I am trying to help a friend get some answers and clarify what is an extremely gray area regarding the issuance of VI-1 BST endorsment for QMEDs.
Before testing for the QMED-oiler, he took his BST course as required by CFRs. Received the approval to test letter, passed his test and was issued his MMC as an Oiler.
They did not include the STCW endorsement of VI-1 for Basic safety competence. He followed up on this and was refused, he even reapplied a second time, still denied.
NMC is stating that QMEDs must hold RFPEW ( III/4 ) in order to be issued BST ( VI/1 ). NMC even admitted that an AB is allowed to hold the VI/1 endorsement WITHOUT RFPNW, I actually know of several that this applies to. Why when the CFRs read almost identically for the AB and QMED in regards to these two STCW endorsements, would the QMED be denied and the AB be granted VI/1 ???
I hope that someone else who has gone through this can shed some light, Most of my experience is on the deck side of things, and this make no sense because the QMED is almost like the AB of the engine dept. in ratings. Why is there a difference according to the NMC?
Maybe Mr. Cavo can help me here, or anyone else with similar problems. We have read through the CFRs and my understanding of them says the NMC is wrong here.
46 CFR subpart 12.15-3 (d) and (e) are the QMED parts that NMC is snagging him on. He is not asking for III/4 at all (e), only VI/1 (d).
46 CFR subpart 12.05-3 (b) and (c ) are the AB requirements that read almost identically, YET the NMC says an AB can be issued VI/1 …WTF?
Both of the parts read almost exactly the same except the AB refers to RFPNW and QMED refers to RFPEW.
Thanks, I am seeing an appeal in his future.