[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][LEFT]Subject: Pol1 Later 01-02 Mate and STCw
Date: Wednesday, March I’1’ 2004 7:29:34 AM
sender: wells, Richard <FJEWeIls€msoneworleansrec.uscg.nril>
To: craig Plaisance <Craig.PlaisanceQmail.chouest’cofiP
Cc: C,onnan, Lloyd CWO <Lcormanemsoneworleansrec.usca.mil> , Cruise, Carol CWO <
ccruisegmsonevrorreansrec.uscg.nr-il> , Theodore, Nadine <NTheod.ore0msoneworleansrec.usca.nr-il> , Kuscsik,
Kenneth <ic<us c s ik 0 msonewor le ans rec . usc a . nr-il>[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][LEFT]Your reoding is correct, he con oppl-y for -Third
Mote w/o doing the 17
troining coirses, if he holds o 760? GRT.li’cense ond STCW olreody.
Richord E. Wetls
Asst. Chief Regionol Exominotion Center
(504) 240-730@ x23?
Fox (504) 240-7292
> To: Wells, Richard
> Richard, No, the wording is correct. Anyone holding a 1,600 GRT license
> ond on STCW-9S certificale is already accepted as having net the standards
> 7,600 license is for mate or master. Cheers, Stu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 76, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: Walker, Stewart A.; Stewart, Janes LCDR[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][LEFT]J- .^L [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]> Stu - If this has alreody been asked./answered, our apologies but we do not
> Have a Master J-600 who want.to sit for Third Mate. Looking at encl one
> assessrnents and Lxam (you get out of the 17 training courses) Does this
> nean what it says, or was the word Mate left out when’printed?
> Asst. Chief Regionat Examination Center[/LEFT]
> (504) 240-7300 x232
What this looks like is a confirmation that you don’t have to spend upwards of $20.000.00 to go from 1600 ton Master to 3rd Mate. I was sent a letter in response to my application to sit for 3rd Mate Unlim. from my evaluator in which she states that I will need a multitude of Certificates from a Coast Guard approved school to sit even though I am already STCW compliant as 1600/3000 Ton Ocean Master. All the instructors and retired CG friends have told me that she is full of shit and doesn’t know what she is talking about. I just sent her the above and am waiting for an answer. I’m sure she will have to go upstairs for a response. This is an example of the incompetancy of the new contract evaluators. They must just hire them off the street because since last December till last month several students of L.E. Fletcher have had no problem getting a positive eval. to test though the school does not hand out Certificates as listed by this young lady evaluator. Why do different evaluators read the same policy letters differently? When is it going to stop?
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[QUOTE=stevefoster;17398][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][LEFT]Subject: Pol1 Later 01-02 Mate and STCw
Date: Wednesday, March I’1’ 2004 7:29:34 AM
sender: wells, Richard <FJEWeIls€msoneworleansrec.uscg.nril>
To: craig Plaisance <Craig.PlaisanceQmail.chouest’cofiP
Cc: C,onnan, Lloyd CWO <Lcormanemsoneworleansrec.usca.mil> , Cruise, Carol CWO <
ccruisegmsonevrorreansrec.uscg.nr-il> , Theodore, Nadine <NTheod.ore0msoneworleansrec.usca.nr-il> , Kuscsik,
Kenneth <ic<us c s ik 0 msonewor le ans rec . usc a . nr-il>[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][LEFT]Your reoding is correct, he con oppl-y for -Third
Mote w/o doing the 17
troining coirses, if he holds o 760? GRT.li’cense ond STCW olreody.
Richord E. Wetls
Asst. Chief Regionol Exominotion Center
(504) 240-730@ x23?
Fox (504) 240-7292
> To: Wells, Richard
> Richard, No, the wording is correct. Anyone holding a 1,600 GRT license
> ond on STCW-9S certificale is already accepted as having net the standards
> 7,600 license is for mate or master. Cheers, Stu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 76, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: Walker, Stewart A.; Stewart, Janes LCDR[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][LEFT]J- .^L [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]> Stu - If this has alreody been asked./answered, our apologies but we do not
> Have a Master J-600 who want.to sit for Third Mate. Looking at encl one
> assessrnents and Lxam (you get out of the 17 training courses) Does this
> nean what it says, or was the word Mate left out when’printed?
