Question for Masters: RFPNW watchstanding via delivery / repositioning legs

Professional Mariner Forum
1

I’m an OS working toward RFPNW and trying to resolve the access problem most of you are already familiar with: RFPNW requires documented navigational watchkeeping service on an STCW-certificated vessel, but those vessels generally will not hire an OS who does not already hold RFPNW.

I have a question about what is accepted in practice when the service is legitimate and properly documented. Specifically, have any Masters here had experience with an additional deckhand who has completed an RFPNW course (but not yet completed the required watchstanding sea time for the endorsement) riding along on a commercial delivery or repositioning leg (yard → operating area, seasonal shift, charter handover) for the purpose of bridge watch / lookout relief, and then issuing a sea letter documenting navigational watchkeeping service?

This would be on vessels that are STCW-certificated, operating beyond the boundary, and the hitch is short (e.g., 10–20 days). Compensation isn’t part of the equation; I’m specifically asking about short hitches where the individual is not being paid and is there solely for legitimate, supervised watchstanding time.

I’ve been told anecdotally that Masters are often motivated to add competent eyes on these legs, and that this can work if the watchstanding is real and the documentation is clean. I’m trying to confirm whether that matches actual experience.

If this approach does not work in practice, I’d appreciate hearing why (e.g., crew status, insurance, company policy, or NMC interpretation) so I can rule it out and move on.

Thanks in advance for any insight from those who’ve dealt with this from the Master’s side.

2

I agree that it is very confusing having dual (national and STCW) regulations for ratings. But you said “RFPNW requires documented navigational watchkeeping service on an STCW-certificated vessel.” I don’t think this is accurate.

Directly from the CFRs, required sea service is:

Six months of seagoing service, which includes training and experience associated with navigational watchkeeping functions and involves the performance of duties carried out under the supervision of the Master, Mate, or qualified STCW deck rating; or

(ii) Proof of successful completion of Coast Guard-approved or -accepted training, which includes not less than 2 months of approved seagoing service;

From a practical perspective, USCG doesn’t care if this service is obtained on an STCW vessel or not. Currently, any master or mate can sign off on your assessments even if they have no STCW endorsements at all. The same goes for the sea service. It doesn’t have to be on an STCW vessel. The vessel just needs to meet the minimum requirements spelled out in NVIC 06-14.

1 Like
3

I think a couple concepts are at play here, so I want to separate STCW competence scope from U.S. administrative mechanics, in the interest of clarity.

The CFR language you quoted lays out how RFPNW sea service can be documented for issuance by the Coast Guard. As I read it, it doesn’t really attempt to redefine what sea service is appropriate for RFPNW as an STCW endorsement. That framework still comes from STCW itself.

My understanding is that RFPNW isn’t a vessel-agnostic endorsement. The competence standard is framed around ratings forming part of a navigational watch on seagoing ships of 500 GT or more, and the U.S. regulations function as the machinery for administering that STCW framework rather than a substitute for it.

From STCW Code Section A-II/4 (STCW 2010, as amended):

Mandatory Minimum Requirements for Certification of Ratings Forming Part of a Navigational Watch

Standard of Competence

  1. Every rating forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross tonnage or more shall be required to demonstrate the competence to perform the navigation function at the support level, as specified in column 1 of table A-II/4.

  2. The minimum knowledge, understanding and proficiency required of ratings forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of 500 gross tonnage or more is listed in column 2 of table A-II/4.

  3. Every candidate for certification shall be required to provide evidence of having achieved the required standard of competence in accordance with the methods for demonstrating competence and the criteria for evaluating competence specified in columns 3 and 4 of table A-II/4. The reference to “practical test” in column 3 may include approved shore-based training in which the trainees undergo practical testing.

  4. Where there are no tables of competence for the support level in respect to certain functions, it remains the responsibility of the Administration to determine the appropriate training, assessment and certification requirements to be applied to personnel designated to perform those functions at the support level.

The way I’ve always understood that language is that STCW does two things:

  • It situates RFPNW competence in the context of seagoing ships ≥500 GT.

  • It leaves the Administration to implement and document that competence within that framework, not to broaden it.

That’s why, in practice, Coast Guard guidance (NVIC 06-14 and related NMC policy material) seems to treat RFPNW sea service differently from purely domestic ratings—applying tonnage and “approved seagoing service” filters rather than treating all watchstanding as interchangeable.

So my practical question is this: on vessels that clearly fall within the STCW A-II/4 scope (seagoing, ≥500 GT), do Masters/operators allow short, supervised ride-along watchstanding on delivery or repositioning legs and document it cleanly—or do insurance, company policy, or crew-status issues usually make that impractical?

If the answer is “no, even on qualifying vessels this really isn’t done,” I’d like to understand the reason so I can rule it out and move on.

4

I’m explaining that this isn’t true at all. USCG policy doesn’t treat RFPNW service any differently from what is required for a domestic rating. There is not even a minimum tonnage requirement that you seem to suggest there should be be.

