Leadership & Management STCW Course

Professional Mariner Forum
21

[QUOTE=NewEngr;148719]What about this course at Resolve Maritime Academy?

http://www.resolveacademy.com/courses_details.php?id=60

From the description - and CFR quotes - this five day course appears to satisfy BOTH Engine Room Resource Management and Leadership and Management training.[/QUOTE]

I have contacted “Resolve Maritime Academy” several times to inquire about taking courses, but all I’ve gotten is no response at all, or the run around. Resolve is a commercial diving, salvage, and marine fire fighting outfit. They appear to be ok at those things. Major clients include the cruiseship companies. Their “academy” appears to be primarily for training crews of foreign flag cruiseships. If a company contacts Resolve and wants to send 50 people for training, I imagine they would get a call back. But as far as I can tell, Resolve is not interested in providing courses open to individual mariners. I won’t be wasting anymore of my time calling them again.

We all have personal preferences for certain schools and certain locations. Personally, I often prefer MPT in Fort Lauderdale. MPT is offering an MCA approved Leadership and Management course, but apparently they do not yet have USCG approval for it. Maybe I should just wait a year or so until Young Memorial, Delgado, and Fletcher start offering the course for $400 (probably, $800 at Falck).

23

From the NMC website This is the five day course for Chief Mate / Master / 1ae / Chief Engineer on vessels subject to STCW over 500 GT ( I.T.C.)

Schools teaching Leadership and Managerial Skills
School / Website Main Address Telephone
Calhoon MEBA Engineering School 27050 St. Michael’s Road Easton, MD 21601 (410) 822-9600
Maritime Institute of Technology & Graduate Studies 692 Maritime Blvd. Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 (410) 859-5700
Mid-Atlantic Maritime Academy, LLC 5301 Robin Hood Road, Suite 102 Norfolk, VA 23513 (757) 464-6008
MITAGS-Pacific Maritime Institute (PMI) 692 Maritime Boulevard Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 (866) 656-5568
Quality Maritime Training, LLC 8601 4th Street North Suite 209 Suite 209 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 209-1811
Seafarers Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship P.O. Box 75 Piney Point, MD 20674 (301) 994-0010
STAR Center 2 West Dixie Highway Dania Beach, FL 33004 (800) 445-4522

      • Updated - - -

From the NMC website. I think this is the one day course for Mates (other than chief Mate) / 3rd ae / 2nd ae

Schools teaching Leadership and Teamworking Skills
School / Website Main Address Telephone
ECO Training Center, LLC 16201 East Main Street Cut Off, LA 70345 (985) 601-4155
Maritime Institute of Technology & Graduate Studies 692 Maritime Blvd. Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 (410) 859-5700
Maritime License Training Co. 13911 Atlantic Blvd Atlantic Beach, FL 32225 (904) 221-2393
MITAGS-Pacific Maritime Institute (PMI) 692 Maritime Boulevard Linthicum Heights, MD 21090 (866) 656-5568
Quality Maritime Training, LLC 8601 4th Street North Suite 209 Suite 209 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 209-1811
Seafarers Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship P.O. Box 75 Piney Point, MD 20674 (301) 994-0010
STAR Center 2 West Dixie Highway Dania Beach, FL 33004 (800) 445-4522
The Maritime University, LLC 5301 Robin Hood Rd., Suite 100 Norfolk, VA 23513 (757) 464-6008
Training Resources, Ltd., Inc. 2556 McCain Rd. San Diego, CA 92101 (510) 704-8978

These classroom courses look like pretty easy to gear up for, no equipment required. Between the military and colleges, there shouldn’t be any shortage of qualified instructors. Probably 10,000 US mariners will need to take these courses, so more schools should be getting ready to jump on this gravy train. Hopefully, some price competition will result.

24

[QUOTE=Heat Miser;148690]I thought it was a 1 week course? Did I mis-read something?[/QUOTE]

One week is a minimum. Schools are free to go longer, but seldom do.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=capitanahn;148692]For the old timers who started sailing before 1980 and kept sailing on ships until now?

I remember if the old timer sails more than a year for last 5 years, STCW renewal is not needed.

Please advise…[/QUOTE]

I said “there is no grandfathering.” I think that’s pretty clear and doesn’t need to be explained.