> Asst. Chief Regionat Examination Center[/LEFT]
> (504) 240-7300 x232
What this looks like is a confirmation that you don’t have to spend upwards of $20.000.00 to go from 1600 ton Master to 3rd Mate. I was sent a letter in response to my application to sit for 3rd Mate Unlim. from my evaluator in which she states that I will need a multitude of Certificates from a Coast Guard approved school to sit even though I am already STCW compliant as 1600/3000 Ton Ocean Master. All the instructors and retired CG friends have told me that she is full of shit and doesn’t know what she is talking about. I just sent her the above and am waiting for an answer. I’m sure she will have to go upstairs for a response. This is an example of the incompetancy of the new contract evaluators. They must just hire them off the street because since last December till last month several students of L.E. Fletcher have had no problem getting a positive eval. to test though the school does not hand out Certificates as listed by this young lady evaluator. Why do different evaluators read the same policy letters differently? When is it going to stop?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
You [B]do not[/B] need all of the OICNW courses when upgrading from 1600 ton Master to 3rd Mate provided that you have STCW. Ref. Policy Letter 01-02 (11)c. You are another person that this has happened to lately.
What you have to have is sea-time, and the OICNW
assessments.
Old emails from Stu Walker or Perry doesn’t carry any weight (I have several myself), but their own policy does.
I did not take all of the courses, and many, many mariners since policy letter 01-02 was drafted did not take the courses either. It’s simply not required.
I am pleased to say that this policy letter just worked in my favor. I just finished sitting for and passing the exams for 1600 Master. Since I knew of this policy letter my application was sent in for 1600 Master, Large OSV and 3rd Mate. After 8 months I finally received an approval to test letter. I tested and passed all exams last week. I contacted my evaluator to ask a question about issuance. While talking to her she stated I would have to take all the STCW classes. I pulled up the policy letter and quoted it to her verbatim at which point she said “Oh yeah, I heard something about that. I will have to call you back.” After about 10 minutes she called back and said I was good to go and that the 3rd mate would be included with my upgrade. My question now is what will be required to advance to second! Good luck to all in taking advantage of this policy.
If you’re on a large OSV, that is good. You will need 240 days (1.5 for 12hr days). No test, No assessments, just flashing light and a complete upgrade application.
Then if you choose to go to Chief Mate, you’re looking at $20,000 worth of classes, assessments, and then test. You will have a problem upgrading to Master on an OSV because you cannot get actual Chief Mate time. You can get 1/2 of your seatime on a 2 for 1 basis “while holding”, but you will need to get on a true unlimited vessel that has a three watch system and sail as Chief Mate to get the other 1/2.
That’s good to know and thanks for the info. Would all of the 240 days need to be on a Large OSV? I sailed on one only long enough to get the endorsment. I want to take this as far as I can. I feel the same as you stated in a previous thread in that it appears as though the industry is marching in the direction of “large boats needing small boat skills”. I start to get confused when trying to research my career path wondering does this apply to me or does that. From what I’ve read on this board so far I am not the only one feeling this way!
I seem to be in the same boat,I hold 500 master oceans (Tested since 2002) and was told by the evaluator that I must have all OICNW classes to be allowed to test for third mate.
She has also refused to recognize ITC tonnage seatime on Vessels worked on international Voyages,which is in direct contradiction to policy letter 15-02 paragraph 5c.
My application was submitted March 19,2009,received her decision July 6th,2009
I appealed this decision July 8th 2009,and still have received no decision.
Any other Ideas about how to get this resolved would be greatly appreciated.Thanks…
Seems to be alot of people in the same boat? I wanted to know are we discussing 3rd mate with limitation on tonage or unlimited. I did not know there was away around the stcw classes totaling thousands. Iam lacking the over 1600 ton seatime req. so would be issued a limited 3rd mates license which wont help much.
I was asked this question by a co-worker who is working on a US flagged vessel with a chief mate unlimited (UK license). Can the foreign CM sign off on the assessments for OICNW? I did find 46 CFR 10.304(g)(7):
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=1][LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]“The identity of each designated examiner, when any assessment of competence is recorded, including any Coast Guard license or document held, and the examiner’s signature confirming that his or her initials certify
that he or she has witnessed the practical demonstration of a particular task or skill by the candidate.”
The CM is STCW qualified, but not USCG. Guess I am being lazy in not spending some time to thoroughly research this question for him.
Any input to relay to him will be much appreciated.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]