Letter of Designation or Tankerman-PIC

It wasn’t a fluke that sneaked by because I had to appeal to get it renewed. So I know they thought about it. I first had a Tankerman PIC Tankship-DL from working on ATBs. 1st renewal no problems. During my 2nd renewal they denied it because I wasn’t working on ATBs or barges any longer. I appealed it & they downgraded me to Tankerman Barge. I had a Tankship when I wasn’t working on ships & the gave me barge when I no longer work on barges, go figure?

Concerning the benifit of engineerings having a Tankerman PIC endorsement, yes, mostly for the extra ink in the MMC in case of a worse case scenario. Also, any additional education or classroom time where even a little bit is learned is a reward in itself. I don’t regret the company paid vacation in St Petersburg FL.

1 Like

Unless you took the course to renew it then yes, it was a fluke. You have to serve on a tank vessel and have cargo transfers to renew, just like to get the original.

1 Like

If it was I’ll gladly take it all the same. I can understand someone goofing up on the first pass but for someone to look at an endorsement that was already denied & give it to me really works in my favor. If I have to take a renewal class during my next go around to keep the PIC endorsement I will.

That’s a great point you just made.

You don’t make any cargo transfers, which is what’s required.

I understand what you are saying. Perhaps I am splitting hairs in what I may consider “cargo”. For the barge that receives our oily waste, if he turns around and sells it to a refiner is it not cargo? The fuel that I have pumped off one of our laid up ships, if it is being sold to a fuel supplier, is it not cargo? In both situations items were received for economic gain.

The barge receiving the oily waste had the chief mate as pic because your fuel is cargo for them. It’s not a cargo transfer for your vessel though. If your vessel isn’t certified to carry fuel oil as cargo and the product isn’t coming out of cargo tanks then it isn’t a cargo transfer as far as your vessel is concerned.

1 Like

Engineers can get Tankerman Engineer, which has very low requirements to get, and all that is really needed for them. I haven’t seen any engineers even try and get their PIC on my ship (tanker), and I wouldn’t sign them off for it if they asked.

Do you work with a bunch of P.O.S engineers or are you just an ass?

It was a 2M & AB Tankerman on an ATB that signed me off for my original loads & discharges. I put in the time & we didn’t cut any corners during the process. There was a high level of mutual, professional respect the whole time. I was very familiar with the rig before hand because it was my job to fix anything on the barge that they couldn’t. I’m an approved QA & never had any issues signing anybody off if they were able to do the task & meet the criteria. I know there’s plenty of people who can’t sign anyone off because of their own insecurity issues even when the applicant can do the job but not me. So do you work with a bunch of dumbass engineers who won’t do the work or do you have insecurity issues?

1 Like

Wow.

Yes, and yes, but neither have anything to do with it.

You want to come on and get a PIC, you’d best show up and ‘put in the time’ as you say. You should be as qualified as a 3M is with regards to standing a cargo watch. It’s not my problem to remind you that we are indeed at the terminal and you should be on deck now. I’m not going to babysit. I’ve got enough other shit to worry about.

What typically happens is that a week before they get off, they say “hey can you write me a letter?” Nope. Go see the Chief and get a Tankerman Engineer letter. We get 3rds who come on fresh out of school and declare that they HAVE to have a letter. No, you don’t, especially when you can’t tell me if the 2P drop is open or closed.

Put in the time and have the skill and knowledge? No problem. You’re not stealing my job. Don’t? Then don’t ask. Good for you for doing it. Most don’t.

1 Like

Usually it’s the person who writes posts like yours that has insecurities.

1 Like

To me, your first comment sounded like you were being an ass but if you have people talking to as if they are entitled to your signature then they are P.O.S IMO & I agree with you. I guess I have been mostly lucky with sign-offs. I’ve had 3 people ask for my signatures for their books & only 1 didn’t get it because he thought I was being too square & didn’t want to go about it in a professional manner. If all the engineers that you work with are as you described & you wouldn’t sign any of them off because you think all of them wouldn’t show up or needed babysitting then it sounds like the Master or CE needs to clean house.