But this doesn’t seem to be your real question. And if you are really an OS working on RFPNW, you have framed your inquiries in the strangest manner possible.

As a master, I would not alow you to simply ride along in the bridge of my “seagoing >500 GT” ship. I don’t need to explain why.

5

Fair enough. I appreciate you being direct.

Let me narrow this, because I don’t want this to turn into a regulatory argument.

Setting aside interpretations of CFR/NVIC, I’m really asking a practical question about operator behavior, not what is theoretically allowable. From your perspective as a Master:

Is the refusal to allow a short, supervised ride-along for watchstanding driven primarily by insurance / company policy / crew status, or is it simply not something operators are willing to entertain regardless of paperwork?

I’m trying to understand whether this idea fails for structural reasons or simply because it’s not how the industry operates in practice.

6

Yes.

Some slight terminology problems because, I’m Canadian and don’t speak USCG. So I won’t advise you on American rules.

We don’t take anyone as unpaid crew. Paid you, me and the company are covered. Unpaid none of us are covered, you are a liability. basic an simple. Paid your time is good. Unpaid I ain’t signing or stamping it. Used to be lots of dodgy yacht or fish boat time got accepted. Not so much now.

Ship moves? I want experienced crew. If I can get them. I only move company vessels. Even so. Which means to and from shipyard. It’s not a joy ride. You have to check everything get it ready. it’s a lot of work.

Some of our vessels are domestic inland or sheltered waters and do not qualify as STCW others are full STCW. company policy we require STCW.

When we hire we want to see where you got your time. We check. Why, We get audited by ABS, We have to prove all our crew are properly qualified. And have all their certificates and documentation with them. We won’t even consider hiring you if your time is not fully documented and kosher. Even though we would hire you with none.

There are a couple volunteer opportunities we will consider kosher time.

RFPNW appears to be similar to the Canadian Bridge Watch Certification. Which meats the STCW requirement for a bridge lookout. A deckhand requires 180 days or 6 month teatime to go take the exam. or If they have done a recognized training course 60 days.

We hire new deckhand’s every season.

Basic minimum requirement is. Valid seafarer medical, all the basic lifesaving and firefighting STCW emergency duty stuff. Plus some extra STCW BS which we send you for. So as an OS you probably meet our minimum requirments. Canada we don’t drug test unless there is cause.

Obviously first choice If we can find fully trained and certified warm bodies. Fully trained and certified crew tend to already have jobs. So not so easy to find unless somebody closed down. So we often hire new inexperienced crew.

We give preference to graduates of recognized courses.Sometimes we just take who we can get. particularly in less popular more remote area’s

From a company point of view. We only hire fully certified as Bridge Lookout for full time positions.

We will hire part time relief “trainee deckhands” who are not certified as Bridge lookouts. Because we are limited on how many trainee’s we can have per ship. The mandated minimum I must have is enough certified crew to cover all required positions. A few of those required positions can be filled by trainee’s.

In Canada we have a minimum manning certificate. So X no of crew. X no of Ratings.

I have to have enough crew to cover all the minimum required spots and certificates for the voyage.

STCW requires minimum Bridge watch. Basic minimum being I certified OOW and one additional certified person as a lookout. So I require enough fully certified bridge lookouts to have at minimum of 1 per navigational watch. This lookout can be on call at times. Open water daytime not much traffic but must be available. I also have to have a 2nd additional person on call.

The second additional person can be a trainee bridge lookout.

I can have a one or two trainee’s who can be a 2nd additional person if required. Depending on size of vessel and how many deck watches we are running basically 1 per deck watch. If I need two or more deck hands per deck watch.

If I only need one a trainee is no good. We don’t usually do extra crew.

Obviously we prefer trainee’s who only need 60 days over trainees who need 180.

As a Master I don’t hire crew directly. We got a whole office full of of people for that. We have dispatchers who assign crew. I get who they send. The dispatcher has to send me enough fully certified crew. Smaller vessels, smaller crew, they can send me one trainee. Bigger vessel bigger crew the can send 2. trainees.

So in practice as Master. I get the body I get sent. I check they have the right certificates ect. and I have enough qualified crew to be legal. If not I can’t sail.

If they get it wrong I get pissed off and call the boss and he gets pissed of at the dispatchers boss ect.

Its February. We are hiring now. Most applications are already in. We need to start training new hires by the end off March April. So if you are looking to get qualifying sea time look for seasonal operators who will be getting ready for summer season.

For full time year round jobs . We give preference and seniority to summer relief trainee crew we train.

I would guess a lot of US operators do the same.

1 Like
7

In a nutshell, this was my first reaction as well.

2 Likes
8

Just go down to the Louisiana oil patch and get a job as an OS.

With only 120 (12 hour) days you’ll have enough seatime for AB Special and AB OSV, and probably RFPNW.

If you cheerfully and reliably perform as an OS, the company will make sure that you get what’s required for RFPNW.

That will get you what you need, and get you paid while you do it.

2 Likes
9

THANK YOU! You’re the first person to actually answer the question I am asking, and I very much appreciate it. Your insights are very helpful.