25

[QUOTE=tugsailor;148760] From the NMC website. I think this is the one day course for Mates (other than chief Mate) / 3rd ae / 2nd ae…[/QUOTE]

For the “Leadership and Teamworking Skills” for OICNW and OICEW, the requirement is to meet the standard of competence in Table A-II/1 or A-III/1 of the STCW Code. That means for OICNW or OICEW, a course is not required. It can be done by completing the relevant assessment for OICNW or OICEW in NVIC 12-14or NVIC 17-14.

In comparison, the requirement for Leadership and Managerial Skills is to complete approved training, that means a course is required for Master, Chief Engineer, Chief Mate, and Second Engineer Officer (1st Assistant Engineer).

26

Guys, you really need to check and make sure the school you go with is Coast Guard approved and has the letter, or else you may find yourself in a world of hurt. Call the NMC or check the list on their website before you spend money, not later.

Like Mr. Cavo said, no more grandfathering, period. If you can get your employer or your union to send you to school, so much the better. If you paid anything out of pocket save receipts for your taxes. If you itemize you may be able to deduct stcw training as a work expense. I was able to last year because I paid for almost everything I took. You can even deduct books and software subscriptions like Lapware. Check with your accountant.

27

[QUOTE=catherder;148773]Guys, you really need to check and make sure the school you go with is Coast Guard approved and has the letter, [/QUOTE]

Make sure they show you the NMC’s approval [I]letter[/I], not the approval certificate. The certificate shows it’s approved, but it doesn’t tell you what it’s approved for. The letter tells you exactly what it is approved for.

You can also check approvals yourself here:
http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/courses/docs/approved_courses.xls

Note that this is intended to help you find a school for something you need to take. It only tells you what a course is approved for today, it doesn’t tell you if a course you took in the past is approved, or what a course was approved for when you took it in the past

28

Many employers are not set up to provide training, much less do assessments. Many guys who ought to be helping their crews get through assessments, don’t want to do it. Just look at the pathetic situation with “DEs”, Designated Examiners, for the tugboat TOARs. Damn few people have bothered to get DE. Many DE’s don’t want to do the TOAR assessments, or they go off on a powertrip and want to string it out over months. Its much easier, and much cheaper, to just go take a quick TOAR course, and be done with it.

Another thing to watch out for, is employer requirements that often exceed USCG requirements. The HR girls expect you to have everything that’s on their checklist. If a course certificate from a USCG approved school for [insert your favorite STCW topic] is on their checklist, then they are going to expect you to have a course completion certificate. They may not want to hear that you don’t need a course certificate because you did it by assessment.

I am seeing more and more job postings that ask for things that are not yet USCG required, like ECDIS. It won’t be long before the Leadership course will be on the employer checklists too.

29

[QUOTE=tugsailor;148781]Many employers are not set up to provide training, much less do assessments. Many guys who ought to be helping their crews get through assessments, don’t want to do it. Just look at the pathetic situation with “DEs”, Designated Examiners, for the tugboat TOARs. Damn few people have bothered to get DE. Many DE’s don’t want to do the TOAR assessments, or they go off on a powertrip and want to string it out over months. Its much easier, and much cheaper, to just go take a quick TOAR course, and be done with it.
[/QUOTE]

My concern is that if i sign off on a guy as competent in say towing alongside, and then a year later he’s out towing alongside, knocks over a bridge and kills a few dozen people, I am sure my ass will be hung out to dry as well. How could he possibly be competent if he knocked the bridge over and killed people? You said he was competent; obviously not, because accidents never happen. A lot of guys have that concern and that’s what comes into play.

I do agree on all the other bullshit items. But its common, as the “top” tugboat companies don’t want Master/Mate of towing, which is %100+ legal to operate any of their tugs/barges, they demand say 1,600 ocean master for both mate and captain. Its good for us who have the license, but cheapens the whole master of towing license in my eyes. That’s customer driven i think. I just hate my license says not valid after December 31 2017 on vessels equipped with ECDIS. I hate negative endorsements; but do realize they are here to stay in the name of trying to get on the same page with the rest of the world.

