[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;175332]No you don’t. You only need 30 days total, not specifically after the TOAR is complete.[/QUOTE]
Yes. The USCG intention is that the applicant does his TOAR while he is doing his 30 days. But nothing specifically doing the prevents the TOAR before the 30 days. The 30 days plus to equals license is a joke. I don’t know why anyone does the appretice mate route, it’s easier and faster to get 500 tons plus TOAR.
the apprentice mate route is a waste and despite my advice have seen guys struggle for many more months if not years longer than they needed to.
The 30 days of “training and observation” needs to be on the specific route for the license you are seeking… Inland/GL, NC/ Oceans, etc. I think it’s 90 days for Western Rivers.
[QUOTE=Tugslasthitch;175315]What im asking is can you have your Toar completed prior to holding license , working on deck and training in the wheel house on off time completing the check list ??[/QUOTE]
You can do it before holding a license. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to complete the TOAR while acquiring the last of the sea service needed for the Mate 500 GRT license. However, if I were evaluating such an application, I would be skeptical of a TOAR that is completed substantially before having enough service to qualify as Mate and would have a few questions.
[QUOTE=rshrew;175323]Still have to do the 30 days [U]after[/U] his toar is signed off. [/QUOTE]
46 CFR 11.464(g)(1) and 11.465(d)(1) do not specify the the period of observation and training be after the TOAR is signed off. That it is a period of training and observation suggests the intent was that the TOAR would be done during this period.
[QUOTE=fishyluke;175357]The 30 days of “training and observation” needs to be on the specific route for the license you are seeking… Inland/GL, NC/ Oceans, etc. I think it’s 90 days for Western Rivers.[/QUOTE]
It is 90 days for western rivers.
[QUOTE=z-drive;175349]the apprentice mate route is a waste and despite my advice have seen guys struggle for many more months if not years longer than they needed to.[/QUOTE]
If you do not hold or also get Mate or Master 500 GRT, or have at least 3 years service as Master of a non-towing vessel, the only way to get Mate of Towing Vessels is to first get Apprentice Mate.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;175374]If you do not hold or also get Mate or Master 500 GRT, or have at least 3 years service as Master of a non-towing vessel, the only way to get Mate of Towing Vessels is to first get Apprentice Mate.[/QUOTE]
While that’s true, what z-drive, tugsailor, and I have said many times before is that it’s faster to simply get a 500 ton license than mess around with the apprentice mate.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;175395]While that’s true, what z-drive, tugsailor, and I have said many times before is that it’s faster to simply get a 500 ton license than mess around with the apprentice mate.[/QUOTE]
More than a few find the Mate 500 GRT exam intimidating, and they can’t take a course for it like they can with Apprentice Mate and licenses for less than 200 GRT. Also, depending on the route,if you follow the Apprentice Mate progression there is no requirement to take Advanced Firefighting, and possibly even Basic Firefighting.
Also, licenses for 500 GRT and above require qualifying as Able Seaman, and to do that you also have to qualify as Lifeboatman (or Lifeboatman-Limited).
I did Toar while Serving as able seaman knowing my intentions where going to the wheelshouse, then got my apprentice mate and are now about to submit it in febuary , so you are saying it could be questions because of be time frame…
How do you get time as AB counted as “apprentice mate?” There lies the issue with the apprentice mate route. I don’t know any company that employees apprentice mates. So you’re either lying to the CG, or the customer when you send in apprentice time.
This is of course if there are equivalents??
Ran as 5th man mate trainee, worked over the harbor tugs on my time off, any other brain busters, no one is lying to anyway sir 
[QUOTE=jdcavo;175401]More than a few find the Mate 500 GRT exam intimidating, and they can’t take a course for it like they can with Apprentice Mate and licenses for less than 200 GRT. Also, depending on the route,if you follow the Apprentice Mate progression there is no requirement to take Advanced Firefighting, and possibly even Basic Firefighting.
Also, licenses for 500 GRT and above require qualifying as Able Seaman, and to do that you also have to qualify as Lifeboatman (or Lifeboatman-Limited).[/QUOTE]
This brings up a good point: master and mate of towing exams are far far too easy. The tugboat exams need to be much more serious. Of course it’s also a bad idea to let schools where virtually everyone passes offer courses that substitute for the USCG.
Nonetheless, the 500 ton exam should not be a problem for anyone with average academic ability that is willing to put a few weeks of effort into preparation. It’s better to take three weeks of extra courses than to spend an extra year on the apprentice mate track.
for 360 days? I politely call bullshit. Especially based on your avatar. I find it hard to believe they would pay a 5th man trainee to ride as an extra with plenty of fully licensed guys available.
Just a side question for my curiosity. When did you last take the 500/1600 master or the 500/3rd mate tests?
well technical it’s 260 12 hour days , and I don’t work for mac… So maybe we should politely call bullshitt on every who come out of the academy with a 1600tn 3rdmate oceans bs like they actually spent that much time at sea
I call BS on submitting deckhand time as apprentice mate time. Someone’s lying on one end or the other. I know enough of the east coast tug racket to know that there’s a slim chance anyone’s being paid to ride as an “apprentice mate.” As always I could be wrong but in this case and in this economy I strongly doubt it. “Training mates” already have a mate of towing 500, 1600, 3rd mate or higher ticket getting a toar signed off or learning how to run a boat. I’m not new to this.
Academy folks have to play by the rules, no reason other people shouldn’t have to.
So you’re saying everyone Who isn’t already in the wheelhouse should just be stuck where they are at due to the economy… Some people work their ass off ,work over put in time after hours to get ahead and maybe not in your eyes put some company’s still have mate programs and bring people up the ladder instead of an idiot with 1600tn who can’t get the boat to the dock. But whatever you want to think is just fine with me
you’re missing the point. Re-read what I wrote
[QUOTE=z-drive;175420]How do you get time as AB counted as “apprentice mate?” There lies the issue with the apprentice mate route. I don’t know any company that employees apprentice mates. So you’re either lying to the CG, or the customer when you send in apprentice time.
This is of course if there are equivalents??[/QUOTE]
It’s easier to say what is not time as “apprentice mate.” If you don;t hold the endorsement of “Apprentice Mate” the time doesn’t count as being an “apprentice mate.” An AB who holds apprentice mate would probably be considered to have met the requirement.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;175477An AB who holds apprentice mate would probably be considered to have met the requirement.[/QUOTE]
That makes sense to me. It’s the only practical approach that industry can afford.
that’s good to know, but why isn’t it written somewhere and explained as such? I apologize in advance if it already is and I just haven’t seen it. Is it treated similar to those “equivalent supervisory position” situations?
[QUOTE=z-drive;175482]that’s good to know, but why isn’t it written somewhere and explained as such? I apologize in advance if it already is and I just haven’t seen it. Is it treated similar to those “equivalent supervisory position” situations?[/QUOTE]
It can only be treated as an equivalent position of the regulations specifically provide for that, or in some cases, if it is obtained on a military vessel. By the way, the recent rulemaking that included STCW 2010 chnaged all uses of “equivalent supervisory position” to “equivalent position” since the supervisory function is not always relevant, and if it is relevant, it’s already part of the determination of being “equivalent.” (i.e. a Chief Mate and a Bosun both supervise the work of the deck crew, but are those opositions “equivalent”?)