Some of us are wondering why ‘they’ want to require licensed (Eng) Officers on tugs and fish boats now when there is such a shortage in the oil industry. Usually you find a answer on the money trail so check this out.
It will be likely transport, research, salvage and fishing will not be able to pay enough to attract help, the Govt. will declare a disaster (inability to ship goods to hawaii/Alaska or a seafood shortage in american diet and they will have to relax the jones act rules and some others.
Next thing you know is a huge influx of engineers who will work for $100 a day and think it’s gold and that my comrades will be the end of the american maritime officer. … Well, you can still sail for MSC,NOAA, CORP ENG …now does anyone have a real idea who is prompting this requirement for fishers and tugs to have licensed Eng. Officers?
NTSB reports faulting preventative Maintence in a lot of cases (a lack of it) and a general effort to “get with the times” and require the same scrutiny to those who work in the engine room as wheelhouse. I think its only fair to require a licensed chief as much as it does master. This has been going on for a decade, if not longer, through boom and bust in oilfield work. No conspiracy, as far as I’m concerned.
Above all it makes sense to have a competent credentialed person in the engine room. Good owners already do so but it should level the playing field. Anything to make things safer in my book.
The guys I know who run engineer on fishing boats make BANK!
NTSB scrutiny comes in the wake of several specific case’s involving some notorious companies. There are hundreds of different types of fishing vessels in the US and they can’t be lumped together in a gross generalization. The American Fisheries Act prohibited new construction of replacement vessels outside of a “Act of God” loss (read sinking) prior to 2010, that is why there are fleets of 35 plus year old boats. The estimated cost of a new build for a large Factory Trawler is $130 million, so things are not going to happen over night. As of right now there are several new builds in progress in the H&G fleet.
[QUOTE=TSCOTT;132483]NTSB scrutiny comes in the wake of several specific case’s involving some notorious companies. There are hundreds of different types of fishing vessels in the US and they can’t be lumped together in a gross generalization. The American Fisheries Act prohibited new construction of replacement vessels outside of a “Act of God” loss (read sinking) prior to 2010, that is why there are a fleets of 35 plus year old boats. The estimated cost of a new build for a large Factory Trawler is $130 million, so things are not going to happen over night. As of right now there are several new builds in progress in the H&G fleet.[/QUOTE]
Why would companies be prevented from building new fishing vessels? I don’t quite follow that logic.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;132485]Why would companies be prevented from building new fishing vessels? I don’t quite follow that logic.[/QUOTE]
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has regulations intended to regulate the catch that restrict the transfer of catch quotas from older vessels to new ones. It’s difficult to replace the so-called Amendment 80 fleet. The feds are working on the problem but no action on replacement till the regs are changed.
The Article pretty much somes it up. In a historical context, not having people with last names like Magnuson or Stevens to effect the legislation is a big difference. Politics aside Maritime and Fisheries are not a high priority these days in DC.
[B]LEGISLATION[/B]
Legal Roadblocks to Improved Vessel Safety and Efficiency
[I]By Steve Johnson[/I] | Legal restrictions imposed many years ago to control vessel catching capacity in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries no longer serve any useful purpose and are impeding the ability of vessel owners to move to safer, more efficient vessels. These restrictions were imposed to control vessel capacity in the era of derby-style (“Olympic”) fisheries. All of the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries are now effectively quota-controlled, limited entry fisheries so these old restrictions no longer serve any useful purpose. What is worse, they are now roadblocks to upgrading to safer, more efficient vessels.
Positive steps have been taken to eliminate these roadblocks for the Bering Sea pollock and Amendment 80 mixed species trawl fleets. However, in another example of “paralysis by analysis,” the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) are expected to take two or three years to finish cleaning this up for the Bering Sea freezer longline fleet.
Twenty years ago, concerns about over-capacity in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries led the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to adopt the License Limitation Program (“LLP”), a set of regulations that limited participation in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries to vessel owners whose prior operations met certain catch history criteria. The LLP license program limited the number of vessels operating in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries. A new entrant could participate only by acquiring an existing LLP license.
