It was probably Operator of uninspected towing vessels (OUTV). At 300 GRT the Master Competency Act comes in, thus an “operator” was limited to 300 GRT.
I got my 6000 osv license in '98, all I needed at the time was a letter from the company stating why I needed it, walked into REC in New Orleans and walked out with it. Bridge crew were vessel specific, us engineers were not.
On my Vanuatu license, there is no OSV license attached, it has C/E no restrictions with the exception of propulsion mode, my national license has C/E OSV with no tonnage or HP restrictions, the vessel I work on is 4000 ITC, Vanuatu flag working foreign, I am the only gringo on the vessel, They removed the American master and put on a local master.
Isn’t it Officer Competency Act?
Yes it is. I got hung up on “Master” v. “Operator.”
Ahh the “good old days”, may they NEVER come back.
There was a time when they took “mud boats” from the GoM and sent them to the North Sea, with their uncertified “Masters” (Operators??) and hoped to get away with it. Well, it didn’t take long before it was stopped when they kept on capsizing and sinking because they were utterly unsuited for the weather there.
In S.E.Asia, Middle East and West Africa they lasted much longer. At least the boats did, but the unlicensed “Masters” got replaced, mostly by flag change.
Luckily Singapore at least got wise to the facts fairly early, but other places allowed the unlicensed “Masters” to operate boats within their waters for quite some time.
The STCW Convention was supposed to ensure minimum qualifications applied to all seafarers anywhere.
I just wonder; how does this OSV specific licensing and “upgrading without testing” tally with the STCW rules and regulations?
I can see that for strictly domestic operation this is legal under US law, rules and regulations, but looking at Chiefluis posts above, it doesn’t only affect US flag and US waters.
Until October 15, 2010, mariners on towing vessels in the oil and mineral industry did not require a license of any kind.
See STCW Article IX. Also, STCW doesn’t require testing per se. It requires achieving a specified standard of competence. What specific upgrade are you referring to, or are you just making unfounded assumptions about “upgrading without testing?”
He says his Vanuatu license, not STCW. Under STCW, an administration is required to conduct investigation of the standards of the other administration for compliance with STCW before endorsing certificates from that administration. It is not enough to simply rely on the administration being on the so-called white list. Do you have evidence that Vanuatu did not fulfill this obligation? See STCW Regulation I/10, para. 1.1. An administration is not obligated to recognize the certificates of another administration, e.g. the United States does not recognize or “endorse” certificates of other administrations.
1 Like
That was true for operation in US waters and under US flag, but when operating in other waters it is the right and indeed obligation of the territorial authorities to ensure that the Master and Officers are qualify to operate their vessel safely.
As you state, an administration is not obliged to recognize any certificates, or the lack thereof, even if approved by the flag state. To my knowledge only the US does not recognize or endorse ANY other authorities certificates though.
In most countries STCW is the basic MINIMUM required qualifications. Additional training and/or certification may be required for those serving on specific type of vessels, such as LNG Carriers, Tankers, MODUs, Offshore Vessels and large Fishing Vessels etc.
Some such training is also mandated by IMO. (incl. for US flag vessels in domestic trade?)
OSVs, or “offshore vessels” are not included in the special training requirements in Chapter V of the STCW Code. While there may have been discussion to that effect at IMO STW, it was not part of the 2010 amendments. MODUs are also not included in Chapter V.
The U.S. has national requirements for training for personnel on tank vessels that pre-date STCW95, see 46 CFR Part 13. There are also special training requirements for national endorsements for service on MODUs.
Fishing vessels are not subject to STCW, see STCW Article III, para. b.
I repeat; STCW is MINIMUM requirements. Even though Offshore Vessels, MODUs and Fishing Vessels are not covered by any mandatory additional training and/or certification are required by STCW or any other IMO rules individual flag states are allowed to add to these requirements and some do.
Apparently you missed the part about fishing vessels not being required to meet the STCW minimum standards.
No I did NOT miss that. Some countries does have special requirement for training and certification for large fishing vessels. Many of which are far more complex than most ships and OSVs, with lots of equipment and special rules and regulations that does not apply to any other type of vessels. The basis is still STCW II/2 for Masters and Mates.
Likewise, to be OIM on MODUs in Norway requires an Unlimited Master’s license with additional 4 months schooling and training in basic drilling technology and well control. (Not a one week OIM “school” to make a Driller or Crane Operator OIM in charge of a rig with >120 people on board)
How can you definitively say that that’s still “the basis” if it’s not required to be held by anyone onboard?
If countries are free to make up any fishing license scheme they want, or have none at all, you can’t claim STCW is “the basis”…
OK let me clarify. Countries that have special licenses for people serving on LARGE Fishing Vessels require STCW II/2 as basis for Masters and Mates. (III/2 for Engineers)
IOW to be Master on such fishing vessels require the same basic education and training as for someone serving as Master on a VLCC, only with different special training.
