OSV definition?

What do the letters OSV stand for?

A) Offshore Support Vessel (Encompassing all offshore vessels such as platform supply, anchor handlers, construction vessels etc…)

B) Offshore Supply Vessel (Meaning just supply vessels, called a PSV Platform supply vessel in many parts of the world)

C) Both (Slightly confusingly they are used for both of the above)

46 CFR 2.10.25 states

Offshore supply vessel or OSV means a vessel that (1) Is propelled by machinery other than steam; (2) Does not meet the definition of a passenger-carrying vessel in 46 U.S.C. 2101(22) or 46 U.S.C. 2101(35); (3) Is more than 15 but less than 500 gross tons (as measured under the Standard, Dual, or Simplified Measurement System under part 69, subpart C, D or E of this chapter) or less than 6,000 gross tons (as measured under the Convention Measurement System under part 69, subpart B of this chapter); and (4) Regularly carries goods, supplies, individuals in addition to the crew, or equipment in support of exploration, exploitation, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources.

so basically means support as well as supply vessels. This is what OMSA wanted and this is what OMSA got.

ironically this is the definition of an “Industrial Vessel” which to me would fit a subsea construction IMR vessel better than OSV but then anything over 3000ITC would become an unlimited tonnage ship with a real full ship’s crew. Obviously, that will never happen!

Industrial vessel means a vessel which, by reason of its special outfit, purpose, design, or function engages in certain industrial ventures. For the purposes of this subpart, this classification includes such vessels as dredges, cable layers, derrick barges, and construction and wrecking barges, but does not include vessels which carry passengers or freight for hire, OSVs, oceanographic research vessels, or vessels engaged in the fisheries.

so basically means support as well as supply vessels. This is what OMSA wanted and this is what OMSA got.

ironically this is the definition of an “Industrial Vessel” which to me would fit a subsea construction IMR vessel better than OSV but then anything over 3000ITC would become an unlimited tonnage ship with a real full ship’s crew. Obviously, that will never happen![/QUOTE]

Why is it so important that any vessel over 3000 ITC be crewed with an unlimited tonnage compliment or “real full ship’s crew?” Are there the boats so advanced that only an Unlimited Master can effectively operate them? Or there that many Unlimited Masters out of work? Or there that many Unlimited Masters that want to run an OSV?

I just don’t get why its that big of an issue that an Unlimited Master or bigger crew compliment is that important. Sure, you can always argue that a few more guys on any boat is necessary. Or you can have the same old argument that license doesn’t matter but boat handling skills do, etc…

Seems to me that they might as well all have unlimited tonnage licenses and a large crew on the COI. Do the original reasons for the special OSV licenses and status still exist?

Oil companies are requiring larger crews anyway. The large OSV masters are paid more than most unlimited shipmasters. So are the mates.

In the rest of the world any vessel over 3000 I.T.C. Is unlimited tonnage. Reportedly, the Northern Europeans crew and operate their OSVs (including the foreign flag OSVs working in the US Gulf) the same as other similar sized ships.

Why does the US need to do it differently? What is the benefit?

[QUOTE=tugsailor;130799]Seems to me that they might as well all have unlimited tonnage licenses and a large crew on the COI. Do the original reasons for the special OSV licenses and status still exist?

Oil companies are requiring larger crews anyway. The large OSV masters are paid more than most unlimited shipmasters. So are the mates.

In the rest of the world any vessel over 3000 I.T.C. Is unlimited tonnage. Reportedly, the Northern Europeans crew and operate their OSVs (including the foreign flag OSVs working in the US Gulf) the same as other similar sized ships.

Why does the US need to do it differently? What is the benefit?[/QUOTE]

sure would be nice to have a proper chief mate and first assistant engineer on that 6000ton 375’ US flagged ship which just happens to be working in the offshore industry. Those fellows sure would like to get credit for the time on their unlimited licenses they might already hold, but what does my opinion matter? OMSA rules the waves in the GoM!

There is no such thing as a large OSV in any IMO regulations so why does the USCG have special vessel classes when they are signatory to all the various IMO conventions? BECAUSE OMSA WANTS THEM…THAT’S WHY!

This reminds me of the debate over having UL manning on AT/B’s. If our Blue Water Fleet was stronger and there were jobs to be had most (not all) of these UL’s would want no part of working on a Tug or a Supply Boat (for lack of a better name). In my close to 30 years of sailing I have seen too many UL’s leave and go back to deep sea for many reasons.

