License degradation

[QUOTE=skip jiblet;149967]I like c.capees post on another topic with the “old school” wheelhouse…just look out the windows and drive the boat and don’t hit nuttn!!![/QUOTE]

can you imagine after 30 years how I feel about going to sea now in 2015 and beyond? It is absolutely sickening to me how our historically noble and respected profession has been destroyed by the FUCKING Brits and Indians and Greeks at the IMO and pinheads at the USCG MSC let alone the bigger pinheads in the company HR departments? THERE IS NO REAL SEAFARING ANYMORE…it’s all some ridiculous paper chase at every level in virtually every quarter. That is one of the biggest reasons I have chosen to become self employed running my small but still very salt encrusted boats.

Just drive the boat Mr. Hooper if you please?

Having just taken a course at PMI I have to say it was a well done course.

Hallelujah and amen. The happiest I’ve ever been has been on sailboats. Why? Because that’s one of the few places at sea that has changed comparatively little in the last several decades. On the deck of a sailing ship a man can still be a sailor, not a secretary. Why should they call us merchant sailors any more? We’re all merchant and no sailor!

tells me its not possible for a punter to get a UL license via only working on a Modu hence biggest voyage 10’
Its stuff like that where the USCG has trashed your system.
Its not possible under any other jurisdiction thats for sure.

PS yes the best time and most sensible seamanship and management was working on a megayacht ( pre MCA) we ran it like seaman with seaman, dont like it goodbye.
We only entertained crew that had lots of sailing miles under their belt, every guy could splice and use a sextant
Thats what the owner wanted and no shore management at all less his office paying us.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;149966]Some of the non-required classes were better. I think the reason they were better may have been due that it didn’t have to meet an STCW or MSC standard.[/QUOTE]

I doubt that’s the reason. More likely, it’s because for a non-required course, the customers expectation is to learn something. For a required course, the expectation is a piece of paper.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;149966]Even though we are either directly or indirectly paying the bills, we are really not the customers. The people that require us to have these classes and certificates are in reality the customers. They set the standard for these classes. We are just the guy looking for a paycheck.[/QUOTE]

BS. The Coast Guard doesn’t require you to go to a bad course. If the customer (i.e. the guy paying the bill) tolerates a course where they didn’t learn something, the school has no incentive to change. Maybe the customers need to raise their expectations. As far as setting the standard, the Coast Guard gives very general guidelines and sets [U]minimum[/U] standards. They don’t write the syllabi or lesson plans, or teach the course. That’s on the school and it’s up to the market to reward those who deliver a good product. If you have low expectations, you will probably be a satisfied customer (i.e. you got what you expected). We don’t require a school to provide more than the minimum.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=skip jiblet;149967]This is legal extortion, plain and simple. If you look what has transpired over the last 10 years, is a boat load of useless classes. Why do we need to attend a leadership class??? The office knows weather you can manage your crew, train your junior engine room guys, and etc… [/QUOTE]

Of course. That’s why no one has ever sailed with a bad Captain, and “the office” always promotes the best candidates…

I was just reviewing my training matrix the other day, working out a schedule to take several courses. First I have the STCW Gap Closing courses for CE, then company-mandated courses, then one or two courses to keep validity on my license endorsements. These are all due in a timeline, and on my 3.5 weeks off. Essentially it’s 3 weeks at home. I’m looking to end of 2015 before they are done (well, the important ones anyway). Sure, the scheduling conflict is because of my rotation, but it’s getting difficult to enroll in these Gap Closing courses as thousands of people are trying to take them. So we have my time away from home for classes, and now others suggest mandating stricter license renewal (i.e. testing)!?! Of course scheduling would not be an issue if the USCG would recognize foreign training schools. The “internationally recognized and standardized” courses are not really so… I’ve attended training in the USA and elsewhere, and to be honest, the better training was elsewhere (Europe, Singapore). The USA schools do have the mentality that you are there only because your company/USCG/etc says you have to be, you don’t want to be there, so let’s just get this over with. A few classes overseas did email some reading material to be covered before attendance - that was actually useful, and a good idea in general.

As noted earlier in reference to the Leadership class, my boss, and the office, all know who is capable of their job, the next promotion, etc. You are not going to change a person’s management style from a 5 day course. All these courses do is make for rough phone calls home when I tell my family that I will only be home for two weeks next time. Imagine if I told them I have to lock myself away for a few hours each day every few years to study for my license exam. Sorry, but I have Google and books onboard to give me a useless formula.

Basic Training, Lifeboat Training, Firefighting, etc. every five years…I’m not sure how everyone else does it on board their ships, but every week or two during a safety meeting, we touch on something related to fire fighting, lifeboat use, etc. Kind of covers anything taught in a course. Well, we may not go through lifeboat terminology (haven’t seen oars on a boat in years). if it comes to an emergency, you all know how “organized” it will be. I once worked on a tanker where everyone was required to take firefighting every five years. We had a fire onboard, we put it out. In the rush of things we did not arrange teams to cover boundary areas, kneel down and check for heat every few feet…no, we went in and put it out. The Chief Mate was on the nozzle, because the AB assigned to it per the Station Bill was not capable of the job (4’-something, maybe 120 lbs.) Plus, it wasn’t even a consideration…the guys who are senior will automatically jump in and do what they’re expected to do. The only time I can remember an officer doing “unlicensed” work and no grievance was filed…

So long story short, it’s true what has been said numerous times…the USCG, IMO, and office people are out of touch with what happens. But, as long as having some sort of certificate satisfies insurance companies and litigators, we are stuck with taking classes. At least some of us get training pay and courses paid for, which isn’t the case for all.

[QUOTE=jdcavo;149996]I BS. The Coast Guard doesn’t require you to go to a bad course. If the customer (i.e. the guy paying the bill) tolerates a course where they didn’t learn something, the school has no incentive to change. Maybe the customers need to raise their expectations.

      • Updated - - -

…[/QUOTE]

The courses that MSC requires, MSC sets the curriculum and approves the course. The courses that are required by STCW, the USCG approves the curriculum and the course. We as students, do not have an input in either other than a critique at the end of the class. We know what happens to the critique. It ends up in a file somewhere that may have been read once and then collects dust.

Like I said , we are not really the customers. The companies and regulatory bodies that require us to have this certificate are really the main customers. We are not taking basic fire fighting and survival craft again because more knowledge/training is needed to do our job. We are taking it because the piece of paper is required to go to work.

The latest waste of time is this “Leadership & Management” class that will be required by regulatory. I have been sailing as Chief Mate or Master for 23 years. What great wisdom are they going to give me in 5 days of class?

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;149992]Hallelujah and amen. The happiest I’ve ever been has been on sailboats. Why? Because that’s one of the few places at sea that has changed comparatively little in the last several decades. On the deck of a sailing ship a man can still be a sailor, not a secretary. Why should they call us merchant sailors any more? We’re all merchant and no sailor![/QUOTE]

I don’t know why because I haven’t towed in many a year but want to believe that towing remains more pure seafaring than most other forms of going to sea as are the fisheries. There is something in that a smaller vessel still falls under many of the IMO and USCG asinine mandates which keep them a more genuine world of just working on a vessel on the water. Certainly seems the smaller you get the more pure the work. Pity all the money is in tonnage though…oh well…

What is the tonnage cut off for having a SMS on a vessel? 200 or 500grt? I know SOLAS is 500 and GMDSS is 300tons.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;150008]…The courses that are required by STCW, the USCG approves the curriculum and the course. [/QUOTE]

You can give an identical “curriculum and course” to two different instructors and/or two different schools and get a very different course. The Coast Guard only requires that certain things be taught. How they are taught, and how well they are taught, is up to the school.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;150008] We as students, do not have an input in either [/QUOTE]

Your input is your wallet, and word of mouth about the course you took. If you keep going to schools that don’t meet your expectations, and/or don’t share your expereinces with others, then you do indeed have no input.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;150008]…What great wisdom are they going to give me in 5 days of class?[/QUOTE]

If you go in expecting to learn nothing, you probably will learn nothing, no matter how good or bad the course is. It also sounds like you’re making an uninformed assumption about what is in the course. A good part of the course is about domestic and international maritime conventions, law, and regulation.

[QUOTE=c.captain;150011]What is the tonnage cut off for having a SMS on a vessel? 200 or 500grt? I know SOLAS is 500 and GMDSS is 300tons.[/QUOTE]
I’ve sailed ATBs that were 299 GT, uninspected and SOLAS. That always had the vettors scratching their heads

[QUOTE=injunear;150013]I’ve sailed ATBs that were 299 GT, uninspected and SOLAS. That always had the vettors scratching their heads[/QUOTE]

was it because of the barge? Was the tug 299grt regulatory but more than 500gt ITC? or I suppose an owner can apply for SOLAS safety construction and equipment even if below the threshold/

[QUOTE=c.captain;150014]was it because of the barge? Was the tug 299grt regulatory but more than 500gt ITC? or I suppose an owner can apply for SOLAS safety construction and equipment even if below the threshold/[/QUOTE]

I was told it was the owner’s option. The tank barge of course had a COI and the tugs were built to be inspected if so chosen.

Yeah but we’re also the USCG’s customers. Maybe it should be up to them to develop better and more widely available curriculum.

FEMA has a huge independent study, certification system that’s largely free. Even if it’s not towards certificates, the CG could put a lot of knowledge for Mariners on the Internet.

[QUOTE=jdcavo;150012]You can give an identical “curriculum and course” to two different instructors and/or two different schools and get a very different course. The Coast Guard only requires that certain things be taught. How they are taught, and how well they are taught, is up to the school…[/QUOTE]

Well there is the problem summed up right there. The Coast Guard only requires that certain things are taught. The things they require are pretty well useless. Most of the time in class is wasted on these required subjects.The same has been going on with license exams for at least the last 30 years. We are tested on material that has no basis in what we actually do.

I[QUOTE=jdcavo;150012]Your input is your wallet, and word of mouth about the course you took. If you keep going to schools that don’t meet your expectations, and/or don’t share your expereinces with others, then you do indeed have no input.
.[/QUOTE]

Oh there is word of mouth but it has no effect. Basically we are held hostage to get the certificate no matter how useful the class is. If you don’t get the cert, you don’t get paid. So any word of mouth gets drowned out by what regulatory and MSC require. We as students do not control what is taught in these classes.

[QUOTE=jdcavo;150012]If you go in expecting to learn nothing, you probably will learn nothing, no matter how good or bad the course is. It also sounds like you’re making an uninformed assumption about what is in the course. A good part of the course is about domestic and international maritime conventions, law, and regulation.[/QUOTE]

I may be jumping the gun on the “Leadership & Management” thing but I have read what is required. My past experience with these kind of courses has shown this to be the norm. I do remember Bridge Resource Management. One of the required parts was discussing what motivates the guys. I thought we were going to have to hold hands and sing kun-bay-ah.

I don’t want to be picking on the USCG exclusively, this problem also involves MSC, the Nautical Institute and others. I am guessing that this an issue with other fields too.

Like someone above said these school are making up new classes to fatten their bottom line. Their instructors are ex-CG who are double dipping and have the pull to get the NMC to agree with these new classes. The local school around here started out with a bunch of u/l license holders with years of commercial experience teaching out of a decent sized building to a GI Bill funded license mill. They dont even seem to cater to those of us who are civilian mariners anymore, or at least like they used to.

Furthermore most of us are having to sacrifice our precious home time and in some cases are having to pay for these very expensive classes out of our own pockets. The hawsepiper will soon be a relic if this keeps up.

I am scheduled to take Ships construction and basic stability next month at MITAGS. I wasn’t aware it was an OICNW STCW requirement though. Cool.

I can’t believe that someone can cook for a few years and become a mate. That doesn’t make sense to me.

[QUOTE=Bayrunner;150023]…Their instructors are ex-CG who are double dipping and have the pull to get the NMC to agree with these new classes. [/QUOTE]

BS. I approved instructors for over 10 years at NMC, and we might have denied more ex-CG proposed instructors than we approved, and we weren’t asked to look at a whole lot of them. The persons directly involved with approving instructors were, like myself, all civilians with experience as Master, Chief Mate, Chief Engineer, or 1st AE who never served in the CG (or Navy). That a proposed instructor is ex-CG had zero influence on our decisions, we applied the same standards to all instructors. Can you subnstantiate your assertion with anything that shows otherwise?

[QUOTE=samaka;150027]I can’t believe that someone can cook for a few years and become a mate. That doesn’t make sense to me.[/QUOTE]

They can’t. Every endorsement as Mate requires the time be in the deck department, with the exception of a few endorsements where 25% of the time can be in the engine department. Time as a cook or int he steward’s deprtment is not acceptable for any deck officer endorsement, with the poswible exception of OUPV (6-pack) where the requirement is only expereince in the operation of vessels.

[QUOTE=seadog6608;150024]I am scheduled to take Ships construction and basic stability next month at MITAGS. I wasn’t aware it was an OICNW STCW requirement though. Cool.[/QUOTE]

You probably don’t have to take the course. It’s one of the new requirements for an STCW OICNW endorsement, but anyone who is getting that endorsement with at least 1 day of sea time before March 24, 2014 is grandfathered and doesn’t need the course if they get OICNW before January 1, 2017. Since OICNW requires 3 years of sea time, that means no one who will qualify for OICNW befiore January 1, 2017 needs the course.

[QUOTE=samaka;150027]I can’t believe that someone can cook for a few years and become a mate. That doesn’t make sense to me.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be on a vessel like a tug where a cook might also be an AB

In my limited BAYOO time all I ever heard about was guys cooking for OS time then getting an AB, then cooking as AB. Some bullshit sea time letters probably. At what point does the COI on a mud boat require a cook?