It could depend on the company. The relief engineers I am familiar with are part time that fill in when there is an engineer shortage. In other words, not steady work.
[QUOTE=chgonyer;60378]Its a damn shame that some navy and coastie time doesnt count straight across. My own experiance, i got out of nav after 8 years as an os2, all time at sea, qualified as officer of the deck underway on a cruiser, years of sea time and most of that time and quals didnt count for squat. Damn shame[/QUOTE]
I believe that the purpose of using 60% of the time (which I believe Mr. Cavo has pointed out is actually mathematically more than 60%) is an attempt to keep the playing field even. Mariners only get sea credit for days actually at sea. But the Statement of Credible Sea Service provided by the Navy and Coast Guard provides days assigned to a vessel. Since those vessels are not usually underway 365 a year some system was needed to make things equitable. There is a procedure to get more than 60% credit if you can prove your vessel was underway more than 60% of the time you were assigned.
Your absolutely correct. I also served 8yrs, at the end of the day didnt count for much sea time at all. It is a shame. I really wish they would look into that issue.
Still flawed if you ask me, and keep it an even playing field for who??
Screw the playing field, time serving your country should count triple
They could start by looking at the rates included in their sea time matrix. Radarman?! Come on! Really? We didnât have Radarmen when I went in the Navâ in 80âŚ
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;60332]You paint a rosey picture for any former QM3s. I seriously doubt a QM3 will get permission to test for 3rd mate, (or any mate). The jobs do translate but not âperfectlyâ, especially not WRT the USCG test wording and question subject areas. A QM3 is a RFPNW but almost never a OICNW. There is a forum member here name of âShellbackâ, a former QM2 that was required to start from scratch, i.e. as an OS. PM him for his story.
If it were me Iâd choose Mortician, itâs got to be a lot less hassle to get and stay certified.[/QUOTE]
My father got approved in 1994. *
I didnât think that it was all that rosey of a picture really⌠I was only giving him credit for sea time and RFPNW, and pointing out that a QM3 shouldnât really struggle with plotting. *I said he would still need the classes, and OICNW assessments, and testing. *QMâs are often JOODâs and sometime OODâs and craftsmasters, so depending on what he did during his time he may be able saddle up pretty quick.
Maybe if me and Shellback were friends during his ordeal I could have helped him out.
Well QM3 should surely have no difficulties plotting. As an Et4 my plotting had to be up to par even though I wouldnt have to deal with plotting as much as a QM.
Meant ET3, cant type on these phones.