Because over-capacity in a derby-style fishery could be affected both by the number of vessels engaged in the fishery and by the capacity of each individual vessel, LLP licenses restricted the fishing capacity of vessels permitted to operate under the license, based on the length of the original qualifying vessel. On top of the LLP vessel size restrictions, Congress imposed additional size limits on fishing vessels nation-wide in the American Fisheries Act, subject to waiver by the individual Regional Fishery Management Councils for fisheries within their respective jurisdictions. These vessel size limits made sense for derby-style fisheries but make no sense for the quota-controlled, limited entry fisheries of the Bering Sea.
Who cares whether a vessel owner wants to build a mega-vessel to fish its quota? The vessel owner’s quota limits what the vessel can catch, regardless of its size. Since the vessel owner’s quota limits its catch, there is no need for the government to regulate the size of the platform used to catch and process that quota. Vessel owners can safely be left to decide for themselves what size vessel will optimize their operations.
The vessel length restrictions imposed in the LLP licenses and the AFA have blocked rebuilding or replacement of Bering Sea groundfish vessels with larger, safer, more efficient vessels.
Why does this matter? Many vessels in the Bering Sea groundfish fleets were not originally built as fishing vessels, much less designed for the rigors of Bering Sea operations. Many compromises were made in converting those vessels for the groundfish fisheries. Some of those compromises affected safety. In recent years, some of these compromises have led to loss of life. Many Bering Sea vessels are old – many are very old. The average age of the freezer longline fleet is 40 years. One-third of the freezer longline fleet is more than 65 years old! No matter how well these vessels have been maintained, there is only so much life that can be extracted from their steel. Many of these vessels are approaching the ends of their useful lives.
Finally, in quota-controlled fisheries, there is a premium for efficiency. Vessel operators have huge economic incentives to produce maximum value from each pound of fish caught – at the lowest possible cost. The more of the catch that can be made into saleable products and the lower the cost per pound of getting those products to market, the better the bottom line.
Many vessels that were built or converted for derby fisheries simply do not have the room for meal plants or value added processing lines that could make them more productive. Many have such limited hold capacities that they must spend an inordinate amount of time (and fuel) running back and forth to Dutch Harbor for their offloads. Vessels sized, designed and built for quota-controlled Bering Sea limited entry fisheries could be vastly more productive.
Congress showed the way to reforming these outdated restrictions in 2010 by eliminating all vessel size restrictions on Bering Sea pollock vessels. The North Pacific Council has offered similar relief to the Amendment 80 trawl fleet in Amendment 97 to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. When implemented, Amendment 97 will allow replacement of Amendment 80 vessels with vessels of any size up to 295 feet. Unfortunately, although Amendment 97 was adopted by the Council in June 2010, it has not yet been implemented. Proposed rules to implement Amendment 97 were issued by NMFS in March 2012; final rules are expected this summer – a full two years after the Council adopted Amendment 97.
The Bering Sea freezer longline fleet remains stuck with the size restrictions of the derby fishery era. The North Pacific Council is expected to consider a plan amendment that would substantially eliminate freezer longline vessel size restrictions in October 2012. This should be a no-brainer. However, given NMFS’ track record on implementing the Council’s action on Amendment 97, do not hold your breath for prompt implementation.
So, there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that substantial progress has been made in eliminating outdated legal restrictions that have impeded vessel replacement in the Bering Sea groundfish fleets. The Bering Sea pollock fleets have been released from these size restrictions and the Amendment 80 fleet is close to realizing similar gains. The bad new is that the freezer longline fleet remains subject to these outdated restrictions and, because of regulatory delay, is likely to remain so for an extended period.
This regulatory delay will substantially impede the replacement of the freezer longline fleet with safer, more efficient vessels. Because there will be a time lag between elimination of these legal impediments and the construction of new vessels, actual replacement of these vessels is likely to be delayed five years or more. This lag will cost the fleet many millions of dollars and could cost lives.
The regulators need to give a high priority to this last step in the elimination of the outdated vessel size limits that impede renewal of the Bering Sea groundfish fleets.
