Unless the only deck officer is the master, every vessel has a chief mate. See the definition of chief mate in 46 CFR 10.107:
Chief mate means the deck officer next in seniority to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of incapacity of the master.[/QUOTE]
Does this mean someone with an unlimited CM license on an OSV over 1600/6000 can actually have a sea time letter written saying he/she is a CM on the vessel allowing that person to upgraded to unlimited master?
no because you’re 6 months of service as chief mate must be while holding an AGT chief mate’s license on a vessel that requires that license. Large OSV’s don’t require that license nor do ATB’s and their manning certificates don’t specify the position of chief mate…in fact no vessel under 1600/300grt have a position of chief mate on their manning principally because there is no limited tonnage “chief mate’s” license. That’s the rub…sorry
Would be fun if it was like that…One could them just jump on to a drowboat with a 9.9 hp yamaha and after 10 years living there you could get the chief ticket
[QUOTE=“c.captain;108391”]no because you’re 6 months of service as chief mate must be while holding an AGT chief mate’s license on a vessel that requires that license. Large OSV’s don’t require that license nor do ATB’s and their manning certificates don’t specify the position of chief mate…in fact no vessel under 1600/300grt have a position of chief mate on their manning principally because there is no limited tonnage “chief mate’s” license. That’s the rub…sorry[/QUOTE]
What about what JdCavo said about the definition of chiefmate?
[QUOTE=CurryAK;108396]What about what JdCavo said about the definition of chiefmate?[/QUOTE]
again, this is an old issue that has been discussed a lot here, but suffice to say that the way the system is set up you need to serve for 6 months as a chief mate on a "unlimited’ vessel to upgrade to master AGT. Service must be on a subchapter D, H, I, R or U vessel which is greater that 1600grt (non SOLAS)/3000grt ITC (SOLAS). A large OSV (subchapter L) or a combined unit (ATB) does not count even if you hold a chief mate AGT license and are in effect sailing as the chief mate on the vessel. There are two sides to this sword. The limited tonnage guys get a quicker trip up to the ladder in it but they can’t use that faster climb to upgrade forever. If you want to climb that ladder all the way to the top you must jump to the UL track at some point. I believe you can go all the way to UL chief mate all the way on limited vessels but at that point you have to switch to that other track to finish. This is one reason losing all those jobs on the foreign subsea vessels in the GoM sucks because they are AGT vessels with official chief mates aboard. If Americans could get those jobs, there would be a great way to finish the climb. Otherwise, drillships or merchant ships are the only way to go if you can make the switch.
[QUOTE=“ryanwood86;108262”]Ahh the good ol’ Tony Chachere’s class! Got to love it! But you know what, those boats should ride awesome. I wouldn’t mind getting on one myself.
I think you may have heard the HOS Beignet coming into Fourchon, I was told the Boudin was having some issues in the yard and it’s a couple of weeks behind schedule.[/QUOTE]
Nope, the Boudin had Bern around Fourchon for at least a few days now.
Unless the only deck officer is the master, every vessel has a chief mate. See the definition of chief mate in 46 CFR 10.107:
Chief mate means the deck officer next in seniority to the master and upon whom the command of the vessel will fall in the event of incapacity of the master.[/QUOTE]
Maybe someone should try to appeal based on this definition?
It would probably have to go through a long and lengthy appeals process but if I was in that position I would go for it. A “2nd Captain” (everybody’s favorite term) is basically a C/M if you look at their duties and responsibilities. As C. Captain pointed out though there is no such thing as a C/M on any vessel under 1600/3000 in the eyes of the USCG so you would definitely be talking a OSV over that.
Yea I understand the under 1600/3000, I was talking about the large OSVs that should have unlimited officers on them. I understand the reason the 6000 program was started, but I don’t understand why the USCG holds back unlimited officers who are on an unlimited vessel.
[QUOTE=ryanwood86;108429]Yea I understand the under 1600/3000, I was talking about the large OSVs that should have unlimited officers on them. I understand the reason the 6000 program was started, but I don’t understand why the USCG holds back unlimited officers who are on an unlimited vessel.[/QUOTE]
The point I was trying to make, is that some of the vessels have a dual class COI. they are classed as an 6000ITC OSV and general cargo ship. The “Surf Challenger” is just one of such. As long as they can say they are operating as an OSV, they do not need any unlimited people onboard. However even when they do under the General cargo ship COI, the COI still does not specificlally list a 1st mate or chief mate. It just says 2 or 3 licnesed mates. Where a full ship structure will specificall list a Master, chief mate, second mate, thrid mate. The company’s can not legally write you a sea time letter for a position that does not exist on the COI. There for if you canot get chief mate time, you technicly can’t upgrade past that point. Atleast that is the way I understand it.
I understand that HOS has some vessels that they are manning with a full ship structure, I would be real interested to know what the COI on those actually calls for.
I tried to edit my last statement about the COI positions but for some reason it didn’t show up.
I do somewhat understand the argument about not being able to write a sea time letter for a position that’s not required, and I guess the only way to lose the gray area is to lose the 6000 (haha) but we all know that won’t happen…
So let me ask you this, if a vessel doesn’t require any ABs, just OSs, but the company puts guys on who have an AB ticket, can the company still write a letter saying they served as an AB?
