Polar Code does not include ports of Valdez or Anchorage

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?

1 Like

Why not withdraw from the STCW?
Why stop there? You may as well withdraw from IMO altogether.

Trump don’t like international conventions, institution and treaties, especially if they cannot be dominated by the US. (i.e. HIM)

1 Like

If they did American Airlines wouldn’t be able to fly anywhere but the USA.

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

1 Like

The USCG has already exempted the following US Flag vessels in the domestic (and certain nearby foreign trades from STCW:

All vessels under 200 GRT
All fishing vessels
All vessels on the Great Lakes
All “Inland” (including Puget Sound and the Inside Passage) vessels

If the US can exempt those vessels, what other US Flag vessels in domestic trade could be exempted?

Why not:

All US Flag vessels operating exclusively within the US EEZ (200 mile limit)?

or

All domestic tugs & all OSVs within the 200 mile limit?

What legitimate business does the IMO have regulating US domestic trade vessels inside the US EEZ?

Frankly, most of the required USCG approved IMO model STCW courses are of little value, at significant expense. Only the schools benefit.

The US Congress has already cut the seatime requirements for AB by 50% to supposedly address a manpower shortage.

If there is a US manpower shortage, wouldn’t exempting more US Flag domestic trade vessels from STCW help to relieve it?

As I said;

You have already withdrawn from most of it and don’t have much of a merchant fleet outside US EEZ anyhow,

They do not need any treaties, conventions, pacts & agreements.
They need guns, navies -gunboat policy and all will be fine :wink:

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 :wink: which is a perk of the hegemon.

Here is what is convenient and what is not .
U.S. Position on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.pdf (424.9 KB)