RFPNW & OICNW Assessments

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80285]Got’cha. So the program I went through now only requires the 60 day assessment time to remove the “Lookout Only” from my MMC. That makes me feel better.[/QUOTE]

Probably not. If you have to ask, it probably wasn’t. The “program” does not reduce the sea time requirement, in other words, you can’t just go out and get your own sea time. Whoever runs the program has to place you on a vessel they either operate, or have training agreements with the company that does operate the vessel. There has to be a structured plan for your training while on board.

The Coast Guard told me otherwise at the Long Beach office and over there customer service line. They looked at my assessments, the school and told me all I needed was the 60 days. Same information from the school. The union took a look and said the same. 60Days. Final word was the Coast Guard. They gave me the assessment forms (my third set) and gave me advise on obtaining the 60 days.

All the branches of the CG NO what they know, and the will let you NO. And don’t ask any more questions. Just fill out the paperwork and come back to the counter when you are done.

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80312]The Coast Guard told me otherwise at the Long Beach office and over there customer service line. They looked at my assessments, the school and told me all I needed was the 60 days. Same information from the school. The union took a look and said the same. 60Days. Final word was the Coast Guard. They gave me the assessment forms (my third set) and gave me advise on obtaining the 60 days.[/QUOTE]

RECs do not evaluate applications, they merely check for apparent completeness. They only look to see that you have training certificates and sea time letters, they do not evaluate whether they are sufficient to get the endorsement you applied for.

You mention having the union look at the forms. What union? SUP and SIU have approved programs.

You want to double check with the school. Places with program are VERY rare.

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80285]Got’cha. So the program I went through now only requires the 60 day assessment time to remove the “Lookout Only” from my MMC. That makes me feel better.[/QUOTE]

What are the places?

Well, you just need to search courses on the NMC web site and look at the RFPNW ones with “program” in the name.

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80385]What are the places?[/QUOTE]

I agree, grab it and run if you can!!!

[QUOTE=cappy208;80316]All the branches of the CG NO what they know, and the will let you NO. And don’t ask any more questions. Just fill out the paperwork and come back to the counter when you are done.[/QUOTE]

To my knowledge, that RFPNW with 60 days of onboard seatime training program is only available at a couple of union schools, and AVTEC in Alaska. There are probably a couple of other schools that I don’t happen to know about.

I do not understand why every taxpayer supported maritime academy is not also offering an AB RFPNW program, but as far as I know, none of them do.

I suspect that certain companies like ECO or the MSC might have in-house training programs for RFPNW, but I really don’t know.

[QUOTE=Robert;80386]Well, you just need to search courses on the NMC web site and look at the RFPNW ones with “program” in the name.[/QUOTE]

I…NMC… came up with 3:

A. AVTEC
B. Training Resource LTD
C. Offshore Marine Service Association (OSV Program)


A.

I called AVTEC this morning (1-800-478-5389). They do not provide the 60 Day assessment as part of their program. You will need to do this on your own. But there program (according to them) only requires 60 days after completion for the full rating. The program includes class time and a must pass assessment at their simulator.

B.

Training Recourse LTD is recommended by, Military Sealift Command (West Coast) and SUP. They do not provide the 60 Day assessment as part of their program. You will need to do this on your own. But there program (according to them) only requires 60 days after completion for the full rating. The program includes class time and a must pass assessment at their simulator.

C.

I did not contact OMSA.

There must be another or I’m missing something? I don’t want to be caught in a RFPNW boondoggle.

Most of the schools seem to be mostly in the business of selling their services, and a source of misinformation. My understanding is that you cannot do the 60 days on your own; it must be part of a school sponsored training program with particular companies. RFPNW is ancient history for me, so I may be wrong.

I would be very surprised if the SIU school at Piney Point does not offer a comprehensive and complete RFPNW program.

I think you probably need to contact the course approval folks at the NMC and ask them to confirm in writing which schools have USCG approved programs that definitely satisfy the full requirements for RFPNW.

