Stewing a little and having a moment of frustration as I realize that in order to ship out as an AB (just finished acquiring one) with the Seattle IBU (coastwise tugs), I have to have RFPNW. I had thought for a moment of delusion that the tugs might be under 200 tons, or for some other reason might not need ABs with RFPNW. Anyhow, they aren’t hiring OS. And I have about 4 days of time aboard vessels greater than 100 tons, so RFPNW is not in my near future.
What is in my near future is plenty of inland time on less than 100 ton vessels, at least duing the summers (winters are slow). Which is great, but as some people have said on here, can be a dead end. Of course, if I could get time on a 100+ or 200+ ton vessel on an inland route, that would be the answer to my prayers. There just don’t seem to be that many of em. The escort tugs are full up, the puget sound ferrys have a waiting list a mile long, etc.
So. Ramble, ramble. I got to thinking about the size of some of these “under 100 ton” vessels that run inland routes. Some of them are pretty dang big.
Got me thinking about the lack of entry level positions in outside work, the availability of work on inland vessels, and the regulatory flexibility that allows the vast majority of those inland vessels stay under 100 tons. Which, in turn, puts the mariner looking to fulfill his STCW training requirements in a hard spot.
Any thoughts?
To make this tread more interesting, I thought people could post the “largest” under 100 ton vessel they know of.
Abdon Callais has some 207 foot DP OSV’s that are under 100 tons. They quoted in an article a while back in workboat that by doing so they could reduce the manning and save operating costs. At the same time all you hear is Safety, Safety, Safety, yet a boat can haul 4,000 barrels of liquid mud, 125,00 gallons of fuel, boo coo water and 1,000 tons of deck cargo then operate that with 4 people. Which means that only 2 can legally be on watch at the same time. These figures are estimates on the capacity but certainly within limits. Not to mention the fact that an unlicensed engineer can run the engine room. No thanks but as long as Wal mart is hiring I don’t think I will ever get desperate enough to work on one of those.
The Yorktown has to keep it under 149 I believe, or maybe they don’t have to, but they do. Limiting the passengers to 138.
Fran: Laughed when I saw your post, but was really hoping that wouldn’t be the case. Hoping to see the ludicrous sizes of other boats.
Does anyone have any comments on the safety implications of constructing vessels this large to stay under the 100 ton limit? The safety concerns of low levels of manning are fairly obvious, as per captain1962’s post, but I wonder if the removal of enclosed spaces or whatever they do to keep the tonnage down has anybody worried?
For that matter, what are some of the strategies that designers use to keep these vessels under 100 tons?
The Yorktown has to keep it under 149 I believe, or maybe they don’t have to, but they do. Limiting the passengers to 138.
Fran: Laughed when I saw your post, but was really hoping that wouldn’t be the case. Hoping to see the ludicrous sizes of other boats.
Does anyone have any comments on the safety implications of constructing vessels this large to stay under the 100 ton limit? The safety concerns of low levels of manning are fairly obvious, as per captain1962’s post, but I wonder if the removal of enclosed spaces or whatever they do to keep the tonnage down has anybody worried?
For that matter, what are some of the strategies that designers use to keep these vessels under 100 tons?[/quote]
Tonnage doors and some very cryptic admeasurement rules
Supposedly the CG is pushing to close these loopholes and get everybody on the ITC system. I would love to see it happen, but if they do they need to make provisions for limited license above 1600 tons and rverse the current mentality of regulating out the hawsepipers.
I recently worked on an appeal from a guy who was working on a T boat that was around 3300 GT ITC. If I can remember the guy’s name I’ll pull his file and get the vessel’s name.
I think the largest I have seen is the Ferry Eagle. Woods Hole Steamship Authority.
219’ x 60’ x 17’ X 9’6" IIRC around 1600 passengers, 70 vehicles/and or trucks as they fit.
The original tonnage was 99. something.
Even the Steamship authority realized they had a problem with it, and had it readmeasured to a whopping 279 tons, so the crew could get licenses and AB tickets off it! This was an amazing loophole bender. Still is! BUT… not very pretty!
The problem is many of these vessels that are inspected under “L” regs (I don’t know about T- Vessels) - and specifically state on the COI "…IN THE GULF OF MEXICO; not on an international voyage."
I am currently trying to find a way to get a 159’ / 96 GRT - 400 ITC / from GOM to the Great Lakes. I looked at having it reinspected as an “I” vessel, but found that this would raise the tonnage considerably and open a whole new can of worms. I’m looking into the possibility of it being a T vessel.
I posted the question in another thread, but - Does anyone have any experience/ideas on this?
The company wants this vessel up there, and would even tow it if need be, but we would still have to get that GOM restriction off for it to work up there.
Has anyone submitted one of these “Plans for Recertification”? There may even be a temporary consultant position available for the right person.
have you talked to your local MSO? They can usually have a temporary COI written to cover a voyage like this, a one shot deal, from here to there and then done.
Much like a capt of the port order to allow a vessel proceed from port A to port B, remaining withing XX miles of shore, and engaging in no commerce. These are typically used to take an injured vessel from one port to another to find dry dock accomodations. But I recall a Ferry I used to work on. They used to relocate from Mass to Tampa. The COI was specifically LBS, from Montauk to Nantucket. They asked for and rec’d a COI to transit from Mass to Tampa with the proviso that NO passenger were taken, and they were to stay within 20 miles of shore, and to stay within 50 miles of safe port for the duration of the trip.
So there is precedence to have this done. Unless you are contemplating bringing cargo/ freight, then youre in a different ballpark.
you will still have to jump through whatever “hoops” MSO “dictates”…request GoM “quote chapter and verse” in writing…as you may come under MSO scrutiny again when you get to GL.
i was Captain on the Star Of Honolulu for 10 years. The down side is you dont get the good seatime for upgrades becuase the vessel is Reg. under 100 tons, even through you were in charge of one hell of a 100 ton vessel.
Your right, it did stay inland, so not much help with upgrades but it is good to have on the resume. Glad I did it, and at a time things were good all over including a boom in Hawaii. Times are sure tough now.
A differnet time, and I think the good old days are gone but not forgotten
I know, I know, I probably should have started a new post.
BUT… not very pretty!