Federal Register for STCW 2010

I just finished browsing the proposed regulations to implement STCW 2010. (See 76 FR 45908 published last week). A couple of things jumped out at me, does anyone have additional info:
[ul]
[li]Is the existing physical form good enough to get the two year Medical Certificate? If you need Medical Cert every two years, do you need another physical on the fifth year to renew?[/li][li]11.305(a)(3)(iV) For new Masters and Chief Mates after 2017, is “Management of Medical Care” the same as Medical Care PIC (STCW A-VI/4) previously not required. (although most countries do, I believe)[/li][li]11.305(b)(5). 11.325(b)(1), etc. - For Maters, Chief Mates, Chiefs and others to renew after Jan2017, how do we demonstrate “leadership and management skills” .[/li][li]I don’t see the criteria to get the new B-VI/f endorsement for DP Operator. Maybe I missed it.[/li][/ul]

That should be B-V/f for DPO’s.

Mea culpa

Not sure - but did hear (regarding your third question) that Bridge Resource Mgt will be required to be reqd to be renewed every five yrs.

[QUOTE=todd.harter;53835]Not sure - but did hear (regarding your third question) that Bridge Resource Mgt will be required to be reqd to be renewed every five yrs.[/QUOTE]

Good idea from an emergency management perspective.

[QUOTE=todd.harter;53835]Not sure - but did hear (regarding your third question) that Bridge Resource Mgt will be required to be reqd to be renewed every five yrs.[/QUOTE]

You’re right… that’s it. So before renewing after 2017, we need the new BRM and ECDIS. Mitags tells me the ECDIS class that’s part of Chief Mate Adv Navigation will count if you already have that.

I’m still wondering why the DPO endorsement B-V/f was left out. That will put Americans at a disadvantage if Flag States or clients require it.

Bridge Resource Management (BRM), Leadership and Teamworking Skills,
Leadership and Managerial Skills
The Coast Guard proposes to change the name of Procedures for
Bridge Team Work to Bridge Resource Management (BRM). BRM and
leadership and teamworking skills would be required for the
operational-level credential only; and leadership and managerial skills
would be required for the management-level credential, as provided in
the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention. These requirements would
allow for the approval of BRM courses or combined BRM and leadership
and managerial skills courses.ERM and leadership and managerial skills courses.

[QUOTE=anchorman;53837]Good idea from an emergency management perspective.[/QUOTE]

There must be some emergency management at the unlimited level because the BRM class I took was a joke. All I did was plan a voyage using a coast pilot.

Drilling companies have really good courses for emergency management, better than any STCW type course, but there’s nothing that trumps good drills on the vessel in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Orniphobe;53864]You’re right… that’s it. So before renewing after 2017, we need the new BRM and ECDIS. Mitags tells me the ECDIS class that’s part of Chief Mate Adv Navigation will count if you already have that.

I’m still wondering why the DPO endorsement B-V/f was left out. That will put Americans at a disadvantage if Flag States or clients require it.

Bridge Resource Management (BRM), Leadership and Teamworking Skills,
Leadership and Managerial Skills
The Coast Guard proposes to change the name of Procedures for
Bridge Team Work to Bridge Resource Management (BRM). BRM and
leadership and teamworking skills would be required for the
operational-level credential only; and leadership and managerial skills
would be required for the management-level credential, as provided in
the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention. These requirements would
allow for the approval of BRM courses or combined BRM and leadership
and managerial skills courses.ERM and leadership and managerial skills courses.[/QUOTE]

I am willing to bet the Coast Guard made a conscience decision to leave Dynamic Position out of this rule, since it will become regulation at some point - then they can address B-V/f through policy letters - still having the endorsement available as required, but not being held by the regulatory process as they determine how to approach certifications.

One commenter in the proposed rule suggested changing the current definition of underway (since its explicitly singles out MODU’s) to define a DP rig as being underway (like it isn’t obvious), but even though the Coast Guard agreed, their answer was making that change was not within the scope of this proposed rule.

I do know that there is a work group on the NOSAC committee taking on these issues to advise the Coast Guard.