[QUOTE=ryanwood86;108429]Yea I understand the under 1600/3000, I was talking about the large OSVs that should have unlimited officers on them. I understand the reason the 6000 program was started, but I don’t understand why the USCG holds back unlimited officers who are on an unlimited vessel.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry that you are caught in the system, but as it stands a large OSV is not an unlimited tonnage vessel even though it might be over 3000grt. Unless the COI for the vessel calls for one chief mate (AGT) then the sea time serving as a “defacto” chief mate is not creditable towards master AGT. Again, you are not alone in this conundrum and you won’t be the last!
Now, the question I have is what will the new super large OSV manning rules look like? Will it be a rubber stamp of the current large OSV manning scales or will they in fact require a true chief mate which would require a new license be created but then it likely will be trade restricted like the present large OSV licenses are so no crossing right over to UL chief mate then master AGT for those people. Maybe the USCG will be nice and allow person who starts with a chief mate AGT use that service to upgrade to master AGT for super large OSV ch. mate time but a person with a super large OSV restricted ch. mate only can become a super large OSV master and not an “unlimited” one? Of course, this requires the USCG to give a shit about any of this rather than just making OMSA happy!
So let me ask you this, if a vessel doesn’t require any ABs, just OSs, but the company puts guys on who have an AB ticket, can the company still write a letter saying they served as an AB?[/QUOTE]
That part I don’t have any idea, and you might be trying to make this to complicated.
The reason I know about this is because I used to work on the Surf Challenger, and I heard many horror story’s from the mates trying to upgrade, so I know for a fact some people tried and got denied.
I had the same problem when I was trying to upgrade to my unlimited chief’s license a little over 10 years ago. I sailed on ATB’s for years, but the coast guard would not let me go past the 2a/e license becasue i did not have time on something with enough tonnage. I finally had to quit and go to work for a foreign company to get the time I needed to upgrade. Ironically the ship I went on was only a little bigger than the Surf Challenger, but since it ws foreign, the COI called for a Chief, 1a/e, 2a/e, 3a/e and 1 more licnesed engineer, plus 2 qmeds. I know what the COI on the surf challenger calls for it is one unlimited chief, 2 licensed assistants, and 2 qmeds. The COI does not list a 1a/e or chief mate either one.
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;108436]I understand that HOS has some vessels that they are manning with a full ship structure, I would be real interested to know what the COI on those actually calls for.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean the HOS CENTERLINE and STRONGLINE? My understanding is that they have three classes of COI. Subchapter D (tank vessel), subchapter I (cargo & misc vessel) and subchapter L (large OSV). I would suspect that their manning determination is very much like that for the SURF CHALLENGER where a UL chief mate is never required regardless of which use the vessel is being put to but I may be mistaken. I seems to be that the most lenient manning is when a vessel gets its initial COI from MSO Morgan City.
Anybody know what the manning scale is on the AIVIQ is as well?
[QUOTE=c.captain;108445]I assume you mean the HOS CENTERLINE and STRONGLINE? My understanding is that they have three classes of COI. Subchapter D (tank vessel), subchapter I (cargo & misc vessel) and subchapter L (large OSV). I would suspect that their manning determination is very much like that for the SURF CHALLENGER where a UL chief mate is never required regardless of which use the vessel is being put to but I may be mistaken. I seems to be that the most lenient manning is when a vessel gets its initial COI from MSO Morgan City.
Anybody know what the manning scale is on the AIVIQ is as well?[/QUOTE]
Yes those are two of the ones I was talking about. Those used to be sulfer tankers, the Sulpher Enterprise and the Suplher Express if I remember correctly. What about the "Iron Horse and “Achiver” I understand they run full ship structure as well. However they are actually foregin flag, where the centerline and strongline are US flag, Any HOS guys know the skinny on them? I will assume the new construction vessels HOS is building will follow the same path as far as manning is concerened. Anyone know if they will be registered here or Vanatua?
Yes those are two of the ones I was talking about. Those used to be sulfer tankers, the Sulpher Enterprise and the Suplher Express if I remember correctly. What about the "Iron Horse and “Achiver” I understand they run full ship structure as well. However they are actually foregin flag, where the centerline and strongline are US flag, Any HOS guys know the skinny on them? I will assume the new construction vessels HOS is building will follow the same path as far as manning is concerened. Anyone know if they will be registered here or Vanatua?[/QUOTE]
All I know about the new builds is that they will be Jones Act approved vessels. As far as manning structures on the MPSVs… no idea. If they can get away with manning requirements like the Surf Challenger has, one would assume they would go that route.
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;108446]Yes those are two of the ones I was talking about. Those used to be sulfer tankers, the Sulpher Enterprise and the Suplher Express if I remember correctly. [/QUOTE]
no, no no…they were the BENNO C. SCHMIIDT and the W.K.McWILLIAMS,Jr…and here I thought you knew your Gulf vessels…harumph!
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;108446]]I will assume the new construction vessels HOS is building will follow the same path as far as manning is concerened. Anyone know if they will be registered here or Vanatua?[/QUOTE]
of course, newbuilds will all be US flagged…HOS and the other OMSA companies are all going full speed ahead to get new US bottoms to kick the ferreners out of the GoM and get that $$$! Going US is the leverage they’ll use and good for them I say!
yup, hard to imagine me saying good for OMSA but here I am!
