A bit more information on the RYA crossover to the 200-ton license: you have to already hold a 100-ton near-coastal license.
So in summary - you got to take a RYA course (which the school’s course had to be pre-approved by the Coast Guard) and pass the RYA test and, if you already had the 100-ton near coastal license, the Coast Guard would accept it as a cross-over to 200-tons.
Also, you had pass what was a ten-hour on the water exam with an RYA examiner.
[quote=PMC;19503]A bit more information on the RYA crossover to the 200-ton license: you have to already hold a 100-ton near-coastal license.
[/quote]
That means the 24 months sea time needed for a 200 ton near coastal is twice that required to get an MCA 500 ton yacht master. But in fairness to the MCA, it does require 36 months “service” on a boat over 50 feet before they will bless someone as a 500 ton captain. Of course their definition of service does not mean it has to include any time actually away from the dock.
And the IMO allows them to endorse these things as STCW certificates valid for carrying passengers on international voyages? How does the USCG allow these guys in US waters?
If you want to know what this kind of experience brings to the chart table, have a read of this:
http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/2008/lady_candida.cfm
[I][quote=Mr 100-ton;19478]Mr Cavo., i thought with the STCW in place, for example a 500 ton masters U.S license can cross over to a red flag license with the same license size without further testing, also a red flag 500 ton should be able to cross over to a U.S. license with the same tonnage[/quote][/I]
In STCW terminology, this is an “endorsement” – a country can issue one of their certificates because you hold one from another country on the “white list” of countries in compliance with STCW.
Countries [I][U]may[/U][/I] issue these endorsements, but do not have to. The United States does not, but others do. You may be able to get another country’s certificate because you have one from the U.S. But it does not work in reverse, another country’s will not get you an endorsement from the U.S.
The above notwithstanding, time spent serving on foreign flag vessels with a foreign license can be used for a U.S. license, but the time is counted on its own towards the U.S. requirements. You can’t get a U.S. credential simply because tyou have an equivalent from another country.
By the way, the endorsement process way many countries made the white list is by simply adopting a policy of not issuing their own original certificates, they only endorse those of countries on the white list. The same applies to training approved by other countries. A country [I][U]may[/U][/I] accept training approved by another country, but doesn’t have to. The U.S. only accepts training approved by the USCG, or by a “Qulaity Standards System” organization approved by the USCG to accept training on behalf of the USCG.
If you’ve wondered how _______ can be on the white list, or thought STCW can’t be too serious if _______ made the white list, this may be how.
[I][quote=Steamer;19499]…The USCG might accept the coursework for one of the RYA or IYT licenses as meeting that required for a USCG near coastal or inland license to 200 tons…[/quote][/I]
This may be the case. Several schools offering yachtmaster courses also hold USCG approval for a course to substitute for the license exam for licenses up to Master Not More Than 200 GRT. [U]None of these courses are approved to substitue for or reduce sea time requirements.[/U] I remain skeptical about the claim of a “crossover” with only 55 days of service, even if the mariner already holds a (U.S.) Master 100 GRT license.
[quote=jdcavo;19515]
I remain skeptical about the claim of a “crossover” with only 55 days of service, even if the mariner already holds a (U.S.) Master 100 GRT license.[/quote]
As you should well be skeptical!
It is inconceivable that the USCG would accept training by one of the storefront yacht license mills as meeting any seatime requirement … especially for these one week license prep exercises for a license which doesn’t really require any seatime anyway.
One of the yacht training schools at least is honest about how their training may be applied to candidates seeking USCG certification: http://www.yachtmaster.com/FAQs/tabid/363/Default.aspx Unfortunately this clear explanation is the exception and the naivete of the typical candidate for an MCA yacht license often leads to a great deal of misinformation and outright false assumptions among those looking for work on yachts.
My skepticism is well-founded. Generally, the NMC aproves courses for a portion of a sea time requirement, or an exam, or to meet a regulatory requirement (e.g. basic safety training). It is very rare to approve training for more than one of these, and when we do, it is because the training goes far beyond the minimum requirements. Those that do get approved for more than one are rare and are notable, I remember them and I don’t remember giving one an approval like has been described.
Take a look at the list of approved courses for OUPV, Master 100, and Master 200. It won’t be hard to figure out what is the minimum course length that we’ll approve, most of the courses have that much and no more. What we set as minimums very soon turns into a de facto maximum.
Also, such an approval would violate the CFR and U.S. Code. We can approve traiing for a maximum of two-thirds of the service required for a license. 55 days is substantially less than the one-third of service that cannot be from training.
Yes, it certainly is. The following is a cut and paste of the MCA’s version of a 200 ton master from a catalog of courses applicable to yacht certification.
