Getting a toar signed off

Professional Mariner Forum
21

Dear Mr. c,captain,

Fortunately, no one is regulated by your book. The only book that matters is the CFR the Coast Guard is tasked with regulating. So yes, you could go to Diamond and get your TOAR signed-off in one day. The Designated Examiner has no liability even if you knock down a bridge the very next day. The DE is only attesting to your ability at the moment you perform the exercise of each TOAR item.

Just like walking out the door on graduation day at the academy. If some tug captain is crazy enough to give you the watch and you precede to hit everything near you except the bottom, the licensing agency (the USCG) and the academy do not have any liability in your incompetence. You and the dopey captain will swing for your lack of skills.

22

[QUOTE=“DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;104721”]

So, if I went from OUTV to MOT, then passed a 100 ton course and got 95% on the sail endorsement without studying, would that make me a MOT WAFI? What license would I get? NMC gives a different answer every time I ask… Do I check the "Raise in grade box? Why isn’t there a tonnage on my MOT? Where does the 200 come from? How can I push around a 1600+ ton barge and the nice lady at NMC says “The barge doesn’t count”… Well it sure as heck counts if you hit something… What’s the logic?

Thanks JD

Cheers[/QUOTE]

I expect you would get two licenses:

  1. master of motor, steam, and auxiliary sail vessels of not more than 100 tons

  2. master of towing vessels

A towing license has no tonnage limit attached so as long as it is inland you can operate a towing vessel of any tonnage.

23

[QUOTE=“jdcavo;104502”]
There are very few, if any, “200 ton master of towing” licenses. Most, if not all with tonnage limits are for 100 GRT and are based on the license they were operating towing vessels with before 2001.[/QUOTE]

To pick a nit, he probably meant a 200 ton master and a master of towing.

24

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211]…Could you expand a little on the term “Implicit”?[/QUOTE]

I was going to post a link to a dictionary site, but apparently it is an “obsolete” and “outdated” form of the verb “implicate.”

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211]I understand a DE is not responsible for a mistake someone makes later on. However, if a DE pencil whips, or as we used to say “gun deck” a TOAR, and that applicant is later to be found incompetent, is the DE in any way responsible?[/QUOTE]

You’re asking for a legal opinion. I can’t give that. First, I don’t know, and also as an (ex) lawyer, legal etghic rules prohibit me from giving legal opinions to anyone who is not my client.

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211]…does the Investigation office of the local Sector ever look at the competence of the mariner? Does the IO office ever review the TOAR of a mariner, to see if it was done properly? Does MMC ever spot check TOARs? By example comparing the TOAR to the vessel’s log.[/QUOTE]

I’m not involved in investigations, but it seems a reasonable part of an investigation of possible;e negligence to look at how the mariner involved became qualified. However, in 10 years of being the prime contact for Designated Examiners, no one ever asked me anything like this. NMC will check on occasion, possibly by looking at whatever sea service records they might have for the DE andf the mariner to see if they were ever on the same boat at the same time. They don’t have access to vessel logs.

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211]…But what seems to be happening with TOARs for years now, is tendency to say “We did not (insert operation such as hipping up to a barge)” so, just sign off, the applicant has done his 30 days. Or leave that section blank, because “We do not do those operations here”[/QUOTE]

NMC won’t accept a TOAR that has task left blank, and there is only one task that can be noted as N/A, I forget which one, but it has “if applicable” in the name of the task.

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211]For me, I cannot see how observing someone doing a maneuvering operation one time means someone is competent. [/QUOTE]

That was the gist of my original message, and why I always describe the experience to qualify to serve as a mate or master as “a minimum of…” I also emphasize the second part of the requirement, “…under observation and training.” Also, it’s a notable diofference of the TOAR from STCW assessments. The reason there are so many STCW assessments and comparatively few tasks in the TOAR are because in STCW, the assessor is only witnessing a one-time demonstration of a specific task. That’s why the assessments are so detailed. On the TOAR, there are fewer tasks and they are morre general. The DE is offering an opinion formed over a period of observation and training. For STCW, the Coast Guard reviews the many assessments witnessed by the assessors, and the Coast Guard makes the determination of competence based on the mariner having done a vaiety of tasks that The Coast Guard decided a competent mariner can perform. With the TOAR, we rely on the opinion of the DE. For example, on STCW we determine a mariner has demonstrated the ability to use the assorted equipment in the wheelhouse because they demonstrate as many as 30 to 40 separate demonstrations on specific gear. In the TOAR, we rely on the DE signing off on the single competency “operate all equiment in the wheelhouse.”

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106211] You only have to look at the collusion on the Mississippi River with the Apprentice mate to see that. [/QUOTE]

The apprentice mate on the Mel Oliver had an application for mate pending at NMC. It was denied because the DE who signed his western rivers TOAR was not approved to be a DE for the western rivers. So NMC does check.

25

[QUOTE=Lookout;106228]Dear Mr. c,captain,

Fortunately, no one is regulated by your book. The only book that matters is the CFR the Coast Guard is tasked with regulating. So yes, you could go to Diamond and get your TOAR signed-off in one day. The Designated Examiner has no liability even if you knock down a bridge the very next day. The DE is only attesting to your ability at the moment you perform the exercise of each TOAR item.

Just like walking out the door on graduation day at the academy. If some tug captain is crazy enough to give you the watch and you precede to hit everything near you except the bottom, the licensing agency (the USCG) and the academy do not have any liability in your incompetence. You and the dopey captain will swing for your lack of skills.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, defending C Captain, no way, not even a little, sayit is not so……. However, sorry Lookout; I cannot agree with you. At least not in what happens in real life.

What is a more likely scenario is the office sends out a newmate, The Captain has just madeport, pushed up on the bank, whatever, he has been up for hours. The Captain asks the mate, can you handleit? The new mate has wife and two kidsat home, he is tired of making deck hand pay, he would like to do somethingnice for his family. He knows getting achance for the bridge is not that easy. SO……he says, sure Cap, I got it. Then things start going wrong, badly.

Please remember, on a two watch boat, the Captain is alreadypulling his 12 hours plus (darn that paperwork). One cannot expect the Captain to stand watch24 hours, just because the new mate has only done (insert whatever part of TOARyou want) just the one time.

So……you say the Captain should complain to the office,refuse to have the vessel operate, or something. But come on, how often is the Captain goingto tell the office the boat will not run because the office screwed up bysending a mate who has his TOAR signed off, but really does not know the job. No; whathappens is everybody tries to make the best of a bad situation, and keeps theirfingers crossed that something does not go wrong. Remember, the vast majority of us, want a newguy to get a decent chance to better his life.

In a ideal life, all prospective mates of tow, would havethe support I got from my company. Butthe sad truth is that is very rare. Whenthe whole concept of a TOAR come out, the marine companies said “Sure wesupport that, this idea is a great one” But that is not what has happened in reality. To properly sign off a TOAR, the applicantshould be in the wheel house, DOING ONLY Wheelhouse operations. Not working as a AB, trying to get thetraining. But it is a rare company thatwill carry a Mariner for 30 days plus with pay, while he is training. And when you get to the smaller coastal orinland tugs, it is almost unheard of. But in the smaller (less then 200T) tugs is where this experience ismost needed. You hip up a materialbarge to a stiff leg derrick barge in a thunderstorm at night, push a 6 pack ofloads down a river, handle a dredge scow, there is not a lot of room for error, [B]yet that is where the jobs areat. [/B]

My point in the earlier post, is the TOAR has a purpose, andshould be the minimum standards a new watch officer is capable of, tasks heshould be able to do as a routine, not just in perfect conditions.

Like any rule/regulation/law, if it is not enforced, it has nomeaning. All DE’s should insure the applicant can completea section of a TOAR fully, not just once. The Coast Guard should spot check some TOARs, insuring DEs are doing their job. TOARS should be complete in full, not just “Well we do not do that operationhere” It would be nice if the CoastGuard would put more effort into insuring the TOARs are being completedcorrectly, and not just the paper trailside. But the reality is that DE’s arethe main insurance we have of competent master/mates of tow. DE’s need to hold the line on these TOARS.

Oh, Oh, two rants in a row, think I will unplug the internet now.

Ocean31

26

[QUOTE=Lookout;106228]… The Designated Examiner has no liability even if you knock down a bridge the very next day. [/QUOTE]

Apparently the ethics rules on lawyers giving advice have changed in the 16 years since I stopped practicing…

27

Sorry Mr cavo:

Misunderstanding there

(The apprentice mate on the Mel Oliver had an application for mate pending at NMC. It was denied because the DE who signed his western rivers TOAR was not approved to be a DE for the western rivers. So NMC does check. )

My point there is Marine companies do not always insure the mariner is competent as was mentioned in a earlier post. Instead all to often, it is a matter of whaterver it takes to keep the boat running.

Ocean31

28

Sorry, Mr Cavo, I was not being smart, I just did not get that one. I did look up the
definition for implicit. It means understood, but not directly addressed. It really is not an unusual word. Normally used such as……implicit rules, other words rules that are not directly stated or written down, but understood to be the rule. And another way is……”Well, …… it is not written down but the (implicit) rule is you cannot do that”

So if I rewrote the sentence I did not understand, “The DE that signs a TOAR for
an applicant who is not competent would also be implicit in any license issuance.
You would be saying “The DE that signs off on an applicant who is not competent is also understood
not to be competent himself (the DE that is)

I think I got it.

Ocean31

29

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106238]Sorry Mr cavo:

Misunderstanding there

(The apprentice mate on the Mel Oliver had an application for mate pending at NMC. It was denied because the DE who signed his western rivers TOAR was not approved to be a DE for the western rivers. So NMC does check. )

My point there is Marine companies do not always insure the mariner is competent as was mentioned in a earlier post. Instead all to often, it is a matter of whaterver it takes to keep the boat running.

Ocean31[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t disagreeing. Just sharing some information that was not widely reported at the time. In fact, I think it illustrates what you’re saying.

30

[QUOTE=Ocean31;106249]Sorry, Mr Cavo, I was not being smart, I just did not get that one. I did look up the
definition for implicit. It means understood, but not directly addressed. It really is not an unusual word. Normally used such as……implicit rules, other words rules that are not directly stated or written down, but understood to be the rule. And another way is……”Well, …… it is not written down but the (implicit) rule is you cannot do that”

So if I rewrote the sentence I did not understand, “The DE that signs a TOAR for
an applicant who is not competent would also be implicit in any license issuance.
You would be saying “The DE that signs off on an applicant who is not competent is also understood
not to be competent himself (the DE that is)

I think I got it.

Ocean31[/QUOTE]

Darn, reread everything, and I still did not get it right, Implicate, not implicit, Implicate: Involved in a crime. Other words, The DE that signs a TOAR for an applicant who is not competent would be commiting a crime.
Think I will keep both, a DE that signs off on a applicant that is not competent is both criminal and understood to not to be competent himself

Really, I am unpluging now, really,… well…maybe shortly

Ocean31

31

Removed unnecessary post.

32

People are maybe out of touch with what really happens on towing vessels…or I’m out of touch with the rest of the industry, beyond the NE where we take it serious at reputable companies? You can give me a guy with 3,000,001 days of time as Master of towing and all the towing experience in the world, but no “fricking” way am I going to bed, the galley, hell the chart table without him demonstrating his competency first.

33

DE is given according to route only. Tonnage doesn’t matter.

34

Thanks for that Capt. Pheonix, I’ll let you know. The “Supervisor” at NMC wasn’t sure either. Maybe Mr. Cavo’s right, so few grandfathered MOT’s they’re not sure what to do with us/me…
The 200 Ton thing must be “Implicit”. Zdrive, I’m not sure exactly what I’d do if an 8,000 year old mate showed up in the wheelhouse. Still trying to figure out Why the Barge Doesn’t Count.

§ 11.426 Service requirements for master of near coastal steam or motor vessels of not more than 200 gross tons.

(a) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as master of near coastal steam or motor vessels of not more than 200 gross tons is:

(1) Two years total service on ocean or near coastal waters. Service on Great Lakes and inland waters may substitute for up to one year of the required service. One year of the required service must have been as a master, mate, or equivalent supervisory position while holding a license or endorsement as master, as mate, or as operator of uninspected passenger vessels; or,

(2) One year of total service as master or mate of towing vessels on oceans or near-coastal routes. Completion of a limited examination is also required.

(b) In order to obtain an this officer endorsement for sail or auxiliary sail vessels, the applicant must submit evidence of 12 months of service on sail or auxiliary sail vessels. The required 12 months of service may have been obtained prior to issuance of the master’s license or MMC endorsement.

[CGD 81–059, 54 FR 139, Jan. 4, 1989, as amended by USCG–1999–6224, 64 FR 63228, Nov. 19, 1999; USCG–2006–24371, 74 FR 11242, Mar. 16, 2009]

35

[QUOTE=“DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;106403”]Thanks for that Capt. Pheonix, I’ll let you know. The “Supervisor” at NMC wasn’t sure either. Maybe Mr. Cavo’s right, so few grandfathered MOT’s they’re not sure what to do with us/me…
The 200 Ton thing must be “Implicit”. Still trying to figure out Why the Barge Doesn’t Count.[/QUOTE]

What 200 ton thing?

And about the question regarding “raise in grade” or not, that requires us to know what you have already in order to answer it.

I expect the barge doesn’t count because tow boat operators use many different barges and it would be too much of a hassle to keep track of who had what license. Plus, a towing license has no tonnage limit attached so it doesn’t really matter anyway.

36

It counts for pilotage. But only ATB time counts for that regular license, and only 2-1 for half the sea time…just a broken system, I agree. Ill move an unlimited tonnage barge as master, pilot, helmsman, operate the throttle, radio, handle the log, and sip a coffee and still can’t use the time for an unlimited license. Oh well, it’s for our safety right? Doesn’t Moran have a few 8,000 year old mates in NY?

37

Master of tow, N/C.
Mot has an “implicit” 200 ton limit on the boat, not printed in the little red book.

Cheers

38

Ahhh, multitasking at its finest. Don’t forget the radar and AIS, and do it with while pissing in a water jug 'cause there’s no one to take over ( that you trust), or it’s four decks down to the head, or both… (One morning the coasties decided to use the ais all vessels message to repeatedly issue an amber alert.) Beep, Beep, Beep… Been a few days where I felt about 8,340 years old. Being a West coaster couldn’t say 'bout Moran. Broken system, or at least Bent… How can someone be responsible for the safe navigation of 1,600 tons of barge and not get sea time for it? In the grammatical lexicon of c.captain,

WHY DOESN’T THE BARGE COUNT, UNLESS YOU HIT SOMETHING???

Cheers

39

[QUOTE=“DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;106411”]
Mot has an “implicit” 200 ton limit on the boat, not printed in the little red book.[/QUOTE]

That is only the case if you go outside the demarcation line. There is no tonnage restriction if you stay inland.

40

Thanks again.

Enclosure (1) to NVIC 4-01, paragraph #4.

Cheers