Yes countries ARE allowed to make rules and regulations that goes beyond the minimum requirements as agreed to by IMO Conventions. That being for certification of seafarers serving on vessels under their flag, or on Offshore and Fishing Vessels operating in their EEZ, but not for lawful passage. Most countries except other administrations certification, as long as it meets IMO requirements however.
In the US, fishing vessels over 200 GRT (500 GT) up to 5000 GRT (about 9,000 GT) required a licensed Master., Mate, and engineers. To get a fishing vessel Master license, one must have four years of seagoing experience, including a year as Mate. The exam for Master 1600 GRT / STCW II/2 3000 GT is pretty much the same as for Master of fishing vessels. The fishing license actually requires an extra year of seatime.
STCW does not apply to US fishing vessels, but that has little effect on licensing for the officers. Many large fishing vessel officers are maritime academy graduates with unlimited licenses and STCW.
Many fishing vessel officers also hold Master 1600 / 3000 with all the STCW courses. Some fishing vessel officers do not have all the STCW courses, such as GMDSS. So what!
So US is one of the countries that require special licenses for serving on Fishing vessel based on STCW, which is good.
Unfortunately fishery is seen as a low-skilled profession in many parts of the world, but being Master on a large fishing vessel require at least as much knowledge of navigation and stability etc. as to be Master of a large Container ship, or a VLCC.
In addition there are a lot of special skills required to be an efficient Fish Master. Knowledge of myriade specific Laws, rules and regulations pertaining to fisheries in various jurisdictions around the world is also required.
What did he say that makes you think the fishing license is “based on STCW”?
I read “pretty much the same” as “based on”, but maybe you can explain what big differences there are?
As said, to be Master on a large fishing vessel is, if anything, more demanding then on a large merchant ship. Why should the education and training requirements be any less??
I agree with you that fishing is a lot more complex that most people think. Especially, on large fishing vessels with a crew of more than 100 persons. Fishermen deserve a lot more respect than they get.
The US has required licensed officiers for fishing vessels for much longer than STCW has been around. I suspect that it may have started with the Officers Competence Convention and the US Officers Competency Act. I believe that was based on SOLAS and the sinking of the Titantic.
“Similar” or “pretty much the same” or “not much difference” has a different meaning than “based on” or “based upon”.
Similar— means that things are almost the same, or close to being the same, or like each other or almost alike, etc. I’m not quoting a dictionary, I’m giving you the way many Americas would say it, or intend it to be understood.
Based on, or based upon— means that it was developed from, or adapted from, or has it origins in, or came from. Again, that’s not a dictionary definition.
The US has had higher standards than STCW for a long time. I think Norway has too. I don’t see that STCW raises our standards. STCW just formalizes a lot of required training courses, many of which are a waste of time, creates a lot of paper records, most of which are useless, and sets an international minimum standard. Our standard has been higher for a long time, STCW adds little to it.
2 Likes
I do understand the nuances of the English language, even the American verity theroff (mostly). But OK, let that rest.
Yes Norway have had a comprehensive Maritime Education system for many years. For Navigators that used to be three years of schooling, with each year qualifying for different grade of licensing, The final year was to qualify as “Master on vessels of all types, all sizes, in all waters”, given the required seatime.
Coastal and Fishing licenses were different, but most would “go the whole hog” to be able to ambulate between the different types of vessels. (The Master on SS Norway used to take the family’s Purse Seiner out for a trip or two on his time off as his recreation)
When OSVs got into the mix, many were manned by people from the fishing boats who were used to handle their single screw boats with nets hanging over the side in the same North Sea weather. They couldn’t understand all the talk about how difficult it was to handle anchors. Having OSVs like theUT 704s, with twin screws, 7000 Bhp and bow thrusters was heaven for them.
With the introduction of STCW as the minimum standard, the schooling went down to two years. The first year Operational (STCW II/2 3000 GT) and second year Management level. (Unlimited) In addition comes all the special training, depending on the type of vessels they are aiming for.
I’m involved with a Maritime School near here, where they educate people per STCW standard, both for Deck and Engine. Most will go to the Offshore vessels, but many are aiming for the fishing fleet and some even for the ferries and coasters. But they all sit for the same exams which, to my surprise, is very much based on merchant ships, incl. VLCCs and Container ships etc.
Specialized training is given in associated institutions near by, incl. Campus Aalesund of the Norwegian Maritime Competence Centre, where the latest and best of simulators are available.
BTW; It is also where Rolls-Royce and others are developing the future Autonomous ships and other futuristic maritime technology: http://www.nmcc.com/en/
And before anybody gets their knickers in a twist; explaining how things are done in Norway is NOT bragging, or anti-American. It is just information for those who want to know about things foreign. Those who don’t can just close the post.
1 Like