New US Open Registry?

Maybe the US should allow reciprocity for other foreign mariners to obtain same equivalent from their home country. Then if they did that, it would be understood that training for that mariners license would have same value as training for a US mariner. US mariners should stop thinking they are trained or more experienced than foreign seafarers, and the USCG should agree with that as well.

6 Likes

Then go get a foreign license. Reciprocity my butt. I have dealt with a large amount of professionals outside the US (in Belgium, Germany, UK and other Northern European Ports) who think that the “substitute” or replacement crews that displaced the Swedes and Norwegians over the past 4 years are the worst sea going officers that these shoreside support professionals have ever had the displeasure of working with. This came from a majority of the people I talked about this with. Not US foreign flag bashing as you usually allude to- Europeans who hold that opinion.

They botch everything from bunkering to emergency ops and repairs- 16 hours to take 2000 MT of bunkers? Can’t properly sound vessel tanks, can’t make sure that bunkers go in the proper tanks? Can’t get underway because the EDG won’t start because of a slipped limit switch? Come On… Go sail with them…

Feel free to participate:
https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=74270&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=74270

There is a meeting (open to public) planned for Feb. 22 and 23. I can provide more details when they become available.

As far as accepting foreign courses, there is also an issue with how those courses will mesh with the U.S. requirements. Each party has discretion to set its own specific requirements for how the STCW requirements will be met. There is not a standard set of training requirements, e.g. the U.S. may require a course in “Basic Ship Construction and Stability” for an OICNW endorsement, but other countries may not, and choose to meet the relevant STCW requirements in a different manner. Note also that there is currently a delay in getting courses approved, adding foreign courses will exacerbate that backlog.

1 Like

Spoken like a true ignorant mariner. “They” as in everyone non American? Discrimination at its core.

1 Like

I think a lot of the foreign training is better.

For example: observing Americans and Canadians in the deck crew during drills, I cannot help but conclude that the Canadian STCW M.E.D. (Marine Emergency Duties), their version of our BT, courses are a lot better than our STCW BT courses.

For another example: the American First Aid course is 4 hours. The Canadian Marine First Aid course is 16 hours with hands on practice. The American 3-1/2 day Med Care Provider Course is quite basic, but the Canadian Advanced Marine First Aid course is 5 days and covers a lot more.

US GMDSS certificates are not accepted by some other countries (I e., UK), but Panama and most other countries are.

Most of us have taken enough of these US STCW courses conducted by these halfass, take the money and run, everybody passes, American for profit schools, to know that many of them are not very worthwhile. And that’s putting it mildly.

I think that American mariners, and our industry, would find foreign STCW courses to be quite eye opening, and of benefit.

4 Likes

I’m neither agreeing, or disagreeing. But consider that there is often a contrary argument, often a louder and more voluminous constituency than those advocating for more and longer training, for example, here. Requiring costly compliance has not been a popular position for the Federal government since about January 20, 1981.

Consider also longer courses are more expensive, and many mariners look first at the cost of training and may shop for the cheapest. For example, this guy.

4 Likes

@PDCMATE The more I have been exposed to the international industry the more I find the US maritime industry to be highly insulated from and uneducated on how the rest of the world works. The idea that the US is better educated, better trained, and more competent does not match with what I have seen.

3 Likes

It wouldn’t bother me too much to pay more for a quality course that’s worth the money, but if its going to be a bullshit time and money wasting course, why pay more than necessary for it?

The idea of paying Northeast Maritime over $400 for a bullshit “1 day” ONLINE Advance Firefighting course is nauseating.

I took the combined Basic and Advanced 5 day course three times over the years before the Refresher and Revalidation courses became available.

1 Like

The USCG approved 1 day First Aid course costs $129 at MPT.

The Canadian two day Marine Basic First Aid course is $145 at St Johns Ambulance.

First Aid is an important and useful skill. It’s worth taking a good course.

We have deviated again from the original topic, like always. Back to the US Open Registry. A source told me high up MARAD people and a previous MARAD Admin contacted the ex CEO of one of the largest ship registries asking about this, not understanding if it’s real or not.

Advanced Firefighting is more about the management of a fire than it is the actual donning and using of gear. The 1 day revalidation I just took had zero field time, but they had a fire simulator that they used for the on-scene leader to use to call the shots.

The fire field course is covered in the Basic Safety…which for some reason was the day after Advanced??

Not more about, that is the purpose of the course. It’s not bigger and more involved fires, it’s how to manage and coordinate shipboard firefighting. See STCW Code Section A-VI/3 and 46 CFR 11.303.

2 Likes

He was very explicit that Americans were no where in the picture of his comment.

I have been saying for years that the US should have an open registry alongside it’s closed registry. Personally, I think the key to success is in simplicity and efficiency combined with the weight of a US flag on the stern.

If you recreate the same CFRs, administered by the same bureaucracy then you have doomed it to fail. If your implementing regulations are to follow SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, etc you have a chance. Invest heavily in RO oversight and build a smarter not harder system of management.

@PDCMATE Unfortunately the articles are written using definitive language like “will” as if it’s a done deal. 46 USC defines the USVI as a “state” and as part of the “united states”. Until they amend 46 USC the USVI cannot operate any kind of registry for international trade any more than the state of Virginia, Delaware, or California can. To me this is just a sales pitch by Northeast Maritime and the Dominica guy but I give them credit for having the conversation.

2 Likes

What I want to know is why John signed onto being one of the crew members trying to deliver this dumptruck load?

Yep I know it well as it applies to Pleasurecraft as well when you want SG flag
Creates local company offices so good for Singapore but atm they are making it hard to get visa’s so many companies reviewing having presence in Singapore or shrinking down to the minimum.

I haven’t signed anything.

I haven’t given them anything except my opinions.

And I have given my opinions because, unlike marad or any major player in the US flag establishment, they picked up their phone and asked.

5 Likes

You allowed this bunch to use your name which to me is the same as signing onto this pile. I will put you on the hot seat here…do you endorse this heap and if so, how do you believe it would do anything to benefit the US merchant mariner?

I do not endorse it as is.

I beleive it could benefit the US Merchant Mariner but provisions have to be made to do so.

Right now it’s just a white paper. The devil is in the details and, hopefully, we will learn more about those details tomorrow.

1 Like