Clean house? Why, because the engineers aren’t putting in work for an endorsement they don’t need?

There’s one PIC for the bunker evolution. It’s the Chief. My company requires the 1st to also have Tankerman PIC OR Engineer, but he’s not typically involved in the bunkering. So if the 2nd and 3rd don’t have it, which they’re not required to, why should they try to get it?

Why clean house? You stated you wouldn’t evaluate them even if they asked because you would have to babysit them on deck, they wouldn’t use situational awareness during the transfer & would need reminding & because they would likely be late for the job. What in the heck type of engineers are you working with? Perhaps my expectations are too high but I don’t think so. Something is not right about your description of the engineers that you work with & it’s either your engineers or your description of them. I’m not working with any engineers that need babysitting anywhere aboard the ship but that’s just me. But again, maybe your description is biased?

Also, when you say your company requires the Chief to have the PIC do you mean the C/E or C/M? If it’s the C/E then that is even more reason for the 2AE & 3AE to get the endorsement because hopefully they aspire to be a C/E one day. The more cross training & the more a person knows the better IMO.

I’m not sure if it’s a purely American thing but the C/E is typically “the Chief” and the C/M is “the Mate”. At least that is how I was taught.

Sadly there are a lot of junior officers who don’t aspire to do much beyond collect their paycheck and go home. You know them when you see them and I don’t fault this mate for not bothering with them.

1 Like

I wouldn’t sign anything for the type of worker that he described either. For me, it’s hard to believe he has so many bad apples bunched together. When one of the mates notifies the engine room crew that they’ll be in the engine room spaces checking safety equipment it doesn’t occur to me to send someone along to babysit & keep them out of trouble. It’s the same for sending an engineer on deck for something. If his is a true description then those engineers need some retraining or the boot off the ship.

That’s what I’ve always thought about the term Chief as well but I figured if the Chief is required to have it why wouldn’t his assistants go for it as well. It doesn’t make sense to me, different ethics I guess?

His company requires the Chief to have Tankerman Engineer.

I think he was saying the company may require PIC, not the Coast Guard.

I read it that his company requires Tankerman Engineer.

The Chief is the Chief Engineer. The Mate is the Chief Mate.

The 2nd and 3rd Engineers are not required to have any kind of Tankerman endorsement - PIC or Engineer.

At my company, the Chief Engineer and the 1st Engineer are required to have Tankerman PIC , or, alternatively, Tankerman Engineer. The Tankerman Engineer endorsement only requires that you have taken the course and be on a tanker for 90 days. It does not require loads and discharges and the other things that the PIC endorsement does.

The junior engineers can very easily get the Tankerman Engineer endorsement. I will not sign that letter, because I am not an engineer, and to be honest, it’s not my department. Most Chiefs at my company have no idea what their guys are talking about when they come to them looking for the letter, 1 hour before they sign off, after they leave my office with me telling them that I will not sign that letter. One Chief gave a guy some bunker dates written down on a post-it note and said “here you go.” That’s a different issue. If, however, they get that letter and the endorsement, they can sail alllllll the way up to Chief Engineer.

What kind of engineers am I working with? MEBA, union, engineers. They may never work on a tanker again. Or they might stick around for a while. Who knows. But chastising a 3rd for not getting his Tankerman PIC, when to do so would probably break his work/rest hours, is like chastising me for not having a Fast Rescue Boat endorsement, when my ship doesn’t have a Fast Rescue Boat.

That’s not what I said. I said I’m not going to call down to the engine room after dinner and remind the 2nd to be on deck at 0300 once we get along side to assist with hooking up the arms and then go around with the gauger, come inside for the Pre-Transfer Conference, and then stick around until the terminal is ready to start cargo.

If an engineer comes to me when they get on, and explain that they would like a PIC letter, I will very clearly lay out the requirements for them to get one. Everyone knows what time we’re getting to the dock. Everyone knows that after we get to the dock we will start cargo in a few hours. Everyone has an alarm clock. It’s simple - show up and put in the work, and I will sign the letter.

But, they don’t need it. So they don’t do it. Not my problem.