Yeah, but how many QA’s are there to sign off the assessments? I for one am applauding that there’s now a degree of leveling the playing field, but I suspect the guys that might have to take the CG approved courses after December 31st are singing the blues. …or did I misread that in the NVIC?
I don’t think so, I read it the same as you.
QAs are not required until January 1, 2018. Until then, anyone with a license as Master 200 GRT or higher can sign. If lack of QAs is going to be a problem, it’s not unique to OSVs. After 12/31/2017 all assessments have to be signed by an approved QA.
As an aside;USCG define OSV as:
This is a fairly narrow description that does not fit the reality of what a lot of Offshore Vessels do today (i.e. large construction vessels, dive support, pipelayers, well intervention and even light drilling)
My question is; how widely is the term OSV stretched. Does it take in anything to do with Offshore Oil & Gas Marine Operation and possibly Offshore Wind Farm support, Offshore Mining etc.? Is that stated anywhere?
If not, who decide what is and what is not an OSV for legal and administrative purposes?
No no, that’s what I meant. After the end of the year. I would hope that anyone currently in an approved assessment program would hustle and get it done before then. I’m just glad to see more uniformity with the non-OSV licensing schemes.
That definition is intended to identify the vessel subject to inspection as an OSV, it is not intended to describe what OSVs do. Those other operations you describe are likely performed by vessels who are inspected under different requirements. From a regulatory perspective, an OSV is a vessel that is inspected under Subchapter L of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Also, that’s from the United States Code, so it’s not the Coast Guard’s definition, it’s the U.S. Congress. An excusable mistake for someone who would not be expected to understand the nuances of U. S. law. Any definitions from the Coast Guard are found in the Code of Federal Regulations and must be consistent with anything from Congress in the United States Code.
Yes, but the national endorsement does no one any good without the corresponding STCW endorsement. Supposedly, as of this past January, now they needed to do the assessments and classes to get the STCW endorsement whereas before they were just given the STCW endorsement upon completion of the large OSV ride along period.
Thanks for that.
And yes, it is difficult to figure out US Maritime Laws, rules and regulations, unless you have “grown up with them”. (Even then I suppose, looking at all the questions on this forum)
So, if the sister to “Island Venture” had actually been built in the US and registered under US flag it would have been placed under a different Subchapter in the alphabet soup, since she obviously aren’t intended to “regularly carries goods, supplies, individuals in addition to the crew, or equipment in support of exploration, exploitation, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources” and thus not be regarded as an OSV.
Does that mean that someone with even the largest OSV ticket could not serve as Master or Mate on this vessel under US flag?
She also has Diesel/Electric propulsion with multiple dissel driven generators but no “Main Engine(s)”. How does that work for Engineer’s tickets. Does total generating power apply, or the actual propulsion power of the main thrusters?
The Island Venture is now in the GoM but under Vanuatu flag, but I believe with American Master, Officers and crew. Vanuatu endorse US licenses, but does that include OSV tickets for a vessel that is clearly not an OSV by the above definition?
Are there any other country where special “OSV tickets” are issued or accepted, especially for vessels over 3000 GT?
Just curious and like to know. Does anybody have the answers??
PS> Island Venture, if anybody is not familiar with that vessel: http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=25871:giant-ocv-island-venture-to-play-key-role-for-new-alliance&Itemid=257
If that vessel is not inspected as an OSV, then yes. The NVIC cited above allows for endorsements (U.S. for “certificates”) that are limited to vessels inspected as both OSVs and miscellaneous cargo vessels. But if the mariner’s endorsement is limited to OSVs, it is only valid on vessels inspected and “certificated” (probably not a real word, but we use it as though it were) as OSVs. If a vessel is “dual-certificated” but the mariner is only endorsed for OSVs, they cannot serve on the vessel when it changes trades to operating as a miscellaneous cargo vessel.
Why does it take 193 pages of USCG “guidance” to explain how to upgrade from Master OSV 3000 to 6000 or 10,000?
