When I broke into the towing industry it was with a company that carries no ABs. The mates, AE and cook do all the deck work. It was a great way to learn because there was no “I won’t work AB 'cause I have a license” crap that I’ve seen from some.
Mr. Cavo, I certainly don’t think that qualifying as a towing vessel officer by simply passing a multiple choice test is better than the present TOAR system. But by your statement you seem to be implying that we are in an either/or situation: either do it the bad old way or accept the original TOAR as it was written in 2001. I argue that the 2001 TOAR was simply a first step in the right direction and there should have been steady improvements as time went on. That was a process that should have been CG-driven: a collaborative effort between the CG, AWO, TSAC, the industry at large and, in particular, the <strong>mariners on the tugs</strong>. But it never happened, and there has never been a genuine effort to use the professional knowledge and judgment of the towing vessel captains, mates and pilots to improve the training and regulatory process. In fact, there seems to be a distinct tendency to keep the mariners out of it as much as possible. TSAC is just a shell of what it could be because of this poor attitude.
Meanwhile, Capt. Doug Pine and Gregg Trunnell from PMI have done a hell of a job coming up with a very comprehensive new TOAR that <strong>should</strong> become the model for the whole industry (but my experiences have tought me not to hold my breath on this). It has the potential to be a major step in the right direction and provides the thoroughness and assessor’s guidance that the original lacked. Myself and some other MTVA committee members reviewed it and made several recommendations and additions to improve it that were incorporated into the final version. Speaking for myself, I feel privileged and honored to have been involved in that process, even though my contributions to the whole were relatively small. We came in near the end, and Doug and Gregg definitely did all the heavy lifting. You might be surprised by how we would respond if the Coast Guard were to adopt this attitude of working with us instead of fighting or marginalizing us all the time.
Can you post the new TOAR in this thread to get reaction from the maritime community right here on gCaptain? Maybe this site can be a catalyst for your agenda. I will say that I do have scepticism in anything that says “You’re <strong>personally</strong> attesting to <strong>their</strong> competence to serve as <strong>master” </strong>as you previously defined the role of DE and the TOAR.
I’d like to thank captjacksparrow for his complimentary words regarding the TOAR book I wrote (along with Capt. Scott Carter) for PMI. The book was developed for PMI’s two year Mates program cadets to use during their sea phases, and the effort was funded in part by a panel consisting of Pacific Northwest Towing companies, and local and state government employment and educational agencies. Several companies are using the book now as their TOAR standard, and I am honored that the MTVA has endorsed the use of this book.
This book is not actually a “new” TOAR. It picks up where the Coast Guard left off. They, on purpose, left the development of the TOAR performance standards up to the industry and/or individual DEs.<o:p></o:p>
My primary focus while writing the book was to create an objective set of performance standards for each of the assessments the USCG included on the list in NVIC 04-01. The final product is an Oceans/Near Coastal version, but there are draft versions for each of the other (Inland, etc) areas that the CG created assessments for. Removing subjectivity from the process, while simultaneously creating clearly outlined performance standards allows for the book to be used by candidates in preparation for the assessment and then by the DE during the assessment process itself. The performance standards are set quite high; if used properly the book ensures that the candidate must have a clear understanding of each assessment and is asked at times to not only demonstrate a particular skill but to also describe it to the assessor in detail. Other TOAR booklets I have seen are, in my opinion, far too subjective or even simplistic in their description of the performance standards for each TOAR assessment. It is, of course, up to each DE as to how closely they adhere to each performance standard. Personally, I don’t bend much and don’t feel anyone should.
The book is copyrighted by PMI and so I can’t post the entire document here but I’m happy to post an example, the first assessment on the list (the book has these formatted into nice tables but the forum software here doesn’t seem to like them):
[b]<strong>TOAR No. A.1 Near Coastal and Oceans
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong> Function: Vessel Familiarization
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>Task: Locate and demonstrate use of fire-fighting equipment
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>Condition: Onboard company vessel
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>Standard: The trainee must complete this task in accordance with the principles and guidance provided below:
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>Check Action
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong> Locate vessel fire-fighting equipment:
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>a. Fire pump(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>b. Fixed CO2 system(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>c. Hose station(s) and equipment (valves, spanner, nozzle, etc)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>d. Fire extinguishers
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>e. Fire axe(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>f. Bunker gear/air packs
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>g. Smoke alarms
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>h. Galley electrical shutdown
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>i. Ventilation shutdown
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>j. Fuel shutoff valves
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>k. Dampers, watertight hatches
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong> Demonstrate the proper use of vessel fire-fighting equipment:
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>a. Fire pump(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>b. Fixed CO2 system(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>c. Hose station(s) and equipment (valves, spanner, nozzle, etc)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>d. Fire extinguishers
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>e. Fire axe(s)
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>f. Bunker gear/air packs
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>g. Smoke alarms
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>h. Galley electrical shutdown
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>i. Ventilation shutdown
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>j. Fuel shutoff valves
</strong>[/b]
[b]<strong>k. Dampers, watertight hatches
</strong>[/b]
So to prepare, the candidate must (as is also required in the CFRs when joining a new vessel) complete a thorough vessel familiarization in order to then successfully complete the TOAR assessment. I would like to respectfully disagree with the statement “You’re <strong>personally</strong> attesting to <strong>their</strong> competence to serve as <strong>master”</strong>. When I train assessors I make sure that they understand this regarding their liability: A DE signing off a TOAR assessment is only attesting to the fact that, at one moment in time, he in his professional opinion observed a candidate successfully meet the performance standards required by himself or by the company, and that’s it. The DE’s liability begins and ends right there. The process has nothing to do with attesting to someone’s competence to serve as master, and I can assure you that if my liability as a DE extended any further than this I would not have become one. As mentioned above, the book is the property of PMI but I believe it can be purchased for use. You can find out if that is the case by contacting [Gregg Trunnell](javascript:location.href=‘mailto:’+String.fromCharCode(103,116,114,117,110,110,101,108,108,64,109,97,116,101,115,46,111,114,103)+’?subject=TOAR%20Book%20purchase%20request’) at PMI.