[I]Steve Johnson is a principal with the law firm of Garvey Schubert Barer and practices in the firm’s Seattle office. Mr. Johnson has represented fishing vessel owners, fishing industry trade associations, investors and lenders in diverse legal matters for more than 30 years. His practice includes fishing industry acquisitions and divestitures, private equity investment, vessel documentation and financing, corporate and commercial transactions, and regulatory compliance. [/I]
[QUOTE=jimrr;132481]Some of us are wondering why ‘they’ want to require licensed (Eng) Officers on tugs and fish boats now when there is such a shortage in the oil industry. Usually you find a answer on the money trail so check this out.
It will be likely transport, research, salvage and fishing will not be able to pay enough to attract help, the Govt. will declare a disaster (inability to ship goods to hawaii/Alaska or a seafood shortage in american diet and they will have to relax the jones act rules and some others.
Next thing you know is a huge influx of engineers who will work for $100 a day and think it’s gold and that my comrades will be the end of the american maritime officer. … Well, you can still sail for MSC,NOAA, CORP ENG …now does anyone have a real idea who is prompting this requirement for fishers and tugs to have licensed Eng. Officers?[/QUOTE]
That is utter bull
It’s just like everything else, insurers and clients want qualified and documented crews, sure, you can say you are an engineer but without the certificate or booklet from the coast guard you are a seaman working in the engine room. It’s all about culpability, Having the documents from the coast guard doesn’t make you a better engineer only makes you a licensed engineer and thats what clients, insurers and industry wants.
Something else, I worked as an unlicensed engineer for Crowley and International Offhore Services, I moved on, got my license and a $200 a day raise from what I was getting from being unlicensed. It was worth it.
Let’s also look at which industries lead the way with marine casualties……Tugs and Commercial Fishing! Licensing, in theory, makes for a more professional mariner be it master or engineer, and it is also an attempt for accountability. Canada requires a chief engineer on tugs over 100 GRT. Requiring professional mariners = reduction in marine casualties, and serious marine casualties. No conspiracy, just an effort to reduce loss of life, damage to the environment, and loss of vessels.
im a 3 A/E unlimited, my buddy and I got hired about a month after graduating from SUNY. we are on a small US flagged cruise ship. (diesel) just over 2,000 tons.
According to the recruiter, new USCG regulations forced them to hire Licensed engineers. Now there are rumors that they only need us for when we are out of the US and that we will be let go for the company’s US cruises.
Its a really odd situation, one of our chiefs is a QMED oiler and all of the other “asst. Engineers” are unlicensed. So my boss is unlicensed but theoretically any mishaps at his hands would be MY responsibility.
I haven’t been able to find these “USCG Regulations” that deem it necessary to have licensed engineers aboard.
Is this of any relation to the topic at hand?
[QUOTE=Knucklebuster;132526]im a 3 A/E unlimited, my buddy and I got hired about a month after graduating from SUNY. we are on a small US flagged cruise ship. (diesel) just over 2,000 tons.
According to the recruiter, new USCG regulations forced them to hire Licensed engineers. Now there are rumors that they only need us for when we are out of the US and that we will be let go for the company’s US cruises.
Its a really odd situation, one of our chiefs is a QMED oiler and all of the other “asst. Engineers” are unlicensed. So my boss is unlicensed but theoretically any mishaps at his hands would be MY responsibility.
I haven’t been able to find these “USCG Regulations” that deem it necessary to have licensed engineers aboard.
Is this of any relation to the topic at hand?[/QUOTE]
Did you look in 46 CFR 11 subpart E?
The reason why is a no-brainer. As stated by others, its driven by lack of knowledge resulting in a lack of maintenance causing casualties, the largest of which identify the vessels by name in the CGs publications on the matter.
This is upsetting news for those who haven’t bothered to get licensed. Its fantastic news for those of us sitting on a license.
If you have 2 years of sea time, you can test for a DDE. With 3 years of sea time you can have AE limited, DDE unlimited, and OSV 3000 ton All HP. Those licenses cover the requirements for tugs and some fishing vessels, its only 4 years TOTAL SEA TIME to a CE limited, and with a 12 hour day you can accumulate the year of sea time in 240 days on the boat. Why not go through the motions and get licensed, instead of standing on the sidelines getting left behind and complaining about it?
I believe the tugs are required to be compliant by October of next year? Don’t quote me on that date, but if that is in fact the deadline and youre sailing now, get your time and get a license.
