[QUOTE=z-drive;142175]No, the big difference is the number of days as “supervisory” as well as sea time tonnage.[/QUOTE]
The recent regulation changes that implemented the 2010 STCW also made some chnages to national endorsements, among them was deleting the word “supervisory” it now reads “equivalent experience.”
[QUOTE=Number360;142325]…the 1600 master is going to change with the new rules. I forget which way it goes but one or the other will be no more. It will either be 500/3000 or 1600/3000 master if you hold the one that is being eliminated you will receive the other one automatically upon renewal.[/QUOTE]
[U][/U][B][/B]This is not correct.
About 4 years ago we proposed grandfathering all holders of 500 GRT licenses to 1600 GRT and not issuing any new licenses for 500 GRT, the service requirements for 1600 GRT licenses would have been changed (lowered) to what was then required for 500 GRT. That proposal was the subject of many comments opposing it and it was abandoned. That was NOT in the last version of the proposed rules, and it is definitely not in the new rule. The only changes in the new rule to the service requirements for 500 GRT and 1600 GRT endorsements was the deletion of “equivalent” I mentioned above, and to allow Great Lakes service to count for all of the required service (it had been 25%)
[QUOTE=Number360;142325]No, but a 1600 mate qualifies as a 100 ton master. [/QUOTE]
They don’t “qualify” as Master for less than 100 GRT, but a Mate for over 200 GRT can serve as Master of a vessel less than 100 GRT. Subtle but substantive dfference.
[QUOTE=Flyer69;142327]Please quote the CFR that validates this statement?[/QUOTE]
46 CFR 15.901 applies to the first statemnt about the “equivalent” of a Mate for over 200 GRT serving as Master on a vessel less than 100 GRT… The second can’t be validated because it is wrong.
[QUOTE=Fla-cracker;142358] My 500GRT master was issued in 1998. For me to get a 1600GRT now I have to completely retest… [/QUOTE]
This may not be correct. There were no chnages to 46 CFR 11.910 from 1998 until the recent change (the new rule adds a lot of new stuff to the Master 500/1600 exams), and there was no consolidating the exams similar to what was done in 2002 with Mate 500, Mate 1600 and 3rd Mate. You might consider asking the NMC for a “reconsideration” of this determination, and if they still stand by the original decision, appealing NMC’s decision to CG HQ. However, appeals may take up to 6 months to resolve., so this may not be an attractive option if you cannot wait that long.
On the recent changes to the Master 500/1600 exams in the new (March 2014) rules, anyone who has service towards the new license that started before March 24, 2014, is grandfathered, and until March 24, 2019, can take the old exams. Anyone who took Master 500 before this chnage to the exams will not have to take an exxam again when going to Master 1600, even if that happens after March 24, 2019.
[QUOTE=Flyer69;142360]…You may want to retain a license consultant to help with the testing part. I am in the same situation as you, I have a 500 GRT Master that I am currently in the process of upgrading to 1600 GRT Master based on seatime alone, my consultant told me I will not have to retest. [/QUOTE]
You may not need a consultant. You do not need a consultant to ask for a reconsideration of the NMC decision, and if they stand by the original decision, you can appeal to CG HQ.
So when should we expect JD Cavo License Consulting to open up? You really do a service to the Mariners of the US with all the help you give on here.
A little over a year ago I applied for 1600 GRT Master upgrade based on sea time alone. Thru the entire process I was told that my upgrade was a sure thing, from the REC to the kind folks at NMC, until it got to the evaluator, who cleared me to retest only. The evaluator told me that because I tested in 1998 and the test had changed, that completely retesting was my only option. Can your consultant find a way thru this to get someone in this situation the 1600 GRT without having to retest?
Hell if I know.
Hire a consultant and see. Or study and test.