30

[QUOTE=z-drive;148782]My concern is that if i sign off on a guy as competent in say towing alongside, and then a year later he’s out towing alongside, knocks over a bridge and kills a few dozen people, I am sure my ass will be hung out to dry as well. How could he possibly be competent if he knocked the bridge over and killed people? You said he was competent; obviously not, because accidents never happen. A lot of guys have that concern and that’s what comes into play.

I do agree on all the other bullshit items. But its common, as the “top” tugboat companies don’t want Master/Mate of towing, which is %100+ legal to operate any of their tugs/barges, they demand say 1,600 ocean master for both mate and captain. Its good for us who have the license, but cheapens the whole master of towing license in my eyes. That’s customer driven i think. I just hate my license says not valid after December 31 2017 on vessels equipped with ECDIS. I hate negative endorsements; but do realize they are here to stay in the name of trying to get on the same page with the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]

That is not a realistically practical concern. “I’m sure my ass will be hung out to dry” is grossly overstating the risk. Its highly unlikely. Its a question of “proximate cause.” Proximate cause is a legal principle that places limits on liability for events that are “too remote” in time and space.

For example, suppose that you get into a traffic accident with another car and its your fault. You will be liable for the damage and injuries in the other car. But suppose that you got into this accident while driving near JFK Airport, and a piece of your car flew up and got caught on a Boeing 747 as it was taking off and retracting its wheels. Then suppose that that piece of your car fell out as the plane put its landing gear down on the approach to LAX, and that piece of your car fell through the roof of an office building in LA and killed five people. But for your negligence in getting into a traffic accident in New York, that piece of your car would not have killed five people in California. So are you also liable for the deaths of the five people in California? No, because the principle of “proximate cause” says that deaths in California were too remote in time and space from your negligence in New York. This may be an extreme example (about as extreme as “I’m sure my ass would be hung out to dry”), but the extremes define the middle.

While it is theoretically possible that a DE that signed off someone on a TOAR (who later has a catastrophic accident) might get sued, the risk of that is quite small. The odds of someone prevailing on such a claim against a DE are much smaller. I do not consider that risk a serious concern in comparison to all the other risks we take everyday. If this were not so, no one would ever take the risk of training anyone to do any task that involves risk. (A DE that pencil whips a TOAR might be a different issue). That said, anyone who is a DE would be wise to disclose that on their MOPS application form, and obtain assurances from MOPS that any claims arising from their acting under the authority of their license as a DE are also covered.

A more practical problem is that most tug companies expect their DEs to do TOARs for free. And too many DE’s see every TOAR candidate as “another guy that wants to take my job.” If a guy has DE and is expected to do TOARs, he should get something extra in his day rate for having DE, and/or he should get paid extra when he actually does a TOAR. Its unrealistic to expect DEs to do TOARs for free. When DEs start getting paid for doing TOARs, most guys will want to be DEs, and getting a TOAR completed won’t be a several months long ordeal. In the meantime, most guys who want to get their TOAR completed would be better off just taking a commercial course.

31

I disagree, I have been contacted during investigations about things that happened years ago, with people I worked with well before the event. And they sure weren’t interested in what had happened in the most recent year or two. My example more exact: The CG interviews you about signing off the guy who knocks down a bridge. You say you only observed him for a day, maybe 15 minutes towing alongside. Honestly can say you can judge competent? Maybe if he took a barge through the AK in the dark you’d know, but on an open stretch of water? Don’t you agree when you become a DE and sign a toar to fully test competence? Yeah it’s remote and we all have risks, but I can control many risks onboard, not so when someone leaves the vessel.

it’s unlikely, but disagree on signing someone off in a day or two. Real companies will make a few captains internally sign off on you so there are multiple independent opinions of competency beyond a toar.

32

There is an enormous difference between what you might be asked about in an investigation, or in a deposition (where they can ask about anything that might bear on the credibility, or competence of a witness, or might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence), as opposed to what you might possibly be held personally liable for. That is two completely different things.

While the concept of TOAR, and requiring actual towing experience, and a practical examination of specific towing skills, for a license that authorizes towing is a very good idea. The actual implementation is a joke.

Personally, I think that both the TOAR, and the 30 days of “observer” time are grossly inadequate for the vast majority of mariners, and (like many other government requirements), this bears very little relationship to any reasonable measure of competence.

I agree that a TOAR course should take a lot more than a day or two. What is adequate depends on the experience of the mariner.

