I thought the radar renewal requirement was to be dropped. What the status of this?
I see congress ordered it stopped, but the CG is still requiring mariners to waste their time and money on it anyway.
Anything to give their retired pals at the maritime schools a few extra bucks I guess.
One of the great things about America is that we Citizens have freedom of speech to criticize and complain about our government. And government functionaries do not have the right to censor our speech.
In case anyone hasnât noticed, we Americans spend a lot of time criticizing our government. And our government without fail gives us plenty to complain about. Pick up any newspaper or turn on any TV news and one quickly sees that most of the content is criticism of the government, and the doings of government officials and functionaries. We complain so much, an outside observer might wonder how we Americans find time to do anything else.
The USCG has been administering Mariner licensing for as long as I can remember. There have been a lot of changes over the years. I recall getting my first license at the local OMCI office nearly 50 years ago. There was no charge for an application or an exam. The longest part of the process was sending an acceptable set of fingerprints to the FBI and waiting for the background check to come back. Back then, a Mariner could walk-in to the OCMI any business morning, have the final review of the application completed by a knowledgeable and competent CWO or Lieutenant (any questions were discussed and promptly resolved). Next, sit down and take the exam, and walk out with a license the same day. Of course, it was all essay exams (except Rules of the Road) with secret questions back then (no memorization of published questions and answers). It took a competent examiner to grade the exam. The final part of the process was meeting with the OCMI, or his aid, who asked a few questions about the applicantâs experience and what he planned to do with his license. Typically, the OCMI knew the boats, the owners, and many of the captains in his district. Then the OCMI signed the license, handed it to the Mariner and shook his hand.
Back in those days, the limited licenses had very limited geographical restrictions (unless it was an Oceans license). The Mariner had to have seatime in each area he was licensed for. If an area was under the jurisdiction of a different OCMI, then the Mariner had to apply for a route extension to that OCMI.
I remember sailing unlicensed to get the local area seatime and going to various OCMIs to get my local route extensions. Being accustomed to limited geographic areas, I was shocked that New Orleans licensed me for almost the entire Gulf, including places where Iâd never been before, hundreds of miles away. The most awesome thing about getting my oceans license was that suddenly I was licensed for the entire world without any geographic limitations (this was back before Western Rivers became a superior route).
The consolidation of licensing functions into the RECâs (probably 25 years ago?) was a bureaucratâs wet dream, but a big step in the wrong direction for Mariners. It decreased the quality of the process, and the value of the licenses issued, and increased the time, inconvenience, and expense to the Mariner. However, the RECs had knowledgeable and competent staff who went over the application in person with the Mariner, and quickly resolved any questions on the spot. By now, or soon thereafter, the exams were all multiple choice. My recollection is that the Mariner could take the exam and walk out with his license the same day.
There were a lot of reasons for consolidating licensing into one place at NMC in the hills of West Virginia. Mostly, Senator Byrd wanted to create government jobs in his poor Appalachian state. In theory, it was going to be âefficientâand more uniform. Some OCMIs were strict and others were generous (New Orleans) in the approval of applications and the grading of exams. At one point corrupt USCG officers were caught selling licenses in New Orleans. NMC was supposed to solve all these problems.
However, the process at NMC is far from efficient or uniform. There is no maritime knowledge or expertise in the building. NMC is underfunded. There is not enough staff. There is too much turnover. There are too many new inexperienced evaluators that make a lot of mistakes. NMC is a crap shoot, and much more so than the RECs ever were. There are not enough experienced supervisors. There are often huge delays in processing applications, especially if there is anything unusual about the application, such as raise in grade from a limited license to an unlimited license, or using tug and barge combined tonnage seatime. Itâs common for applications to take months, with some approaching a year. The number of requests for reconsideration has greatly increased as a result of the inexperience and incompetence of evaluators. Successful Requests for Reconsideration take months, if not nearly a year. Simple requests, such a replacements for lost MMCs and medical cards take a month.
For the unlimited license Mariner, who only needs to apply for four licenses and take two exams in an entire career, the process is not so bad. This is especially the case for mariners who are only presenting three or four discharges from large tonnage ships for each upgrade. It doesnât take long for a new evaluator at NMC to learn how to process those applications.
The RECs were kept in the process under the theory that they would assist and advocate for Mariners (provide customer service) and help Mariners to submit correct and complete applications that were approveable. However, a pissing contest soon erupted between the NMC and the RECs. The RECs were told to stop advocating for Mariners and leave the decisions to the âexpertsâ at NMC. The REC staff was frustrated. Retirements took place. The RECs lost their maritime and licensing expertise and essentially have given up. Now, the RECs are just another obstruction in the NMC application process.
If you candidly talk to people who formerly worked at the RECs for years (some of them are license consultants now) you can get an earful of just how bad things are at NMC.
USCG licensing is a regulatory government function that all taxpayers pay for, but it is also a customer service that Mariners must pay for with service fees,. There is damn little âcustomer serviceâ at NMC.
When NMC does a disservice to Mariners, they have a right, if not a duty, to complain about it. If no one complains about NMC, how would it ever improve, or Congress know to increase its funding, or order its closure. One thing is for certain, in America government functionaries have no right to censor complaints about the government.
That said, JD Cavo is one of the good guys. He frequently helps us all. Some of us more than others. We are lucky to have him in government service, and here on gcaptain.
Mr. Cavo, thanks for your clarification.
I spoke with a NMC representative on the phone this morning who gave me conflicting information. She told me to submit a complete renewal package for my radar certificate and that they would issue me another sticker for my MMC. Seems like she was operating under the old policies. So that no one is confused; this is incorrect, donât do it.
I used the live chat feature when I got to the office today and was told that a mariner takes the radar refresher course based on the expiration date of the radar certificate. That mariner does not need to submit the certificate to NMC until his or her MMC comes up for renewal. In my case thatâs two years from now. I will have to keep the radar refresher cert on me when sailing to prove its valid in the interim. Follow this policy.
This lines up exactly with what Mr. Cavo, my local REC, and most importantly what the all mighty CFRs say.
I find myself relying on the live chat function more and more only because a transcript of the chat can be printed. Seems like it could be valuable.
Bayrunner, in regards to when the radar renewal may be synched with your MMC check out policy letter 01-18
It provides for harmonization of expiration dates, and briefly mentions that radar observer will be addressed under another action.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017 passed in early December of 2018 directed the USCG to publish a final rule âno later than 60 days after the date of this enactmentâ that eliminates the requirement for a mariner to complete a refresher course to maintain their radar observer endorsement. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1129
Considering the fact that the USCG published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register in June of 2018 that would have removed the radar refresher course through the regulatory process, I find it hard to believe that the USCG can not resolve this sooner rather than later despite the government shutdown. If you are up for a radar renewal, write your congressman or senator and ask them to contact the USCG. Your congressional representative usually has a staff member that handles constituent (you) matters with the executive branch. Explain in your correspondence the exact situation and cite S.1129 - Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. I have done it before with remarkable effectiveness.