========================
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=“100%”><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#999999 height=30 width=“100%” align=left>Yachtmaster Offshore: Certificate Of Competency
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=15 width=“100%”></TD></TR><TR><TD width=“100%” align=left>
MCA Recognized and Accredited by the RYA
Just to reiterate, those 50 days of sea time don’t have to be “at sea”, they can be spent in a shipyard or marina. All it takes is being “signed on” and wearing a yacht T-shirt. Even the days that are at sea don’t have to be in any operational capacity, it can be as a 5th assisitant barman or a masseuse.
This certainly begs the questions of how the USCG can allow the holders of one of these certificates to carry passengers in US waters, and how can the IMO endorse these things as valid for international service?
The MCA licensing scheme is an affront to anyone who has worked to obtain a legitimate maritime certificate. Considering how Norway coughed up a hairball recently and claimed our cadet training schemes are inadequate, there has been an overwhelming silence regarding these cereal box certificates.
Color me skeptical too, maybe overly so but considerinng the incredible barriers put between an American mariner and his occupational license in the name of nautical safety, the fact that the IMO endorses these phony certificates and the USCG only performs port state duties on foreign flag yachts when the locals want to have a gawk at a pretty white boat means my skepticism is very well founded.
I was more scared of the 16 year old kid with the Ferrari on Las Olas Blvd
Just to be the devil’s advocate:
If I work on a passenger ferry where my job is to handle a mooring line that goes to the same two cleats every day for two years, am I qualified to be the captain because I passed a multiple choice test?
[quote=PMC;19548]Just to be the devil’s advocate:
If I work on a passenger ferry where my job is to handle a mooring line that goes to the same two cleats every day for two years, am I qualified to be the captain because I passed a multiple choice test?[/quote]
No. Never did. Even going to 50 different ports doesn’t either.
Now this is getting interesting.
If I was to tweek the 100-ton requirements, I would include more work on tides and currents. I would also put a boat-handling class requirement similar to what the RYA has. Realistically, the boat-handling would have to be contracted out to a third-party. I couldn’t see the Coast Guard getting involved in that aspect.
Most of my classes for the OICNW courses were very good. I took a lifeboatman class that was worthless. I took a cargo handling class that I could have done at home, and I took an advanced fire-fighting course from some firemen that had no idea about anything involved with being on the water.
I did a lot of sailing on “sail training” tall ships with kids. Sometimes we would be 100+ miles offshore. Maybe bridge resource management wouldn’t be a bad thing for the captain to have if he/she had someone’s kids 100 miles offshore! Or even 10 miles - especially if you are on a one-week cruise.
And those satellite phones in lieu of a SSB - do they really work? Hmmm… Well, there’s no GMDSS requirement anyways. After all its only a 100 miles offshore.
[QUOTE=PMC;19601] …Well, there’s no GMDSS requirement anyways. After all its only a 100 miles offshore…[/QUOTE]
GMDSS is required 10 miles offshore provided you’re on vessel that requires it. Being within 100 miles has nothing to do with some sort of exemption based on milage as implied. You should have learned that during classes if you took any one of three OICNW courses. It’s should have been reiterated in several of the required classes.
Eventually there may be areas where lesser requirements apply. These areas have yet to be designated (“Sea Area A-1”). When they are, a restricted GMDSS endorsement may suffice. There are currently a few approved courses for this restricted endorsement, but still no where to use it.
“provided you are on a vessel that requires it”. I’m talking about sail training vessels and ten year old crewmembers. Hmmm… they could be six year old crew. No GMDSS required.
Sail Training Vessels - they are not passenger vessels. Yes, of course it is splitting hairs. You can send your ten-year old to sea on a sail training ship because he is “member of the crew”.
As long as the boat is under 300 tons - no GMDSS - no problem as long as your voyage is not international!
What is the minimum age to send a kid aloft? There isn’t any.
What are the minimum physical requirement for a kid to go aloft? There aren’t any.
A point of clarification about “sail training vessels” - they are not passenger ships. They are a separate class of vessel. A sail training vessel, while operating as a sail training vessel cannot carry a single “passenger”.
The issue was basically a matter of economics when the idea of sail training vessels was created. How do you get enough bunks on a boat to take kids sailing? Answer: you count them as crew. What requirements are there for these kids - I mean crew? Answer: none.
So its a catch-22. These kids are not considered passengers and all of the regulations for passenger vessels to not apply. There are CFRs specifically for sail training vessels. But requirements like GMDSS for passenger vessels - nope!
[quote=PMC;19616] [I]“What are the minimum physical requirement for a kid to go aloft?”[/I] [quote]
There are defacto standards.
If the kid falls off the top he didn’t meet the standard.
[quote=Steamer;19624][quote=PMC;19616] “What are the minimum physical requirement for a kid to go aloft?”
There are defacto standards.
If the kid falls off the top he didn’t meet the standard.
With good management skills and proper supervision you can fire them before they hit the deck.:eek: