Thought I’d toss this out here.
Make sure your sea letters going forward include a statement that you participated in all shipboard drills (if applicable).
The CG gave some of our guys grief over this and made them take Basic Safety and Firefighting as a requirement to renew.
We now get our letters with the above comment about drill participation.
[QUOTE=catherder;176175]
The CG gave some of our guys grief over this and made them take Basic Safety and Firefighting as a requirement to renew. [/QUOTE]
They had to do the refresher class or the five day?
[QUOTE=Ctony;176182]They had to do the refresher class or the five day?[/QUOTE]
I am told they had to do the whole five day course.
[QUOTE=catherder;176185]I am told they had to do the whole five day course.[/QUOTE]
brutal…and I bet they offered to get a revised letter containing “…participated in drills…” but that wasn’t good enough…
[QUOTE=Ctony;176187]brutal…and I bet they offered to get a revised letter containing “…participated in drills…” but that wasn’t good enough…[/QUOTE]
I don’t have all the facts about what happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised about that.
I’ll scan and post my last sea letter (with personal info edited) so you can see what they are asking for now.
Maybe it’s just us they are targeting… I wonder if anyone from MSC has had any problems?
[QUOTE=catherder;176190]I don’t have all the facts about what happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised about that.
I’ll scan and post my last sea letter (with personal info edited) so you can see what they are asking for now.
Maybe it’s just us they are targeting… I wonder if anyone from MSC has had any problems?[/QUOTE]
Fortunately for me, I’ve yet to run into this problem. I don’t remember what all my sea letters say but maybe they had that phrasing in them. I DO know over the last three years they did at least.
A few years ago, I had to have a letter rewritten over something else. The NMC accepted it as long as there was an additional letter providing an explanation on the change and why.
[QUOTE=Ctony;176193]Fortunately for me, I’ve yet to run into this problem. I don’t remember what all my sea letters say but maybe they had that phrasing in them. I DO know over the last three years they did at least.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure why they want some magic words in the letter. NVIC 8-14 provides that any service on a vessel that is required to conduct regular drills is acceptable, so it should be enough to show service on an inspected vessel.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;176200]I’m not sure why they want some magic words in the letter. NVIC 8-14 provides that any service on a vessel that is required to conduct regular drills is acceptable, so it should be enough to show service on an inspected vessel.[/QUOTE]
Our vessels are inspected vessels, so it’s strange to me, too. I’ll try to get more info about what was behind this when I go back to work next month.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;176200]I’m not sure why they want some magic words in the letter. NVIC 8-14 provides that any service on a vessel that is required to conduct regular drills is acceptable, so it should be enough to show service on an inspected vessel.[/QUOTE]
It’s not unusual that NMC evaluators aren’t familiar with the NVICs and policy letters. Something as simple as 500/1600 ton Mate not having to test to upgrade to 3M gets messed up. They’ve made many guys retake those exams against policy.
Interesting. Since I have been ashore for quite a bit of time, I have to ask if discharges are no longer issued. I have a huge stack of ‘em, even from my coastwise tug boatin’ days.
