Frustration is building (again)


#21

[QUOTE=seadawg;17241]Mr. Cavo,

thanks for these clarifications…all this is very difficult to comprehend when the USCG keeps changing the “rules of engagement”…appeciate what the time you expend on here!!

:smiley: “protest”…“reconsideration”…“appeal”…TOOmatoes…TAAmatoes :D[/QUOTE]

Mr.Cavo is also a lawyer.


#22

:smiley: my personal lawyer knows more words than Webster…my will has a word in it I never could find a definition for. :cool:


#23

Anchorman,
Something did happen recently. The GS employee who was running the second floor over the evaluators came back from vacation and found out he was moved to the call center and some other duties. Now they have an active duty Warrant officer running things in his place. His Name is Luther Greer and his e-mail is luther.m.greer@uscg.mil


#24

[QUOTE=former contract evaluator;17246]Anchorman,
Something did happen recently. The GS employee who was running the second floor over the evaluators came back from vacation and found out he was moved to the call center and some other duties. Now they have an active duty Warrant officer running things in his place. His Name is Luther Greer and his e-mail is luther.m.greer@uscg.mil[/QUOTE]

It’s amazing how something can be guessed by the law of averages. One negative about centralization is how one person can cause all of this. Just another guess on my part.


#25

Luther Greer - what an asshole. His response to me back in fall 2007 was “you don’t have those $20,000 worth of classes to have a 1600 t Mate, we are taking that away and giving you a 1600t Mate INLAND”. My response was, “guess I did not buy my license”. What a response, he did not say the required STCW classes, instead, he put a price on it.


#26

[QUOTE=Capt Brian;17252]Luther Greer - what an asshole. His response to me back in fall 2007 was “you don’t have those $20,000 worth of classes to have a 1600 t Mate, we are taking that away and giving you a 1600t Mate INLAND”. My response was, “guess I did not buy my license”. What a response, he did not say the required STCW classes, instead, he put a price on it.[/QUOTE]
:eek:
You care to tell us what you really think? :slight_smile:


#27

No, I am really going to hold back.


#28

I hear ya Capt Brian,
Yea well I’m not on his fan club either and vise-a-versa, but I don’t care what they think of me. I’m out of that nut house and basking in the “no stress zone” down here in SW Florida. Never the less, he is the man of the hour for now. We’ll see how long he lasts.


#29

That term may change also. My successor hates the term “protest”, and prefers “challenge.” I see his point, challenge better describes the process, a protest is “your question sucks.” A challenge is “your question sucks and here’s why…”


#30

[QUOTE=jdcavo;17273]That term may change also. My successor hates the term “protest”, and prefers “challenge.” I see his point, challenge better describes the process, a protest is “your question sucks.” A challenge is “your question sucks and here’s why…”[/QUOTE]

That makes sense. I know why I would have said it sucks - I got it wrong.:slight_smile:


#31

Well, I guess Mr. Greer is the mysterious 'warrant officer" my evaluator referred to last Friday . . . it just is too bad I didn’t get my app in sooner. So, now I have to start digging around to find out the exact issue of why some applications are “more equal” than others. Consistency, consistency, consistency . . .

I would feel better if I knew my app was being reviewed by someone who actually worked on a license and understands the frustration of being jerked around by some faceless flunky behind a desk!


#32

[quote=kzoo pilot;17286]Well, I guess Mr. Greer is the mysterious 'warrant officer" my evaluator referred to last Friday . . . it just is too bad I didn’t get my app in sooner. So, now I have to start digging around to find out the exact issue of why some applications are “more equal” than others. Consistency, consistency, consistency . . .

I would feel better if I knew my app was being reviewed by someone who actually worked on a license and understands the frustration of being jerked around by some faceless flunky behind a desk![/quote]

It’s not just understanding your frustration, but also their own policy, but more importantly, the reasoning behind it.
Mr.Greer is obviously making you comply with all training and assessments required for OICNW as if you’re an original applicant.
I’m sure they quoted policy letter 01-02.
Policy 01-02 actually gives reduced requirements to get OICNW if you have a current STCW that’s only endorsed as RFPNW. That is you, but this policy doesn’t lay out every conceivable situation. So, understanding the reasoning behind policy is just as important as the policy itself. I agree, that if someone sailed before, there would be better understanding.

