Yes, IMO is trying to claim that the near shore area of the northern Gulf of Alaska (above 60* N) and the Bering Sea above Nunivak Island (60* North) is “polar” for purposes of the Polar Code.
That requires very expensive polar training and certification.
AVTECH in Seward developed a very expensive ($$$$ several thousand dollar) course. I don’t know who can afford to take it.
I think the response of most mariners and companies operating in Alaska (if they have even heard about it) can be summed up as: “F@&! the IMO.”
Domestic tugs under 200 GRT and fishing vessels under 5000 GRT (that’s all of them) are exempt from STCW anyway.
Should the Trump Administration say America First and expand STCW exemptions for all US domestic trade vessels?
F@&! the UNCLOS
F@&! the SOLAS
F@&! the STCW
F@&! the MARPOL
F@&! the EU. (Victoria Nuland)
F@&! CHINA & …….the OTHERS.
It is doable but then USCG detailed inspections with different standards for those damn cheap foreigners will not be considered as successful milk runs .
But i have a good solution re pricing of these Polar courses what US seafarers can not afford earning 7+ more & benefits then those poor foreign beggers & cheap potatoes.
Do these courses outside US ( very cheap) and convince USCG to recognise them or instead of spending 200 bln USD on some foreign escapades , subsidise such training in support of US Maritime.
Would look very patriotic and good virtue signaling re Arctic , saving the planet and justify US interst in Arctic regions thousands of miles away from the local playground.
Just in: the stupid Russians need to learn from Americans how to ditch conventions or get their domestic fleets. EXEMPTED
But it seems to me their moral ground is a bit higher then China as China signed the convention and is persuing gun boat policy despite legal verdicts on some issues in South China Sea and
US has not signed but respecting some items as per their convenience and whim which is a perk of the hegemon.