Name me one 375’ 6000 ton OSV Ccapatain…now name one that doesn’t have unlimited officers

[QUOTE=rigdvr;130868]Name me one 375’ 6000 ton OSV Ccapatain…now name one that doesn’t have unlimited officers[/QUOTE]

sorry…off by 78 whole tons and 28’. Obviously, this negates everything ever said before

[B]LANEY CHOUEST[/B]

Flag: USA
Type: Anchor Handling Vessel
IMO: 9271690
MMSI: 369193000
Call Sign: WDA9729
Gross Tonnage: [B]5922[/B]
DeadWeight: 5713
Length x Breadth: [B]105m[/B] x 22m
Year Built: 2003
Status: Active

now I believe the master does not hold a UL license or am I mistaken again? They certainly are not required by the USCG!

Quite possibly mistaken. Not sure at the moment but she has been run by U/L masters before.

The traditional 3 watch ship rotations just wouldn’t be as effective. Isn’t mooring/movement in port tended to by the master on a ship? How many times per watch does he want to do the shuffle? We require boat handlers more than paper handlers. We aren’t afforded to luxury of big open seas the get fresh thirds mates real experience…that’s becoming more and more apparent around Fourchon everyday.

[QUOTE=c.captain;130870]sorry…off by 78 whole tons and 28’. Obviously, this negates everything ever said before

now I believe the master does not hold a UL license or am I mistaken again? They certainly are not required by the USCG![/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you but again why does it matter if these boats aren’t crewed with an Unlimited Officer?

[QUOTE=tugsailor;130799]Seems to me that they might as well all have unlimited tonnage licenses and a large crew on the COI. Do the original reasons for the special OSV licenses and status still exist?

Oil companies are requiring larger crews anyway. The large OSV masters are paid more than most unlimited shipmasters. So are the mates.

In the rest of the world any vessel over 3000 I.T.C. Is unlimited tonnage. Reportedly, the Northern Europeans crew and operate their OSVs (including the foreign flag OSVs working in the US Gulf) the same as other similar sized ships.

Why does the US need to do it differently? What is the benefit?[/QUOTE]

Are there that many 300 ft plus osv masters making roughly 1100 a day plus pension?

The OSV mates at some companies do make more than most 2m and 3m on ships, but they also work a lot more hours than top contract vessels.

[QUOTE=Saltine;130889]I’m not trying to pick a fight with you but again why does it matter if these boats aren’t crewed with an Unlimited Officer?[/QUOTE]

Maybe he’s just saying it would be nice if the threshold were lower so that guys could upgrade to master and chief. I could be wrong.

Isn’t there still another class between 3000 and 6000 OTC? If you haven’t gotten enough sea time on vessels over 3000 itc you can’t upgrade to 6000 osv master? Pls correct me if I’m wrong. Still trying to figure out this crazy osv world.

Place I’m working now doesn’t have any 6000 osv masters for their new builds.

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;130927]Maybe he’s just saying it would be nice if the threshold were lower so that guys could upgrade to master and chief. I could be wrong. [/QUOTE]

personally, whether considered UL tonnage or not, I have always wished US flagged OSV’s over 3000grt were manned with a ship style structure including there being a chief mate and a first assistant engineer which service aboard would count towards an upgrade of a UL license just like any other type of inspected vessel over 3000tons. They would not need a crew as large as a ship’s (although less than 12 persons is too low imo) I also wished these vessels were run like a ship and that the term “2nd and 3rd captain” would be banned aboard them. Below 3000grt who cares but over it should be considered an offshore support/supply SHIP!

.

[QUOTE=c.captain;130935]personally, whether considered UL tonnage or not, I have always wished US flagged OSV’s over 3000grt were manned with a ship style structure including their being a chief mate and a first assistant engineer which could count towards an upgrade of a UL license just like any other type of inspected vessel over 3000tons. They would not need a crew as large as a ship’s (although less than 12 persons is too low imo) I also wished these vessels were run like a ship and that the term “2nd and 3rd captain” would be banned aboard them. Below 3000grt who cares but over it should be considered an offshore support/supply SHIP![/QUOTE]

It seems you have an issue with sea time not counting towards an Unlimited license more than anything. Other than that I everything seems to be on your “wish” list. I’m not saying you can’t disagree with something but let’s come up with some legitimate complaints here.

[QUOTE=c.captain;130935]personally, whether considered UL tonnage or not, I have always wished US flagged OSV’s over 3000grt were manned with a ship style structure including their being a chief mate and a first assistant engineer which could count towards an upgrade of a UL license just like any other type of inspected vessel over 3000tons. They would not need a crew as large as a ship’s (although less than 12 persons is too low imo) I also wished these vessels were run like a ship and that the term “2nd and 3rd captain” would be banned aboard them. Below 3000grt who cares but over it should be considered an offshore support/supply SHIP![/QUOTE]

I definitely agree with you on the whole 2nd and 3rd captain thing. Ridiculous.