A particular example in the policy would be section (11c)

"Effective 1 February 2002, an applicant who holds either a 500 GRT or 1,600 GRT license and STCW certification that were issued based on service before 1 August 1998 and now applies for a 3rd mate’s license must:
(1) Acquire the supplemental sea service required by 46 CFR 10.402 and 10.407;
(2) Complete the assessments of skills
(3) Pass the written examination.

Notice the fact that is says nothing about all of the courses? There is a reason for that, but first, how does this apply? You would have to have a current STCW that DOES NOT have OICNW would be the obvious ONLY reason. Chances are, most are like you, with RFPNW. duh?

This is very important because the policy recognizes that an experience licensed mariner (500,1600,or 3rd), with a current STCW (which required a certain amount of classes itself) coupled with the required assessments has fulfilled all required OICNW classes in the entire policy by virtue of practical experience gained with their license.
Mr.Greer missed this buss for some reason. Every applicant, and I just found out that someone else is having the same problem, is being required to attend all courses in the policy letter, even if upgrading.

Mr.Greer is simply WRONG and his actions are contrary to this policy and the recent history of applicants. Myself included.

I really hope they straighten this out, and fast. Mr.Stalfort hasn’t seen nothing yet if this career path is closed by Mr.Greer. I’ll be on that bandwagon and I don’t even have a dog in this fight.


#33

Ok, here is the latest . . . I was told by the call center (and in an email) that Meghan Johns was handling my file but when I emailed Meghan she replied that a Ms Dillon was my new evaluator and also that CWO Greer had determined I needed to fulfill the “OICNW requirements”. Since I thought I did that I called the NMC a few minutes ago. Oh my aching head!

Ms Dillon does not have a record of the previous information I was given regarding my requirements so when I asked her if I was required to go out and get my assessments and training done like a cadet or as if I was upgrading from AB (with no previous license) her response was “You’ll have to do what you need to do to complete the requirements” I asked again if the USCG was saying a mariner with an unlimited tonnage license needed to sail as AB or cadet to complete the assessments to remove the 200 GT restriction, yes or no. She said I needed to do what I needed to do. Yes or NO?

She stated she would “send my questions up” for review. Huh? Just frickin’ tell me what I need to do lady! I need to go munch a bottle of Tums. I understood the confusion, sort of, on my RFPNW in the spring, but this shouldn’t be that hard. If even a percentage of mariners is getting jerked around like this, the NMC is in for some hard times (again).

The elongated version . . .

The NMC just called me and told me that Mr Greer has reviewed my file and made up his mind; I need the assessments, certs, and courses or no makey nicey nicey with the license. Sooooo, I need to find a Medical First Aid provider course, renew my flashing light, and ship somewhere to get my assessments done. Fifteen years, poof . . . counts for nothing. What a bunch of shit.

The kicker in all this is that when I mentioned that OICNW certs had been issued to sailors with identical backgrounds to mine, Meghan stated that they would review the required files to see if certificates were issued in error and then pull them! Huh? You meet the requirements they tell you to meet, they change their mind and then pull your ticket? Oh, boy.


#34

kzoo pilot - Luther will not hesitate to pull a license. He did it to me the 1st time I applied for 1600 Master/3rd Mate. They issued a 1600 t Mate Inland and I was approved to test for 1600 Master. This whole thing is really screwy. At one point in time the “Checklists” had Raise in Grade or Original. Now is seems like they only have 1 checklist. This whole thing is really frustrating. I have written a letter of appeal to the “top 3” at the NMC along with my congressman. Still awaiting a response back from the “top 3” at NMC. Hopefully, something will happen soon. We just need to keep sending Capt. Dave and company appeal after appeal on this issue until they get it right.

Brian


#35

[quote=kzoo pilot;17323]Ok, here is the latest . . . I was told by the call center (and in an email) that Meghan Johns was handling my file but when I emailed Meghan she replied that a Ms Dillon was my new evaluator and also that CWO Greer had determined I needed to fulfill the “OICNW requirements”. Since I thought I did that I called the NMC a few minutes ago. Oh my aching head!

Ms Dillon does not have a record of the previous information I was given regarding my requirements so when I asked her if I was required to go out and get my assessments and training done like a cadet or as if I was upgrading from AB (with no previous license) her response was “You’ll have to do what you need to do to complete the requirements” I asked again if the USCG was saying a mariner with an unlimited tonnage license needed to sail as AB or cadet to complete the assessments to remove the 200 GT restriction, yes or no. She said I needed to do what I needed to do. Yes or NO?