[QUOTE=jimrr;132481]Some of us are wondering why ‘they’ want to require licensed (Eng) Officers on tugs and fish boats now when there is such a shortage in the oil industry. Usually you find a answer on the money trail so check this out.
It will be likely transport, research, salvage and fishing will not be able to pay enough to attract help, the Govt. will declare a disaster (inability to ship goods to hawaii/Alaska or a seafood shortage in american diet and they will have to relax the jones act rules and some others.
Next thing you know is a huge influx of engineers who will work for $100 a day and think it’s gold and that my comrades will be the end of the american maritime officer. … Well, you can still sail for MSC,NOAA, CORP ENG …now does anyone have a real idea who is prompting this requirement for fishers and tugs to have licensed Eng. Officers?[/QUOTE]
A little more on the subject, the maritime industry as a whole will not only suffer from unlicensed officers failing to earn a license in time, but also do to lack of new interest in the industry and retirement of the licensed officers already here, as stated in this article. http://www.workboat.com/newsdetail.aspx?id=23587&utm_source=NewsLinks&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=InformzNews
I started to correct the earlier post about C/E-Limited within 4 years, but then saw it in writing in the CFR. The CFR says:
For DDE Unlimited:
(1) For designated duty engineer of steam and/or motor vessels of any horsepower, the applicant must have three years of service in the engineroom. Eighteen months of this service must have been as a qualified member of the engine department or equivalent supervisory position.
For C/E (Limited-Oceans):
The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for endorsement as chief engineer (limited oceans) of steam and/or motor vessels is five years total service in the engineroom of vessels. Two years of this service must have been as an engineer officer. Thirty months of the service must have been as a qualified member of the engine department (QMED) or equivalent supervisory position.
But the USCG says (from the checklist):
For DDE Unlimited:
DDE – AHP
(may also qualify for A/E Limited Oceans)
1080 days of service in the engine room,
with
540 days as a QMED or equivalent supervisory position.
For C/E (Limited-Oceans):
[FONT=serif]Chief
Engineer (Limited-Oceans)
1800 days of service in the engine room,
of which
720 days as an engineer officer,
AND
900 days as a QMED or equivalent supervisory position.
[/FONT]
Why the huge discrepency in time between the CFR and the USCG?
That is a very interesting discrepancy. I suppose there COULD be a little more time involved, so we are both somewhat correct. To clarify and support what I had mentioned, a CE limited near coastal can be had in the 4 years, the AE limited oceans and DDE any HP in 3.
CE near coastal/ CE oceans will be going away now, per the STCW issued on Dec. 24th. Now you will be CE limited, or CE unlimited. no geographical boundry.
Its a really odd situation, one of our chiefs is a QMED oiler and all of the other “asst. Engineers” are unlicensed. So my boss is unlicensed but theoretically any mishaps at his hands would be MY responsibility.
^^thats pretty screwed up right there. Leave that company!!!
I think the biggest driver of all the mandatory licensing is from lawyers and insurance company’s, Most company’s now have to have licensed cap, eng, or crew. to get most contracted work from bigger oil company’s. License dont make the engineer BUT, same with wheel house , It shows you have experience on paper (sometimes) lol and lawyers have someone to blame. Its not a big deal to get USCG license. When I got in to the business, I started right off as a CE with an OS ticket, As soon as I had the sea time i went right for my DDE 1000. But I had exp before i stepped on to the tugs.And Ive upgrade every time I can. Do I need it to do my job? ,No, But I need it to keep my job and get a better one if I wanted.
There is no shortage of qualified mariners.
There are 100 guys in ECO’s office every Monday morning begging for jobs. ECO can afford to let Dr. Duet screen half of them out with ridiculous company physical requirements that have nothing to do with fitness to do the job. Yet, I don’t hear about ECO tying up any boats for lack of crew.
The only shortage is of qualified companies that provide competitive wages and working conditions.
[
("“CE near coastal/ CE oceans will be going away now, per the STCW issued on Dec. 24th. Now you will be CE limited, or CE unlimited. no geographical boundry.”")
To Snacktray ,Where can I get more info on the change the USCG going to do. Im going to be putting in for my CE limited oceans with STCW cert. Just like to see whats going to happen before i do.