To be clear, I don’t care about any arguments from the offshore sector in opposition to USCG scheme.
I’m just trying to clear up some rumors spreading around the company.
Various LDOs are being told that they can in fact upgrade all the way to unlimited master. The company does not own any boats over 3000ITC.
While I do understand that it is possible to upgrade to Unlimited C/M on vessels that do not require one (please correct if I am wrong) on vessels that require at least 1600T, I have neither read nor seen anything to make me believe that USCG requirement for at least 6mos sea time sailing as C/M on unlimited tonnage classed vessel which has COI requiring C/M has changed.
Maybe some of the new hire academy guys who have fairly quickly upgraded to 2/M now have assessment books they are filling out for upgrade, but I don’t know how anybody on their boat could even sign off for them because isn’t the only person who can sign off on assessment for upgrade to C/M is person serving as COI Master or C/M? of course which is not even possible at my current employer. Or is person serving as 1600 Master allowed to sign? None of the persons supposedly signing off these assessments hold higher than 1600/3000.
This is stirring up a lot of dissension over here, so I’m just trying to quell the natives.
used the search function as much I could stand on a 3 inch screen, but no luck beyond old thread about 6000 osv master holding mgmt level license debate as relates to ability to sign cm/m assessments.
I was told by two different people from the NMC that a second mate or higher can sign off these assessments and a1600 master can as well because he holds management level stcw
[QUOTE=ATB2N2;134320]I was told by two different people from the NMC that a second mate or higher can sign off these assessments and a1600 master can as well because he holds management level stcw[/QUOTE]
I do not believe someone holding only 2m can sign assessments for anything higher than upgrade to 3m unlimited, as 2m is most certainly not mgmt level. However, I respect that you were told that by NMC, but it makes no sense.
this still does not shed any light on central question of thread.
Why are you wasting time trying to rain on someone else’s parade? If someone thinks they have an upgrade path figured out, let them jump through the fiery hoops and submit. If wrong, they will then learn. By wanting to “quell” the natives you come off as a know it all dick trying to hold others down, even if you are right. It’s like arguing politics or religion on the boat…pointless. Your bridge sounds miserable to be on.
[QUOTE=rigdvr;134322]Why are you wasting time trying to rain on someone else’s parade? If someone thinks they have an upgrade path figured out, let them jump through the fiery hoops and submit. If wrong, they will then learn. By wanting to “quell” the natives you come off as a know it all dick trying to hold others down, even if you are right. It’s like arguing politics or religion on the boat…pointless. Your bridge sounds miserable to be on.[/QUOTE]
I was specifically asked this by the vessel master. Ultimately I don’t care what the answer is, but I am intrigued by the answer. He is stirring up the natives, not me. Just trying to head this off before he starts firing off emails to the office.
Just trying to understand system as well because someone I don’t know is asking me to sign off on theirs. I am a new hire and new to this OSV world.
I have only mentioned what I understand to be true based on reading policy letters, but have clearly asked for correction by this forum if anyone can offer it.
If your perception is that I come off as a know it all dick, you’re free to it.
And I am free to ask you for an answer to the question at hand, instead of jumping on here at o’dark 30 to be a rude, assumptive prick.
I began the thread the way I did to make it clear I take no sides on this issue, if it wasn’t clear, oops.
The bridge is fine here, but I bet only a miserable bitch could stand to be around the likes of you.
I get in-sight from here and from the guys on the boat THEN I call NMC. Everything NMC has told me has proven to be true so far. Can’t say the same for this site or from folks on the boat.
[QUOTE=AB Murph;134327]I get in-sight from here and from the guys on the boat THEN I call NMC. Everything NMC has told me has proven to be true so far. Can’t say the same for this site or from folks on the boat.[/QUOTE]
True, most of the time, and that is why I am so skeptical.
I can’t say as much for NMC evaluators. While I honestly believe the new, centralized processing happening at WV is in fact way more efficient than independent REC fiefdoms of old, sometimes it just means you get an incorrect ruling or questionable ruling much faster.
Hopefully more than a few guys on here have some info …
There was something in the final rule published (where the CG replies to all the comments) about what counted and wouldnt count as chief mate time. Surprisingly common sense (to me at least). This may not be relevant before the new rules kicked in, however now should be.
This is over 3,000 though:
One commenter asks if, with regard to § 11.305, the holder of a chief mate
credential working as the mate on a
fishing vessel of more than 1,600 GRT/
3,000 GT would receive sea service
credit as a chief mate, even though
manning does not require he or she to
hold this license and the vessel is not
subject to STCW.
The Coast Guard replies that where
the mariner holds a chief mate
credential, and fills the position as mate
on the fishing vessel, and the position
meets the definition of chief mate found
in § 10.107, that
and not over 3,000
One commenter notes that the definition of ‘‘chief mate’’ in § 10.107
clearly characterizes the role and
responsibility of a 1,600 GRT mate on a
vessel allowed to operate under a two-
watch system. Therefore the commenter
expects that the use of the term ‘‘chief
mate’’ in § 11.311 will permit such
service (or service while holding a
master endorsement) to satisfy the
provision allowing for a reduction in
service to 24 months provided that 12
months is ‘‘served as chief mate.’’
However, the commenter is concerned
that the provision will be misconstrued
as written and recommend that it be
reworded to allow the reduction ‘‘. . .
if the applicant served in the capacity of
chief mate for not less than 12 months.’’
The Coast Guard agrees in part. Where
the mariner holds a management-level
credential, and fills the position as
mate, and the position meets the
definition of chief mate found in
§ 10.107, then that service will be
credited as chief mate. However, the
Coast Guard does not believe this
section is confusing and likely to be
misconstrued, nor did the Coast Guard
revise this definition as part of this
rulemaking project.]
As far as who can do it, well there are a bunch of NVIC’s but cant read through them line by line this moment. this sticks out though:
hold the level of license, endorsement, or other professional credential required for those who would apply on board a vessel the relevant level of knowledge, skills and abilities to be assessed.
[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;134328]True, most of the time, and that is why I am so skeptical.
I can’t say as much for NMC evaluators. While I honestly believe the new, centralized processing happening at WV is in fact way more efficient than independent REC fiefdoms of old, sometimes it just means you get an incorrect ruling or questionable ruling much faster.
Hopefully more than a few guys on here have some info …[/QUOTE]
Good question overall but I looked for an hour and all I found refers back to PL 04-02. It states that the assessor has to be on the vessel which the person is being signed off AND they must be in Management level (Master or Chief Mate). This is for Master Unlimited, 3rd mate is different because I was told by NMC if they have OICNW they are qualified to sign me off. I think they told me as long as they have A-I/2. PL 04-02 is more specific it seems to me.
A master 1600t is in Management Level so I would believe he or she would be able to sign. Again, If I was getting signed off I would be calling NMC and not waste my time if I’m in the process of doing it.
Lol. Nice one. It was YOUR statement of trying to appease the natives, not mine. Guys who are always trying to correct others do come off that way, even if you are right. I didn’t say you WERE a dick. Everybody thinks they are a licensing expert. I don’t worry myself with that.
Advice to the new OSV guy…thicken that skin up a little or you will be the new guy in another sector soon enough…again.
Water, you are exactly correct. Email is best now for all communications via USCG, Employer, whomever. Because ya get a date/time stamp coming and going and a name attached. A guy just has to remember that it cuts both ways!
