Mr.Cavo's article in the CG fall '08 Proceedings


#1

I have read the article titled “Coast Guard Approved Training Courses”; what caught my eye was the section concerning foreign school that have course that CAN be taken to satisfy USCG STCW requirements. Case in point, there is a school in the Philippines named IDESS, (www.idess.com), that uses the QSS of DNV and teaches BST. If I have read the article correctly USA Mariners can take this course to satisfy the requirements to get an STCW Cert. from the USCG?? Maybe other courses are "creditable as well?
Mr. Cavo, please verify.


#2

Junn wants me to go visit him in PI. I’m just afraid that I’ll never make it back after hearing the stories. Hopefully, that school works out…that might be the only negative.


#3

We will [B]NOT[/B] accept this school’s courses. And at present, we won’t accept any others outside the U.S.

The QSS has to accept the course [U]acting under their authority granted by the USCG[/U]. When DNV and other QSSs exercise this authority, they report the acceptance to the Coast Guard, and only those courses are acceptable. The only such courses that are currently acceptable are VSO courses, a bunch from DNV and a few from ABS.

This isn’t entirely semantics. DNV has a lot of different certification/classification programs, among them a program to certify a maritime training facility. This level of certification only indicates they have the resources and capacity to provide training. In your example, you say the [U][I]school[/I][/U] is certified, not any specific course at the school. Note also that this school’s web page lists DNV as a “classification”, the list of countries that will accept or have approved their courses is the next list under "Accreditations."The Coast Guard or QSSs actiong on our behalf do not approve, classify or certify [U]schools[/U], we approve courses at the school. What’s the difference? It means we won’t take anything or everything the school does, only the specific courses we evaluated and determined meet our standards.

The “acceptance” under the USCG authority is more than just looking at the facility. It’s an on-going program of auditing and monitoring the training after it’s given.

How can you tell? Apart from whether the certification is to the school or one or more of its courses, if the USCG will take the course, it’s listed on our lists of “approved” courses. While not technically approved, the distinction doesn’t make a big difference to you, you need to know if you take it we’ll accept it. So if it’s not on the lists on our web page, we won’t accept it.


#4

That’s for that clarification, I thought it might need some interpetation.

What I find odd is that the STCW provides for an internationally agreed upon Certificate and most of the seaman/mariners sailing the world can go that school in PI and it’s ok, if they sail to the USA and our port authorities check their STCW certificates alls well, the crew has their STCW certs and they went to BST, etc etc. But a USA seaman can’t use that school to get the same internationally agreed upon STCW Certificate.

Isn’t the USA being a little arrogant here? I can see restricting which schools one can attend for our licenses, but for the STCW Cert I don’t get it. If we all had our druthers, I suspect the USCG and the USA Seaman would like to see the whole thing evaporate, (I would!!:))

Thanks again for the answer, I enjoyed the magazine. Jeff


#5

Anchorman, come to PI but don’t go where Junn lives come to my “Neck of the Jungle”, Subic-Angeles City. If you do look me up, pensyonado@hotmail.com, (kumusta sa Junn). Looks like no schools in PI are ok, but they do have several DP schools in Manila, those should be ok as there’s no USCG involvement, if anyone is interested.


#6

Maybe. And some might say the same about the Jones Act…

I think the article I did in the [Summer 2005 Proceedings](http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/contentView.do?channelId=-18262&contentId=27696&programId=12870&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=11328&contentType=EDITORIAL&BV_SessionID=@@@@1743839193.1235243642@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdadeghlkfdjecfjgcfgfdffhdghl.0) was better.  The more recent one was tough to write without saying the same things over again.  (I had nothing to do with "Evolutionizing"...)