If Congress actually cared about the forecasted issues they could make legislative changes to accomplish this. I’m doubtful that will ever happen though.
Are we not trying to crew up RRF vessels for these activations?
It mostly works how it is and even if it weren’t working I highly doubt Congress would care enough to do anything.
You’re right about the last part. It seems though that it’s always an issue crewing ships for an activation. Seems kind of short sighted to wait til the SHTF to find out whether the system for calling up USMMA grads works or not.
Why would the IMO let us? The US makes up less than 5% of the global merchant fleet, why would we even be at the table? The idea is setting standards of training, not lowering the bar. Folks will refer to us as “highly trained american merchant mariners” in one breath and then ask to reduce standards and competencies in the next.
2 Likes
I don’t know if many have heard this but I know that some US navy reservist/ maritime grads that were in that SSO program are being called to fill 3rd positions on MSC vessels due to their lack of officers. And on top of it being paid Navy wages instead of MSC civilian Mariner wages ! Let’s just say they were not happy.
1 Like
I don’t believe USMS was ever considered a military branch. From wiki: The U.S. Maritime Service is not part of the uniformed services of the United States. The officers in the service cannot claim veteran status or military benefits including retirement. Uniformed officers serving in the U.S. Maritime Service cannot be deployed or assigned to another military service, and thus are not subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Correct, all it is now is a way for faculty and staff at KP to wear khaki uniforms and have rank titles. It used to be more formal than it is now but it was never a full branch of the military with veterans benefits.
Removing the impediment in question, and thus allowing highly qualified mariners to hawsepipe past the 1600-ton bottleneck, does not represent a reduction in standards and competencies. I’d like to see any unlimited tonnage mariner look a seasoned tug captain (who has been sailing on a 1600-ton ticket for 20 to 30+ years) in the face and tell him that he doesn’t deserve a 3/M unlimited because he didn’t go to an academy. 46 CFR Part 11.402(a)(2) is a dumb regulation and it needs to go.
1 Like
You can hawespipe pipe to the license. Look at 46 CFR 11.402 (b) you only need 25% on a ship over 10,000 gross tons and everything else can be on vessels only over 100 gross tons. It’s not as difficult as it seems. I know of people who have gone from a limited license to an unlimited license without the academy. The difficult part is convincing someone to do that. Ask a seasoned 1,600 tug captain if he wants to take a pay cut and go work as a third mate or if he even cares to have a third mate license and you will must likely get a resounding no forget that. If someone wants to get the unlimited license they will. But many with the limited license don’t because it doesn’t make economical sense. There is little to no opportunity in the us flagged fleet on unlimited tonnage vessels when compared to limited tonnage opportunities.
1 Like
Whatever the nature of the impediment the fact remains that it still exists. Is it technically possible? Yes. Is it practical? No. It is not for all of the reasons that you just stated and more. So, to that end, my original point still remains:
The argument that there is a manpower shortage in the event of a sealift crisis is a self-made problem on the part of regulators who have made it that much more difficult for highly qualified mariners of lower licenses to jump the gap from limited to unlimited.
How many more unlimited tonnage licensed mariners would we have in the United States today if it were more feasible to hawsepipe past 1600-tons? I fundamentally reject any and all arguments that mariners with 1600-ton licenses somehow lack something important that would otherwise justify their hawsepiping to an unlimited license while sailing on their 1600-ton licenses, rather than jumping through all of the hoops that now exist for that process to happen.
When looking at 46 CFR 11.407 and 46 CFR 11.402 it looks really feasible to me. There are barely any hoops to jump through. Depending on the path. It could ttake could take someone with a limited license 90, 180, or 270 days of working on a vessel over 10,000GRT to get the unlimited endorsement.
But you’re right it would be just easier to give it out to people. And if that’s the case why don’t we tell the nautical institute to just give out DP endorsements to every unlimited Mariner while sailing on non DPO vessels.??? … now we open the door to the deregulation slippery slope
At no point did I say “just give it out to people”. What I specifically said was, upgrade the license while sailing on their current license.
You can get a 500 ton while sailing on your 200 ton. You can get a 1600 ton while sailing on your 500 ton. You can even get a 1600 ton while sailing on your 200 ton. You can get a C/M U/L while sailing on your 2/M U/L, you can get your 2/M U/L while sailing on your 3/M U/L. And, of course, you can get your U/L master while sailing on your C/M U/L.
It is solely in the case of going from a 1600 ton to a 3/M U/L that you cannot get the 3/M U/L while sailing on your 1600-ton license. That is the one exception to the examples that I have just mentioned.
It is specifically that state of affairs that I am arguing is unjustifiable.
No one is saying that. What they’re saying is you shouldnt get an unlimited license if you’ve never been on an unlimited ship. Just like how no one in their right mind would let a 3rd mate unlimited in the wheelhouse of a tug the day after graduating from an academy, they go on deck first till they get the necessary experience.
Just because youve been driving your motorhone across the country for years does not mean you should automatically get your CDL.
1 Like
This is not quite correct. You can get an unlimited license, but there will be a tonnage restriction based on the tonnage of vessels you have served on.
§ 11.402 Tonnage requirements for national ocean or near-coastal endorsements for vessels of 1,600 GRT or more.
(a) To qualify for a national ocean or near-coastal endorsement for service on vessels of unlimited tonnage—
(1) All the required experience must be obtained on vessels of 100 GRT or more; and
(2) At least one-half of the required experience must be obtained on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more.
(b) If an applicant for a national endorsement as master or mate of unlimited tonnage does not have the service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a tonnage limitation will be placed on the MMC based on the applicant’s qualifying experience. The endorsement will be limited to the maximum tonnage on which at least 25 percent of the required experience was obtained, or 150 percent of the maximum tonnage on which at least 50 percent of the service was obtained, whichever is higher. However, the minimum tonnage limitation calculated according to this paragraph will be 2,000 GRT. Limitations are in multiples of 1,000 GRT using the next higher figure when an intermediate tonnage is calculated. When the calculated limitation equals or exceeds 10,000 GRT, the applicant is issued an unlimited tonnage endorsement.
(c) Tonnage limitations imposed under paragraph (b) of this section may be raised or removed in one of the following manners:
(1) When the applicant provides evidence of 6 months of service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more in the highest grade endorsed, all tonnage limitations will be removed.
(2) When the applicant provides evidence of 6 months of service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more in any capacity as an officer other than the highest grade for which he or she is endorsed, all tonnage limitations for the grade in which the service is performed will be removed and the next higher grade endorsement will be raised to the tonnage of the vessel on which the majority of the service was performed. The total cumulative service before and after issuance of the limited license or MMC officer endorsement may be considered in removing all tonnage limitations.
(3) When the applicant has 12 months of service as able seaman on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more while holding a license or endorsement as third mate, all tonnage limitations on the third mate’s license or MMC officer endorsement will be removed.
(d) No applicant holding any national endorsement as master or mate of vessels of less than 1,600 GRT, less than 500 GRT, or less than 25–200 GRT may use the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section to increase the tonnages of his or her license or endorsement.
Individuals who mark yes for the mariner outreach system should have faster application times than those that mark no on 719B. Something like that could help.
1 Like
There is none.
1 Like
Then it isn’t unlimited.
It’s also nearly impossible to get that tonnage restriction lifted while working as an officer.
1 Like
360 days of AB unlimited + whatever time you have as 1600 master sounds like youd be making more money than 1080 days in the deck department.
That’s the point. This is the ONE upgrade that cannot be done (for most people) while sailing as an officer. There should be an amount of sea time as an officer, say 720 days, that qualifies one for 3rd mate unlimited.
3 Likes