She stated she would “send my questions up” for review. Huh? Just frickin’ tell me what I need to do lady! I need to go munch a bottle of Tums. I understood the confusion, sort of, on my RFPNW in the spring, but this shouldn’t be that hard. If even a percentage of mariners is getting jerked around like this, the NMC is in for some hard times (again).

The elongated version . . .

The NMC just called me and told me that Mr Greer has reviewed my file and made up his mind; I need the assessments, certs, and courses or no makey nicey nicey with the license. Sooooo, I need to find a Medical First Aid provider course, renew my flashing light, and ship somewhere to get my assessments done. Fifteen years, poof . . . counts for nothing. What a bunch of shit.

The kicker in all this is that when I mentioned that OICNW certs had been issued to sailors with identical backgrounds to mine, Meghan stated that they would review the required files to see if certificates were issued in error and then pull them! Huh? You meet the requirements they tell you to meet, they change their mind and then pull your ticket? Oh, boy.[/quote]

Sounds like that needs to go up the chain some more. thad.w.allen@uscg.mil perhaps?


#36

Here is the letter that I just sent Captain Stalfort:

[FONT=Arial]Captain Stalfort,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I apologize for being rather persistent on this issue. But, in following the comments of other mariners on gCaptain.com I feel that I am not the only mariner that is “fighting” this issue with the NMC and that it requires some attention given the state of the economy today. Many mariners’ livelihood are at stake with this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I went back and read [B]Policy Letter 1-02[/B] and found the following paragraph:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B]Paragraph 11 d:[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B]An applicant who holds either a 500 GRT or 1,600 GRT license and STCW certification that were based on service that began on or after 1 August 1998 and wishes to apply for a third mate’s license must acquire sea service required by 46 CFR 10.402 and 10.407. [U]No further testing or assessments are required.[/U][/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B][/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I fall under this paragraph. So I feel that I qualify for 3rd Mate Unlimited NC without having to take the STCW OICNW classes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Also,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]According to 46 [B]CFR [/B][/FONT][FONT=Arial][B]11.401 [/B][/FONT][FONT=Arial][B]Ocean and near-coastal officer or STCW endorsements[/B][/FONT][FONT=Arial][B]:[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B][/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B Master or third mate near-coastal unlimited endorsements may be obtained by completing the prescribed examination in subpart I of this part and satisfying the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section while holding a license or MMC endorsement as unlimited master or mate, respectively, upon Great Lakes and inland waters. To have a near-coastal-unlimited endorsement obtained in this manner endorsed for ocean service, the mariner must obtain 12 months of service as a deck-watch officer or higher on ocean waters on vessels of 1,600 GRT or over, in addition to completing the examination topics.[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B In order to obtain a master or mate endorsement with a tonnage limit above 200 gross tons, or an endorsement for 200 gross tons or less with an ocean route, whether an original, raise in grade, or increase in the scope of the endorsement authority to a higher tonnage category, the applicant must successfully complete the following training and examination requirements:[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B Approved firefighting course;[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B Approved radar-observer course; and[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B Qualification as an able seaman unlimited or able seaman limited (able seaman special or able seaman offshore supply vessels satisfy the able seaman requirement for endorsements permitting service on vessels of 1,600 gross tons or less).[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]B Each applicant for a deck officer endorsement, which authorizes service on vessels above 1,600 gross tons on ocean or near-coastal waters, whether original or raise of grade, must pass a practical-signaling examination (flashing light). An applicant who fails in practical signaling, but passes every other part of the examination, may be issued an endorsement with a 1,600 gross ton limitation. The tonnage limitation can be removed upon successful completion of the signaling examination.[/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B][/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][B][/B][/FONT]
[B]I will post the reply from Captain Stalfort when I get it. I am giving him a little bit of time before I send one to the top dog.[/B]
[FONT=Arial][B][/B][/FONT]
[B]Brian[/B]


#37

I guess Luther has a few hundred licenses to pull just counting the 1,600 ton Masters that went to 3rd Mate since 2001 and did not take all of the operational level courses for OICNW. For this to now be required because he became in-charge is just stupid. The policy never changed. He just doesn’t know it.


#38

Anyone have any idea how long the appeal process takes before they get back to you?


#39

Do you know how long it takes to renew a license?lol

edited to add: An evaluator said it would take several months (last week)


#40

[I][quote=Jeffrox;17182]As I recall, consistency is the very reason they moved the whole ball-of-wax the W.VA in the 1st place!:eek:[/quote][/I]