Oicew

True, but it does not say they definitely qualify.

Really? Which ones?

It was first published in the federal resister December 2013 and was published in the CFR in March 2014. AFAIK, it was covered under the same grandfathering as all the other STCW changes from that same rulemaking so it didn’t go into effect immediately.

Here’s an excerpt from the 2012 version of the CFR.
There was no separate section giving requirements for the STCW endorsements, as long as you had the required training and assessments and the corresponding national license you were given the appropriate STCW endorsement.

The most obvious giveaway is me saying it’s from the 2012 CFR


1 Like

I can confirm that the ABET degree route does qualify for OICEW via the national cross over table. I just got OICEW and I did not submit any sea time in the package I sent to the USCG.

That’s scary


All you can confirm is that they gave it to you, not that it was the correct interpretation or that they’ll give it to anyone else.

2 Likes

Are you able to send any contact information regarding consultants who have dealt with this or people who have done the ABET to 3rd AE route? I am currently going through the application now and am having difficulty getting my degree approved for my national 3rd engineer license

Why is it scary? Nothing has changed from how 3rd A/E license has been issued via ABET degree route pre 2016. That national license is still issued the same way. All that has changed is the issuing of the STCW OICEW endorsement.

Gcaptain is full of frekn’ sea-lawyer experts that insert their own bias when reading explicitly clear CFR.

1 Like

Holly Chetta
search her name on these forums. Don’t have her contact info handy.

The problem is the CFR is clear as mud. With that said, if literally doing it doesn’t serve as proof that it is possible, I don’t believe anything will convince these sea lawyers it can be done.

Why is it scary? Allow me to state an opinion- You’re going to tell me that someone with less than one year aboard ship in any capacity has a significant amount of experience- enough to respond in either on watch or on duty call in a sole manner as OICEW? I think not.

NORMALLY- both hawsepipers and Academy trained Officers have to accumulate 36 months of sea time either by direct experience or through an approved program to sit for a National License as 3rd A/E
 36 months of direct marine experience or in an approved program. In my opinion, that 36 months experience or training is invaluable.

By the way- what license do you hold? Do you have an OICEW- have you ever stood watches as a 3rd?

As I stated previously in this thread, the CFR lists 7 pathways to qualify to test for the 3rd A/E license. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. The 7 pathways have existed in the CFR for quite some time
possibly longer than you’ve been at sea. They have stood the test of time.

Most maritime academy grads do not earn an ABET degree. And academy grads do not have 36 months of sea time.

And it’s very rare for 3 A/E (or any engineering officer) to stand watches anymore with unmanned engine rooms.

Which goes back to the main point: The USCG deems it acceptable for one to earn the 3rd A/E license via 7 possible pathways. The 3rd A/E National License is valid on unlimited ships to be an engineering officer on the great lakes and coastal trips. Are you saying this person who is licensed and skilled to do the job on inland, great lakes, and coastal waters is somehow not qualified to do international voyages that require STCW OICEW?

Since at least 1987 when the licensing scheme had a large revision, and possibly earlier.

As you noted, they don’t have to. Graduation from an academy is one of the 7 pathways.

Hence the title of the STCW endorsement, Officer in Charge of an Engineering Watch (OICEW) in a manned engineroom or designated duty engineer in a periodically unmanned engineroom on vessels powered by main propulsion machinery of 750 kW/1,000 HP propulsion power or more (operational level). Note that it’s not the same as the national endorsement (license) Designated Duty Engineer. That national endorsement would be equivalent to chief engineer in STCW.

One could also argue the converse. However, in terms of the documents they hold, no, they are not. See 46 CFR 15.1103(a).

The question is NOT about the National License, I am fine with the National License regs- in 11.516(a) it is about obtaining the OICEW endorsement with as little as three months sea service.

I have a problem with Table 1 to 11.329(e). This in my opinion is a conflicting rule- in direct conflict with the sea service requirements of 11.329(a)(i and ii) and 11.515(a).

To display my point- an individual can obtain the ATT to sit for 3rd A/E with SIX MONTHS sea service as written in 11.516(a)(5) then upon receipt of the National 3rd License- immediately apply for the OICEW endorsement under the “loophole” contained in Table 1 of 11.329(e) which completely obliterates any meaningful amount of sea service.

You still haven’t answered the question- what license do you hold? Do you have an OICEW- have you ever stood watches as a 3rd?

Rare to Stand Watches anymore with unmanned Engine Rooms? I beg to differ. First off, most if not all of the newly commissioned unmanned control and automations systems need to go a minimum of 1 year of service while generally manned on watched prior to receiving the UMS certification from the USCG.

Further ANY breakdown in these systems REQUIRE going on watches and notifying the OCMI upon arrival first US Port. This has happened aboard my last Perm C/E job in the liner trade more than once (generally comm errors with the other CPU’s- and also a bad feedwater leak in drain cooler) .

Most US vessels on International Voyage- are Motor Vessels having Large Bore Direct Reversing Two Stroke Engines- how many two stroke engines are operating on inland and coastal waters. Most NC, INL Marine Engineers have never seen never mind operate a Large Two Stroke Sulzer or B&W


I didn’t say that. Johnny said it. But since you brought it up, look at the title again, and note “PERIODICALLY unmanned
”

1 Like

For clarification, I meant the skillset and competency qualifications, not the on paper qualifications as given by the documents held. Specifically, if somebody has the knowledge, know-how, experience, and brainpower to be a USCG licensed unlimited 3rd A/E (national license), why wouldn’t they have the know-how to also be an OICEW (STCW endorsement)–since in practical terms, both are one-in-the-same in terms of skill and responsiblity.

So, what is the difference in working as a 3rd A/E unlimited on the Great Lakes vs working as a 3rd A/E crossing the big blue?

What licenses and ratings I have is irrelevant. The words are written in the CFR.

Dude, can you be more pedantic? Nobody cares about the 1% of a ship’s life when it is new or reflagged. And if you want to get into the weeds with semantics of me not saying “periodically unmanned” vs unmanned, go debate with somebody that cares.

Who cares? What is so special about a slow speed 2stroke engine? A valve is a valve, a pump is a pump, and an engine is an engine.

We could say a steam plant is a much more complex process to master and be able to fully comprehend, but a modern slow speed diesel is still just a damn engine that starts and stops itself when the mates push the lever.

Oh the horror! Somebody coming from smaller medium/high speed needs to learn what spring air is (and get used to no valve springs), make sure to keep the cylinder oil topped off, not worry about checking the reduction gear oil level, and maybe use a crane and chain falls more often for regular maintenance, but it still is just an engine and has plenty of pictures and step-by-step instructions in the manual.

If a new 3rd A/E right out of school can learn to line/secure up the main engine after two maneuvers, I think somebody that’s seen a smaller diesel engine can do it.

Actually quite a few, though they are of the medium and higher speed variety. I have run across a bunch of EMD’s and Detroit’s in marine applications.

There are also slow speed diesels running on land too. Guam had 4 running (~40MW each), currently 2 right now. They blew two of them up. Other island and small countries also utilize big slow speed
it’s not super common, but they do exist.