For wire towing, I think a five day TOAR course, after 30 days of on the job mate training (not just observing) time, would probably be enough for the typical unlimited Master (or a limited Master with significant actual boathandling experience) to get an endorsement for Mate of Towing. A typical unlimited Master (or experienced limited Master) might be ready for Master of Towing after six months experience as Mate on wire tugs. The typical recent academy graduate 3rd Mate, ought to do six months as AB on wire tugs, before starting 60 days of on the job Mate training in the wheelhouse, and a 10 day TOAR course before obtaining Mate of Towing.

I don’t know much about ATBs (that never tow outside the notch), but since they are essentially ships, I’m not sure that any sort of towing training or credentials should be necessary to sail as Mate. Maybe training in how to handle ejection from the notch should be required for Masters. Again, I don’t know what the real issues are for ATBs.

33

My point about investigations is that for example the incident happened in 2005…in 2008 one was asked to provide information about the subject from when you worked there in 2003, well before the incident occurred. I am saying the net can be cast widely, and while you’re not the one they’re after you can potentially find yourself facing questions that should be a non-issue. Its just an unnecessary hassle.

This article is no regulation, but i find it interesting and have always kept it in the back of my mind. I have heard similar from attorneys and others expressing concern in such a case. Yes this does NOT mean you could/will be held criminally/civilly liable but its my concern. Any case law out there anyone knows about?

Your Personal Liability as a Designated Examiner
Since a Designated Examiner must hold a current Coast
Guard license equal or superior to the license he or she
assesses, if a DE makes a fraudulent entry on a TOAR, the
Coast Guard can take steps to not only revoke the
Designated Examiner’s authorization but also take action
against the mariner’s license itself.
During discussions before the Towing Safety Advisory
Committee (TSAC) licensing working group in 2000 that
drafted the Designated Examiner scheme, the question was
raised about a Designated Examiner’s legal liability if an
accident occurs involving a mariner he assessed. The
understanding was that the assessment (like a drivers test) is
valid at the time it is given. Unfortunately, for
mariners, no such grant of immunity appears in any
regulation. Some individuals with courtroom experience left
the meeting with lingering doubts.
Before preparing this report, GCMA checked with one of
our most trusted attorneys and asked him what might happen
if one of the mariners a Designated Examiner signed off on
had a serious accident – perhaps involving injuries, fatalities,
or extensive property damage.
As the Designated Examiner whose name appeared on
the TOAR, lawyers representing injured parties can
interrogate you about any apprentice mate/steersman you
signed off on some date in the past. There are endless
varieties of situations that could occur. However, if you just
signed off on each candidate just to please the “boss” or for
a “friend” (the general term of “gun-decking” or “pencilwhipping”
applies to any such action) and the truth comes
out in a deposition or at trial, your troubles will not end with
possible license suspension or revocation. While that issue
will be between you and the Coast Guard if they get wind of
it, we were advised that your dereliction of the
responsibilities you voluntarily accepted when you applied
to be a Designated Examiner might well buy you a piece of
the liability for the accident

34

I agree with what is said in the article, especially about the fraudulent pencil whipping of TOARs by a DE becoming a source of potential criminal and civil liability, as it should.

I agree that one might be asked in a deposition today about someone they worked with, or signed off on, 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Obviously, the longer the passage of time, the less value the testimony would have, but that does not mean that the questions cannot be asked. If I were an attorney in a case against a mariner, I would think it important to know that the guy was a lying, cheating, stealing, pot smoking, binge drinking, jerk at the academy 30 years ago. That knowledge, would prompt me to think that he might still be that kind of jerk, and to look for more recent, and more relevant evidence, that might be admissible in court.

I cannot begin to imagine what the different statutes of limitations might be in the many different state and federal courts around the US where potential claims might be brought against a DE. The shortest might be as little as two years, and it seems unlikely that the longest would be over 7 years. But there are statutes of limitations.

If I exercised reasonable care in running a guy through all the tasks in his TOAR, and he hit a bridge a week later, I would be concerned. If I signed his TOAR a year ago, and he hit the bridge after running tugboats for a year, I wouldn’t give it a second thought.

A DE’s legal duty is to follow the USCG requirements while conducting the TOAR, and to exercise reasonable care in doing so. If he does that, he should not be held liable. That does not mean he cannot be questioned later, or possibly even sued. It doesn’t mean he might not have to defend his actions. Nothing in life is a risk free activity immune from all potential claims of liability. This risk is relatively small and manageable compare to the other risks that mariners routinely undertake. However, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to take on this responsibility without adequate compensation for it.

35

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;148688]Went there 2 weeks ago. $1200 worth of psychobabble. Guy ran us bell to bell from 0900-1800. 1 hour for lunch, to the minute. 10 mins for coffee/smoko. I mean bell to bell when I say it.

All his sea stories, none of ours. Class is in many ways not relevant to work, especially OSVs. I will say it was not as bad as I expected. I expected a b.s. 35 hours of psychology crap and it was delivered, but he did keep us awake. Ex-USN MCPO. Was out of class by 1400 on Friday.[/QUOTE]

Go to resolve instead! Brand new facility, great course. Closer to ammenities and hotels.

36

Took the class at Delgado earlier this fall. Excellent instructor, and reasonable tuition at $650. A number of the major companies were represented and the overall consensus was that the class was actually worthwhile.

37

[QUOTE=tugsailor;148664]For those of you who have taken Leadership & Management, where did you take it? What did you think of it?

Exactly who needs this? It appears to me that this is required for Master 1600/3000, but one of the schools told me that it is only required for Chief Mate and Master Unlimited.[/QUOTE]

I took the class in Seattle at PMI with ship, fishing boat and tug boat officers.
Although the class was well done, it’s BS. Basically it a class to address harassment, race and sex issues in management. It’s required by most jobs so just get it done so that it wouldn’t stop you from getting a job.
Love Seattle good food and get place to visit.

38

What happens if you don’t get the class before the deadline? I certainly can’t afford it right now. I suspect I would have to find the money to take the class before applying for work after the deadline. This is a downward spiral for those of us that are out of work…

39

[QUOTE=mtskier;172659]What happens if you don’t get the class before the deadline? I certainly can’t afford it right now. I suspect I would have to find the money to take the class before applying for work after the deadline. This is a downward spiral for those of us that are out of work…[/QUOTE]

You have 14 months to take the class. You can find plenty of decent tugboat jobs between now and then. If you don’t take the class, as it says on your license, some of the endorsement become invalid after 12/31/16. Others, like master of towing will remain valid. I assume that one could take the classes after the cutoff and have the endorsements added and revalidate the license.

Since you have the time available now, you might want to just go ahead and take the class now. That’s what credit is for. You could combine the class with a job hunting trip. There are some jobs available, but just not big money jobs on big fancy new boats with all the amenities.

40

[QUOTE=tugsailor;172688]…Others, like master of towing will remain valid. I assume that one could take the classes after the cutoff and have the endorsements added and revalidate the license.[/QUOTE]

All national officer endorsements (licenses) remain valid. You can restore the STCW endorsement after 12/31./2016 by taking the course.

41

I took the Leadership and Management Class a couple of weeks ago at Crawford in Seattle Washington. Thomas Crawford taught the Class and He did a good job of it. He is a current RO RO Unlimited Master of many Years and did a pretty good job of keeping a boring subject interesting.
I just finished up my ECDIS Class also at Crawford but this time in Port Townsend Washington. Taught by Andy Crawford He did an excellent job and knows the ECDIS subject very well. Like His brother he has a dry sense of Humor.

I don’t think there is any getting out of the Man and Leader Class if You want to maintain an International License. However if You are never going to work on a Boat that is required to have ECDIS I’m not sure its worth the time and money. Its just the same as ARPA, just because your Boat has an ARPA Radar doesn’t mean You need the License, only if the vessel is required to have ARPA. Most ARPA Radars operate roughly the same, but a ECDIS Plotter is much more complicated to operate than a non ECDIS Plotter, and really can’t do anything non ECDIS plotter can’t do. Basically the class taught me that I don’t want an ECDIS Plotter unless I’m required to have one.
I think the days of not having any restrictions on out licenses are coming to an end. If we are never to have any restrictions then we are forever going to be taking classes. Jobs on the bigger unlimited ships won’t have a choice, those of Us who work smaller vessels will.