[QUOTE=KTP;127219]Without the CG YOU wouldn’t have a job and without merchant mariners the CG inspectors wouldn’t have a job either.[/QUOTE]
Simbiosis is a beautiful thing, even if the two parties don’t always like each other… 
I am a commercial pilot. Don’t be so sure we have it so much better. Right now the FAA is on a mission to stamp out sleep apnea and is requiring “fat” pilots to get sleep studies. They are starting with BMI at 40 and then working down to the thin pilots.
You all are thin…right…:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=yacht_sailor;127261]I am a commercial pilot. Don’t be so sure we have it so much better. Right now the FAA is on a mission to stamp out sleep apnea and is requiring “fat” pilots to get sleep studies. They are starting with BMI at 40 and then working down to the thin pilots.
You all are thin…right…:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Shhh…don’t give the CG any ideas. Next thing, they’ll go for a mandatory retirement age just like you guys have.
[QUOTE=catherder;127282]Shhh…don’t give the CG any ideas. Next thing, they’ll go for a mandatory retirement age just like you guys have.[/QUOTE]
You can’t tell me you haven’t sailed with some mariners who didn’t make you think it was a good idea.
stricter physicals were long overdue, but they are probably just a stepping stone for additional higher personnel standards.
[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;127284]You can’t tell me you haven’t sailed with some mariners who didn’t make you think it was a good idea.
stricter physicals were long overdue, but they are probably just a stepping stone for additional higher personnel standards.[/QUOTE]
And what age cutoff would you suggest? In commercial aviation the retirement age is now 65.
Read the USCG PSIX! Bashes the shit out of rust buckets! Well not as much as they deserve, but its posted for all to read!
Just to be accurate, the 65 age cutoff is for some commercial jobs, not all. Basically anything that falls under Part 121, i.e commercial passenger carrying airplanes with more than 19 passengers.
If they get all FAA-like the written tests will get a lot easier and you will have to take a ship out, at your own expense, and do some maneuvering and then dock it without knocking the pier over to get a license. There is no “I served on an airplane for 5 years so give me a rating” 
EDIT - you will have no end of “fun” if you get a DWI. You have to report it to FAA Aeromedical right away, no waiting for renewal. You might slide with ONE, but get another or any other indication of alky tendencies and you will be in for all kinds of testing and evaluation. I have no idea what the USCG does for violations, the worst they ever did to me was bitch about a missing engine room placard telling everyone not to pump oil overboard, but the FAA system is NOT pilot friendly. Pilots tend to lose and lose again and appeal their way up the chain and lose some more.
[QUOTE=catherder;127285]And what age cutoff would you suggest? In commercial aviation the retirement age is now 65.[/QUOTE]
Certain pilots have been under that rule for a long time.
I do think 65 is a fair age. It’s ridiculous to have to reorganize the personnel of an emergency gear locker team because someone’s duties as per the station bill are beyond his or her capabilities. And yet it happens a lot
Every person on ship, osv, tug, etc. Needs to be able to put on an SCBA and be lead hoseman if necessary.
- elaborate on the CG sucking at what they do. Ok fair enough, the CG is great at some things. SAR, Interdiction, Aid to Nav Maintenance. Other things however not so much. Such as license examination administration, license evaluations, pretty much anything directly relating to merchant mariners. I also have my CDL and my State DMV does much better in regards to administering State DOT regs then the USCG does towards Mariners. Other than that I love the CG. Group Moriches and Group Shinicock do a great job. 2) it’s pretty unprofessional of you to come on here and bash an organisation you work with daily. I’m just referring to their administration of merchant licensing and whatever else is germane to this discussion. So how would you figure it’s unprofessional of me to hold the opinion that they’re not very good at that
Edited- retraction.
Goodbye beards, then.
If your job requires you to have to wear SCBA, there should be a facial hair policy, as well as an annual fit test, dontchathink?
Age is just an arbitrary number, I disagree with forced retirement based on age.
Don’t know where this is coming from? My post was to comment on the original question and not get sidetracked into politics. This has been discussed at great length outside gcaptain.
[QUOTE=Flyer69;127330]Goodbye beards, then.
If your job requires you to have to wear SCBA, there should be a facial hair policy, as well as an annual fit test, dontchathink?[/QUOTE]
no problem with that whatsoever. Small price to pay for a nearly half the year off and not working in a cubicle, especially when you’re getting paid well.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=Flyer69;127333]Age is just an arbitrary number, I disagree with forced retirement based on age.[/QUOTE]
Then bring it up with the FAA and all the pilotage associations across the USA. 64 in tampa and 67.5 in charleston last time I was there. I do believe those ages are being set by the state or local board overseeing the pilots. It’s not being set by the pilots themselves or the USCG.
[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;127284]You can’t tell me you haven’t sailed with some mariners who didn’t make you think it was a good idea.
stricter physicals were long overdue, but they are probably just a stepping stone for additional higher personnel standards.[/QUOTE]
More comprehensive USCG physicals for mariners are long overdue. Since 99% of the world’s mariners are held to STCW medical standards, we should be as well, but NO MORE, or No Less. USCG physicals need to focus on medical issues that pose the potential of very sudden and unexpected incapacity during critical operations, and to a lesser extent on the likelihood of the onset of life threatening illness whilst at sea far beyond medical assistance.
Mariners do NOT need to be held to the same standard as airline pilots. Ships do not travel at 400 knots, Ships do not fall out of the sky (possibly onto population centers), Ships have much larger crews and a lot of ability to cover for a sick crewman.
The DOT instituted a two year medical card for truck drivers several years ago. The DOT physical is about the same as the new USCG physical.
STCW medical standards are not going to get much higher because most of the world, where they have free national healthcare, cannot afford it.
America is not a society of fit, athletic, young people. It is a society of increasingly fat, unfit, and older people. Those of us who are working are paying for it.
Well said, now if we could just you to infiltrate the USCG, the NMC, and MARAD we’d be all set
The new two year USCG medical is no big deal, provided you don’t have some condition that is indicative of a pending heart attack or stroke.
Experience and know how are much more important than age, strength, or agility. Some people are needed to plan and direct. Some just support. Some are wearing a SCBA and on the nozzle.
The oil patch is paying the long dollar to attract people who are younger and fitter. The crew on the average tug is getting older, grayer, and fatter. I hear its the same on any type of union vessel. They are also working longer hitches for lack of available reliefs.
I hear of many problems on boats run by inexperienced kids. I don’t hear of many problems on boats run by guys in their 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s.
We are no longer in the 1950’s when the average person retired at 65 and died at 67. In this era of the average person living until 80 and those with good genetics and a health lifestyle living well into their 90’s, we cannot afford to have people retiring at 65.
You need a good acronym name for your new agency… something like DUMB Don’t Understand Mariners But…
One of you should be able to come up with something… This begs for your brilliance.
Tug sailor,
I agree with you to some extent, but just look at your previous post about American society. We are definitely not the men and women of the 1950s. More drugs to keep functioning, much higher percentage of diabetics and obese.
Is this the disappointment in new things that every generation goes through or is society really a lot worse off than we ever have been before? Are we just ever faster spinning out of control?
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;127379]Is this the disappointment in new things that every generation goes through or is society really a lot worse off than we ever have been before? Are we just ever faster spinning out of control?[/QUOTE]
I refuse to supply political grist for your mill. All threads must stay on topic or the GCaptain machine will break down.