This may be one of those situations where it might be worth talking to a licensing consultant for answers.

The USCG and the schools ought to be a lot clearer about exactly what schools are fully approved for RFPNW

Quite frankly I think the entire RFNPW thing is a complete and utter screw up and can’t believe that when this was being discussed at IMO that the US or someone didn’t say, lets think about this. In my mind it is completely crazy to believe that it would take any mariner 180 days of 8 hour watches under instruction to learn how to be a helmsman and lookout. I know that in my career in the Coast Guard if a new recruit too that long on a ship there would be hell to pay. It is a completely ridiculous requirement and I as stunned the first time I figured out that people were actually serious about it! I’m just lucky that I feel into that strange window of time when I got it grandfathered.

Its another example of Piss Poor Planning. The fact that a lot of tug outfits are starting to “recommend” that everyone gets it is even worse. Show me a Tug with a large enough wheelhouse for the AB to act as helmsman on.

For example, some oicnw assessments are in one policy letter and some are in another. How are we supposed to know there are two policy letters with assessments? (Or at least there used to be control sheets in separate policy letters…)

You have yet to mention where you took your class.

Training Resource LTD. Approved program. With a hitch.

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80926]Training Resource LTD. Approved program. With a hitch.[/QUOTE]

REPLY. So if the Training Resources RFPNW “program” is fully USCG approved, what is the “hitch” ?

Let me guess, Training Resources gave you a list of companies that are “approved” to provide the 60 days of “training” required by their “approved program,” but you have not been able to get a job at any of the companies on that list to actually get the 60 days of required “approved training.” Am I close?

This totally absurd RFPNW “approved program” snafu needs to be straightened out pronto. My suggestion is that the USCG should come up with a reasonable “approved program” for schools to adopt to train and assess mariners for RFPNW that is clearly and unequivocally fully approved, no ifs, ands, or buts. MARAD should require that KP and the state academies offer this fully approved RFPNW program to all commercial mariners at reasonable tuition and provide funding to enable them to do so. MARAD should also offer funding to the community colleges (such as Fletcher, Delgado, Young Memorial, Clatsop, etc.) to provide these fully approved RFPNW programs.

The USCG should stop hiding the ball, and the USCG should stop facilitating the fraud being perpetrated by private for-profit schools that are claiming to offer “approved programs” that are not really fully approved. If a school’s RFPNW program is not fully approved, the USCG should not approve it at all.

There are far too many private for profit schools offering far too many “approved” courses of very dubious quality. This has gotten to the point where most of the public and private schools do not reliably offer their advertised courses for lack of enrollment. Its far past time for the USCG to tighten up on requirements and thin out some of these marginal schools.

Furthermore, the USCG should give approval on an experimental basis for US citizen mariners to take foreign STCW courses. If a mariner thinks that a foreign STCW course in Europe or Canada is better, cheaper, or more convenient, then there is no valid reason that he should not be able to take the foreign course and get US credit for it. There is no doubt in my mind that STCW courses in Canada and Northern Europe are much better equipped and much more serious than most of the US courses.

If we are expected to compete with Norwegian and UK officers for jobs on vessels in the US OCS, then we need USCG approval to take higher quality European training on state-of-the-art European equipment.

[QUOTE=tugsailor;80935]REPLY. So if the Training Resources RFPNW “program” is fully USCG approved, what is the “hitch” ?

Let me guess, Training Resources gave you a list of companies that are “approved” to provide the 60 days of “training” required by their “approved program,” but you have not been able to get a job at any of the companies on that list to actually get the 60 days of required “approved training.” Am I close?..[/QUOTE]

Actually…they don’t have a list. The rest is correct.

[QUOTE=Xavier6162;80941]Actually…they don’t have a list. The rest is correct.[/QUOTE]

REPLY I’m not interested in playing 200 questions with you to elicit all the pertinent facts that you should be able to coherently provide in two sentences.

  1. They don’t have a list of companies to help you get the 60 days.

  2. You guess correctly on your assumptions.