I have a cook working over here who wants to get her AB-Fishing. She works two hours a day on watch in wheelhouse as lookout, helmsman etc. Vessels are 1800- to 2400-IGT.
She has her STCW BT and lifeboatman courses done.
She states that her NMC evaluator is telling here that her seatime on a fishing vessel is invalid because the wheelhouse seatime is no more than two hours a day.
Is this correct?
How was her sea time letter written?
Do cooks assist with any deck operations over there? Mooring? Breaking ice?
I would guess that the sea time letter was written in a manner that emphasized her two hours on watch and not just labeled her a deckhand, which would have been better. Deckhands can cook. How much cooking and how much deck work is not really the evaluators business at that level.
I think it’s legally and morally defensible to write the letter in a way that benefits your employee in this case. Two hours on watch and she’s getting more time learning tasks that could be dangerous than a lot of folks that spend 12 chipping rust and scratching their ass. Rewrite the sea time letter and don’t give the evaluator something to think they’ll get in trouble over.
As I understand it, no seatime credit unless it’s at least 4 hours a day.
She is working more than 4 hours a day. Cooking (a typical deckhand duty on a small vessel, and cleaning (deckhand duty), etc. She may not be driving a forklift in the hold, but that’s not a typical deckhand duty. Seems she’s missing out on chipping and painting.
The problem is that the NMC now has a file on her with a letter that says 2 hours a day. I’m not sure if a new seatime letter re-describing her daily duties will work, but it’s worth a try.
You might want to wait awhile and write a new detailed letter than has her 2 hours a day in the wheelhouse, 2 hours a day cooking, 2 hours a day cleaning, 2 hours a day chipping and painting, checking the engine room or whatever.
I don’t know anything about US flagged fishing vessels but do they require a cook on the uscg docs (coi) on such low tonnage vessels? When I worked NY harbor they called the new man, o.s newhire, “dayman”. The dayman cooked the 3 meals a day, helped tie up & got o.t if they assisted in tie up after their normal hours. All of their days counted towards their AB ticket. When they assisted on barge during bunkering their loads & offloads were counted towards their tankermans ticket. When they eventually got enough days & a spot opened up, they quit cooking & became AB or AB Tankerman.
US fishing vessels are uninspected. Thank God. There is no COI or safe manning document.
Under 200 tons, there is no required manning level and no licenses required. Thank God.
But as a practical matter, many owners and insurance companies prefer licensed captains.
Since the 1990s fishing vessels over a certain size have to have a USCG certified Drill Instructor. That’s a one day class.
For fishing vessels over 200 GRT, a licensed Master, Mate, and Engineer (maybe it’s 300 GRT for the engineer) are required, but no other crew is required by the USCG.
As @tugsailor said, our boats are “uninspected” so no manning requirements as strict as those in COI.
With the exception of a few cooks like this one who want to move to another position the rest are professional boat cooks who do nothing but cook aboard.
Great cooks keep the crew happy and less likely to find employment elsewhere.
You would think it would work that way but it doesn’t. They don’t consult anyone’s file. If you need previously submitted sea time to be pulled from the archives it is literally in another building and has to be manually pulled, which takes 1-2 months. How this is possible when it was originally submitted via email I am not sure, but I can definitely report that they don’t just open your file. People resubmit corrected sea time letters all the time. I don’t think it’s possible for it to be an issue unless they have a fraudulent sea time investigation going for that particular company.
@jdcavo might be able to chime in on whether a Reconsideration would be faster than resubmitting the letter as well as the rest of it.
My last upgrade 3 years ago, my evaluator told me that they can see my last application w/ attachments such as sea letters, which was 2 years before that. Anything before that was off site.
I got to deal with this headache once, years ago. The issue wasn’t with hours or days, it was with being called a deckhand instead of an AB, even though i held an AB at the time. They accepted the new letter with a written explanation on company letterhead on why i submitted a new letter.
Freighterman’s question regarding his cook may be a more convoluted slippery slope.
“Is this correct” – My response is based on my experience working with NMC regarding evaluators AI letters and is focuses on two primary things.
(1) How the sea letter describes her primary ship department assignment (deck or steward) and shipboard duties per the job description,
(2) what her AI letter states as to the evaluator’s position on regulatory requirements for granting approval.
When responding to the NMC AI letter, if warranted, the following should be considered.
46 CFR §12.403 – Able seaman—fishing industry. Six months of “service on deck”, not as a processor, onboard vessels operating on oceans or on the navigable waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes.
Sidebar: If the position is described as a dual role, then double the sea time to 12 months.
46 USC §7301 (a) (1) (1) “service on deck” means service in the deck department in work related to the work usually performed on board vessels by able seamen and may include service on fishing, fish processing, fish tender vessels and on public vessels of the United States;
46 CFR §10.107 Definitions in subchapter B.
Deck department means the department aboard a ship responsible for navigation, cargo, command, and control functions.
Service (as used when computing the required service for endorsements) means the time period, in days, a person is assigned to work. …"
Steward’s department means the department that includes entertainment personnel and all service personnel, including wait staff, housekeeping staff, and galley workers, ………
Overall, my opinion is the the evaluator is viewing the application from:
(1) acceptable; (2) missing information and a mariner’s possible response to the AI letter; (3) a request for reconsideration or; (4) the possibility of an appeal.
Probably not, and you are assuming they will prevail on reconsideration, that is not a certainty. If they do not prevail, they are back where they started. I would suggest providing the additional information within the 90-day period, and if still aggrieved, seeking reconsideration at that time.
In this case, it does work that way. On an open application, any supplemental information goes back to the evaluator who renewed initially. The file is at the NMC during the pendency of the application. The application remains open either until it’s approved and issued, or one year from when it was received, or if approved for any examination, one year from the date of the exam approval.
That isn’t what NMC has said to me. Whenever there is an issue (and there is almost always something) they send a letter requesting additional information. The letter states if the information isn’t received within 90 days the application will be considered incomplete and will not be processed further.
The sea time letter shouldn’t have been that specific.
Just give her as letter saying she’s a “deckhand/cook” that works X hours per day.
These sorts of USCG traps for the unwary, and even the very wary, point out the advantages of using a good license consultant to review everything and help you fine tune it to advantage before it is sent to the NMC.
I can confirm this. They do not consult previously submitted documentation. Hell, they barely read what you send in in the first place 