If communication is the purpose of the English language, this NVIC really missed the mark.
Doe anyone understand what this NVIC is trying to say?
From what I understand, and I could be completely wrong, the Large OSV “Special Training Programs” (that the companies got approved) are out, and there is a new assessment system (similar to the one for non-OSV unlimited licenses) requiring a QA to sign off on them. There also, may or may not be additional classes required depending on what license you’re upgrading to (or at least that’s what I got out of it).
It doesn’t take 193 pages, it takes a paragraph. See page 5 of Enclosure 5.
The NVIC is for 5 separate endorsements.
166 of the pages are assessments for 4 of the 5 endorsements, usually one per page.
It’s “guidance” because it is not a regulation and did not go through a formal notice and comment process. But that’s an excusable mistake for someone who would not be expected to understand the nuances of U. S. law.
But you know all of that.
Don’t forget Enclosure 6 for the STCW endorsement though:
- Standard of competence/assessment. Meeting the standard of competence in Section
A-II/2 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see 46 CFR 11.102) as
applicable to OSVs of 3,000 GT or more. The assessment guidelines in Enclosure (7)
may be used for this purpose; and
- Training. Successful completion of the following approved training specified in 46
A) Advanced Stability;
B) Advanced Meteorology, if the endorsement will be valid for oceans service;
C) Leadership and Managerial Skills;
D) Search and Rescue;
E) Management of Medical Care;
F) Electronic Chart Display Information Systems (ECDIS);
G) Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA), to be valid for vessels with this
H) Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), to be valid for vessels
with this equipment;
I) Basic Training (46 CFR 11.302). If this training was completed more than 5
years before the date of application, the applicant must provide evidence of
maintaining the standard of competence as specified in 46 CFR 11.302(b); and
J) Advanced Firefighting (46 CFR 11.303). If this training was completed more
than 5 years before the date of application, the applicant must provide evidence of
maintaining the standard of competence as specified in 46 CFR 11.303(b).
Yep… I’m curious why they dropped the Advanced Ship Handling for the OSV license though. Let’s be honest, the OSV guys do a lot more true ship handling than the blue water guys. Well, at least the ones that aren’t DP button pushers.
That’s one of the reasons it was dropped. A mate on an OSV is going to get opportunities for ship handling, I mean, boat handling, (I forgot that “OSVs are big boats”). In contrast, I doubt you’ll find many container ships where the pilot and Master are willing to let the 2nd Mate whop plans to upgrade to Chief Mate dock the ship, so a course with a simulator is needed.
Anybody sailing as Master on a large ship in normal international trade can go their whole life without ever actually berthing or unberthing a vessel. At most they get to drop anchor on their own.
Fair enough… and being on an OSB… err V now, I’ll definitely grant you that. Honestly have had pilots beg to “drive” because there’s no real opportunity for hands on the controls time on the big ships… and these things really can be a hoot to maneuver if they built them right.
But… there are some good things to learn in that class, and it would be one less thing for guys to take if they wanted to cross over to the unrestricted service path. Of course, having just said that, I suspect there may have been some industry influence to keep the opportunity to cross over from being too easy also. Don’t know how many times I told guys in my crew, if they can get the “real” license, then don’t go for the OSV one. Always got a “but ____ said an OSV is all I need.”
That’s actually a big part of why I shifted to the OSV’s… Always liked the actual boat handling in school, and knew those opportunities weren’t going to happen much on the tanker I was on.
“V” is good. You might notice that in all of the assessments that are common to the unlimited endorsement, “ship” was changed to “vessel” (except when quoting from STCW).
There wasn’t any on that issue. The “crossover” stuff (i.e. the “Notes” in the assessments and the discussion of removing the limitation, was done sua sponte.
ACTUAL ship handling skills is to berth a single screw ship with reversible engine in a tight spot.
You just pray that the Engineers manage to start it when you need to go astern. It can get some loooong seconds when you hear that first attempt fizzle out.