There is only one captain on board. The idea of lead captain and relief captain is a bit absurd as only one guy can be the master. Gee, that would be the guy on board. The guy at home on vacation is not part of the picture. But with this 28/14 rotation stuff going on (clearly new to me) it complicates things to have a guy frequently bumping down from captain for 2 weeks to not captain for 2 weeks. I’ll never get used to being called captain; actually don’t like it. Seems a bit disrespectful to the actual captain.

But I guess in the end it is just another vast difference between shipping and the oil patch. I certainly miss some of that formality. But then again I also miss having a 3 person stewards dept serving breakfast to order and skippy peanut butter as required by SUP contract.

[QUOTE=Saltine;130942]So if the sea time aboard OSV’s above 3000 ITC counted towards an Unlimited license counted you would be satisfied?[/QUOTE]

I’d hate to see it because it will drop the value of mine, but I do agree that OMSA is going to have no part of that unless they can still keep COI manning down. I don’t see that last part as much of an issue because the client is driving so much of that such as 3 ABs on deck and 2 DP operators on the bridge (even though that last part does not necessarily mean 2 licenses).

Gotta believe classification based USCG rules plays a part in registration taxes, etc.

[QUOTE=c.captain;130935]personally, whether considered UL tonnage or not, I have always wished US flagged OSV’s over 3000grt were manned with a ship style structure including their being a chief mate and a first assistant engineer which could count towards an upgrade of a UL license just like any other type of inspected vessel over 3000tons. They would not need a crew as large as a ship’s (although less than 12 persons is too low imo) I also wished these vessels were run like a ship and that the term “2nd and 3rd captain” would be banned aboard them. Below 3000grt who cares but over it should be considered an offshore support/supply SHIP![/QUOTE]

I certainly would be up for a chief mate role in that capacity, but somebody better show me the money if they want me to be PIC of all those petroleum based product transfers!

The only way that would be possible though is having your own room. Very hard thing to come by from what I can tell.

And then would you also be talking about a conventional ships watch schedule? Is that even possible?

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;130947]I certainly would be up for a chief mate role in that capacity, but somebody better show me the money if they want me to be PIC of all those petroleum based product transfers!

The only way that would be possible though is having your own room. Very hard thing to come by from what I can tell.

And then would you also be talking about a conventional ships watch schedule? Is that even possible?[/QUOTE]

Having your own room shouldn’t be that tough to come by on the bigger OSV’s. I can’t see how a boat that accommodates 25-35 people wouldn’t have 14+ rooms and you’re rarely carrying
passenges during straight supply boat work. Heck, just recently read about Jackson Offshore’s new OSV launched that had accommodations for 34 with (14) 2 man rooms and (6) single rooms. Shouldn’t be an issue, in my opinion, on a vessel like that.

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;130947]And then would you also be talking about a conventional ships watch schedule? Is that even possible?[/QUOTE]

of course it is possible…it is just that the peons in Fourchon can’t think in any way that they haven’t been brought up to know. JOE BOSS WANT’S EVERYBODY TO WORK 12 HOURS A DAY WHERE NOBODY NEVER EVER GETS ONE DOLLAR OF OVERTIME! Just look at what just happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee for Christ’s sake. IT IS A SOUTHERN LABOR WAY OF BRAINLESS BEHAVIOR WHERE THE WORKING CLASS CAVE TO THEIR OVERSEERS AT EVERY TURN AND NEVER EVER VOTE IN THEIR OWN INTEREST! FUCKING PATHETIC!

VERY LOUD RANT OUT!

[QUOTE=c.captain;130951]of course it is possible…it is just that the peons in Fourchon can’t think in any way that they haven’t been brought up to know. JOE BOSS WANT’S EVERYBODY TO WORK 12 HOURS A DAY AND NOBODY TO EVER NEVER GET ONE DOLLAR OF OVERTIME! Just look at what just happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee for Christ’s sake. IT IS A SOUTHERN LABOR WAY OF THINKING WHERE THE WORKING CLASS CAVE TO JOE BOSS AT EVERY TURN AND NEVER EVER VOTE IN THEIR OWN INTEREST! FUCKING PATHETIC!

VERY LOUD RANT OUT![/QUOTE]

Man, I know women that complain less than you do. For someone so sick of the “bayou” you sure do stay involved in its happenings a whole bunch.