For the Ro-Ros, the eight SL7’s are all steamers, as are the four Cape I Class and the Vadm. Callaghan. The four remaining crane ships in the RRF are all steamers, as are the Curtiss and Wright. There are also the two former Lykes Line barge carriers that while not in the RRF anymore are kept in category C reserve in case they are needed, and both of those are steamers.
So my my math thats 19 out of 47 in the actual RRF, with another 2 in cold storage. Pretty much all of the other steamers have been scrapped or are waiting for tows down to Brownsville.
The Admiral Callaghan is a Gas Turbine. It had a disastrous grounding in the Red Sea during Desert Strom. The G.T. Admiral Callahan served as the test platform for the placement of gas turbines on the first U.S. Navy ships to be so equipped, the Spurance class of destroyers.
Exactly. Thank you. This is the drum that I have been trying to beat the entire time. This is the circumstance that makes 46 CFR Part 11.402(a)(2) fundamentally unfair. How would a 2/M U/L feel if they told him he had to go back down on deck and do 360 days as AB unlimited before he could get his C/M? No one would do it, and I wouldn’t blame them. Why should 1600-ton mates and masters have to? It’s a stupid, stupid system and it should change.
No one would ask them to do that because it makes no sense.
You can get 1600 master sailing 360 days as Mate of tow on a 200 ton tug boat. There is a massive difference between a VLCC and a 200 ton tug boat. A 2/M unlimited is already working alongside a C/M unlimited. Personally, jumping between tugs and ships, ive observed a skillset/procedual difference that should be learned.
@PaddyWest2012 The more I look at all the regulations and everything the more and more I understand what you are saying and honestly I think our national system is to blame. Because you can STCW upgrade but nationally you’re stuck. We should honestly just mirror most STCW requirements and for license upgrades. But I’m for retaining other national endorsements sucks as TOAR/ mate of tow, tankerman pic etc.
Ah, now we’re getting to the meat of the matter. To that I would say I wish I had my copies of Farley Mowat on me at the moment, but I don’t.
I think it was in Grey Seas Under (although truthfully it could have been The Serpent’s Coil, I just don’t remember) that Mowat quoted an admiral this subject. I’m vague on the details but I roughly remember that it was perhaps a U.S. Navy admiral, maybe in command of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, or something like that during WWII. He said something along the lines of “I have everything from Liberty Ships to tugboats under my responsibility and I would much rather give command of one of my Liberty Ships to one of my tugboat captains than I would give command of one of my tugboats to one of my Liberty Ship captains.” [I’m paraphrasing but that was the gist of it]
You’re right that there is a disparity in capabilities, but going from tugs to ships is less the issue.
If we’re really going to take the stance, as an industry, that mariners holding 1600-ton licenses are missing something fundamentally important that means that they don’t deserve unlimited-tonnage licenses, without having spent time on an unlimited-tonnage ship, then I am also going to take the stance that unlimited-tonnage-licensed mariners lack something fundamentally important that makes them suitable for employment on tugs and workboats unless they have served sufficient time on vessels below 1600 tons.
Doesn’t sound so good going the other way, does it?
Sounds logical to me. Just because I have a Masters Unlimited doesn’t mean I don’t know a thing about running a tractor tug. I wouldn’t imagine I’d step on a boat and be running it the next day.
Yes, but no one I’ve seen here is suggesting allowing a Master 1,600 to go straight to Master Unlimited. Changing the rules to create a path to third mate unlimited for anyone with a certain amount of time, I’d propose 720 days, as OICNW on vessels greater than 200 GRT.
The Academies would fight tooth and nail to stop anything that would make it more accessible for a limited tonnage Mariner to shift to the unlimited side as they always have before.
No, that doest sound bad, in fact in practice thats usualy the way it is even without government regulations. Ive never sailed limited where they just throw me the keys when i show up, theres always a long training/probationary period as a high paid cadet before being cut loose. It ranges from a couple months to years, but its a training period none the less. These guys are shocked when I tell them mates are only babysat for a transfer or two on a ship before being left to their own devices, where as on the barge Ive had to wait for a port captain to come down and sign me off. On top of that is the entire MOT/TOAR process, an actual regulated training period for going from unlimited to a lot of limited boats.
I think this is part of the reason for the “Academy kids dont last here” stereotype on a lot of boats. When things are slow and you need a job thats one thing, but if there are unlimited jobs on the board, and you can go deep sea where your licence is made for, and youre mostly surrounded by fellow alumni, why would you go work limited to be talked down to like a baby learning to walk? There are academy folk who enjoy it, and I’m happy for them, but this is why there is such a high turnover rate.
Also worth noting its not 1950 anymore, the industry has changed a lot since then. If a master from a T2 tanker signed on as master of a tanker today, I am willing to bet money they would not stay long (either fired or quit), and say “they took all the fun out of sailing, this is bullshit, too much paperwork, bla bla bla, we used to do cocaine off the chart table, unlimited overtime, only women on board should be prostitutes, renewal process is bullshit” in fact that seems to be the opnion of the folks ive met as they retire, if they had saild on liberty ships in their career.