requirements for a tug relative to a vessel of the same size.
Yet you tell me that ATBs are operated by fully STCW qualified personnel, which I assume is more expensive?
Does this apply on all voyages, or only when on an international voyage?
Again, please advise if and where I’m wrong. Please also understand that I’m not criticizing anybody, but would like to understand the rationale behind this “phenomena”, in international terms at least.
I can’t say every single one is, but “all” us flag ATB’s moving oil are crewed with fully STCW credentialed Mariners. It has nothing to do with the flag state, but the customers demanding it. Doesn’t matter if it’s international or not. Some are solas, but again no change in crewing. The customer in these cases almost always specifies crew requirements beyond the flag state’s requirements.
[QUOTE=ombugge;177057]If I don’t raise questions about things I don’t know how am I going to learn the facts??
But I still have some questions on the use of ATBs and why it is widely used in the US but hardly by anybody else?
If it was such a great idea, why doesn’t all those greedy shipowners with vessel under FoC flag do the same??
I can see the advantage if serving a short sea route, where one tug had three barges, one at each end handling cargo and one with the tug, but I get the impression that most ATBs are “married for life”??
I can see that by classifying the “cargo section” as a barge and the “propulsion unit” as a tug you can get around a lot of rules that applies to a ship with the same capacity. Especially manning requirements with the USCG tonnage measurement system(GRT)and special licensing rules for tugs.
If this was a ship of similar size as the combined tug/barge and on an international voyage there would be no question, SOLAS and STCW’10 should apply fully and according to the vessel size, regardless of flag.
One major difference is that a barge does not have to have LSA as long as there are no personnel on board while under way.
Likewise the tug does not require lifeboat(s),as it would likely be exempt by flag state due to size and impracticability.
As stated somewhere here earlier, if the tug is under 200 GRT it does not even require to carry certified Engineers and the licensing requirements for Master and deck officers are different from STCW requirements for a tug relative to a vessel of the same size.
Yet you tell me that ATBs are operated by fully STCW qualified personnel, which I assume is more expensive?
Does this apply on all voyages, or only when on an international voyage?
Again, please advise if and where I’m wrong. Please also understand that I’m not criticizing anybody, but would like to understand the rationale behind this “phenomena”, in international terms at least.[/QUOTE]
ATBs are simply rule beaters.
The only reason for the existence of ATBs is to evade USCG rules that require flag state inspection, more equipment, and much larger crews, including unlimited licenses.
ATBs do not make sense in other flag states, because in every other 1st world flag state, and many third world flag states, tugs are inspected vessels. Tug mariner’s in other countries often have unlimited licenses anyway.
The licensing systems in most other countries allow mariner’s to get credit for their seatime for an unlimited license by serving only on tugs. It’s just a matter of taking some further training courses and a tougher exam. In the US, it’s almost impossible for tugboat mariner’s to get unlimited licenses without sailing unlicensed on ships.
Other countries do not have culture of using tugs as extensively as the US. Counting Inland tugs, the US probably has more tugs than all the rest of the world combined.
I have noticed a lot of small ships making relatively small deliveries in foreign countries. They use small ships and self propelled barges the way we use trucks. There are only a handful of small ships trading in the US.
Seaspan in Canada (which is US owned) has a few ATBs. They call them “pusher tugs.” The only ones I have seen carry RORO trailers between Vancouver and Vancouver Island.
The Canadian tugboat guys that I speak with usually have unlimited licenses, the tugs are inspected, and they earn very good pay. They guys on the very small tugs typically do not have unlimited licenses.
ATBs were created solely to exploit loopholes in the USCG regulatory scheme.
Most ATB’s moving oil in the U.S. Will be inspected pretty soon. Subchapter M is scheduled to be unveiled in the next month or two and will be phased in over the next 7 years. It will require all towing vessels be inspected annually or every 5 years depending on the operators choice. These inspections are put in place to bring the US towing industry up to date with the rest of the world. The US shipping/tug fleet was thought of a the highest standard of safety in the past so it wasnt required to harmonize internationally. Now we are playing catch up with the rest of the world as we have been surpassed supposedly.
Most ATB’s moving oil will have little problem passing inspection as they already have a safety management system in place along with rigorous standards to maintain at the behest of the oil companies. The harbor tugs and wireboats will have the most work playing catch up.
ATB’s are created to beat uscg regulations but a positive outcome is less risk when moving oil barges when compared to towing and tighter schedules with less time lost for weather. Its a beautiful thing cruising into ft lauderdale in a swell when the older wire equipment is doing circles waiting to get in push gear when the swell lays down.