Does anyone know if USCG Policy letter 11-12 was the first implementation of requiring an applicant for an unlimited tonnage license to have time on vessels over 3000 GT (assuming the vessel does not show GRT)?
Or was this already implemented with policy letter 15-02?
Or is this in the CFR’s?
I worked on a 2500 GT vessel for two yeas back in 2009-2010. This vessel had no GRT designation. It was always my understanding that the time I put in on this 2500 GT vessel would count towards an unlimited C/M license and that policy letter 11-12 screwed that up.
But is it or is it not the case that even prior to policy letter 11-12 this 2500 GT time would not have counted toward an unlimited license?
Can anyone clear me up on this?
[QUOTE=TedTed;84877]in other words, if your vessel does not have a GRT designation and is rated at 2999 GT, then that time on the 2999 GT vessel will not count.[/QUOTE]
That’s how it looks to me. I think the policy letter was written because some vessels had dual tonnages, both GRT and GT (ITC)
These are distinctions without a difference. The USCG needs to start giving mariners the benefit of the doubt until I.T.C. tonnage is fully implemented in the US. It would save everyone a lot of time time, money, and hassle, especially the USCG. It would not do any harm at all.
Tugsailor and Flyer69, if you note policy letter 15-02 paragraph 5-d, the paragraph does not stipulate that it refers only to vessels with GRT and GT, it seems to me that the paragraph applies to all vessels.
Which means that the policy is clear…and not in our favor.
Am I missing something? I would love to be wrong on this. Somebody prove me wrong, because if there is some grey area here then I will argue that point to my evaluator if I am denied for that reason (I am submitting my C/M unl. application later this month).
[QUOTE=TedTed;84940]Tugsailor and Flyer69, if you note policy letter 15-02 paragraph 5-d, the paragraph does not stipulate that it refers only to vessels with GRT and GT, it seems to me that the paragraph applies to all vessels.
Which means that the policy is clear…and not in our favor.
Am I missing something? I would love to be wrong on this. Somebody prove me wrong, because if there is some grey area here then I will argue that point to my evaluator if I am denied for that reason (I am submitting my C/M unl. application later this month).[/QUOTE]
Can you sit for C/M “unlimited” with a tonnage limit (perhaps, 50% higher than 1600 GRT rounded up to the next thousand = 3000 GRT) ?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;84946]Can you sit for C/M “unlimited” with a tonnage limit (perhaps, 50% higher than 1600 GRT rounded up to the next thousand = 3000 GRT) ?[/QUOTE]
Yes I could but I am not gonna do that. If I am denied I will just put in the necessary seatime since I am now on a drill ship. I was just hoping to get’er done sooner rather than later.
[QUOTE=TedTed;84949]Yes I could but I am not gonna do that. If I am denied I will just put in the necessary seatime since I am now on a drill ship. I was just hoping to get’er done sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]
If you were to test now and get the C/M Unlimited with a tonnage limit, you just need seatime to remove the limitation? Why not gitterdone now so the day you have accumulated enough seatime you are poofed?
Its absolutely amazing that the USCG will not give ANY seatime credit for navigating a real operational vessel of 2999 GT toward an unlimited license. Comparatively, it is even more amazing that the USCG will give FULL “seatime” credit for time spent on a drillship remaining stationary in one place. It seems to me that seatime on a vessel actively underway and navigating from port to port, anchoring, shifting berths, etc, should be more valuable seatime toward a deck license than seatime on a vessel which primarily remains stationary in one spot.
So what do you know about standing DPO watch on a drillship? Obviously not much, as there are plenty of windows on drillships. Maybe you should gets your facts in order before you start hating.
Just curious but does the USCG give seatime for sailing as DPO? I have never turned in seatime as DPO, only as mate, so had no problem. Has anybody ever tried turning in seatime as just DPO? If so, how did the USCG count that seatime?
[QUOTE=Flyer69;84954]If you were to test now and get the C/M Unlimited with a tonnage limit, you just need seatime to remove the limitation? Why not gitterdone now so the day you have accumulated enough seatime you are poofed?[/QUOTE]
Well, I wasnt sure how that worked. So I can get a license with a tonnage limitation and the unlimited time I acquired prior to the getting the license would count toward removing the limitation?
If that were the case then I imagine I would have enought time to remove the limitation before I even sat for my test. That would be good. I could do that.
Think of DPO as an oilfield term like 3rd Captain. If you stand a navigational watch, oicnw, that’s how the USCG sees it. You’ll notice that the COI will require a nav watch officer. The DP system is just another piece of bridge equipment. As a DPO you are usually the OICNW. Mate is what you should put on the letter if that is the legal position you are filling.
Simple answer, DPO is not a term that the CG recognizes. I have seen DPO on sea time rejected.