[QUOTE=anchorman;51504]Not beating a dead horse, rather educational for those choosing to read. Deven is way past previously qualified time, that has been given to the Coast Guard. He is trying to get the 720days of required QMED time for the 3rd A/E. He has 516 days as a QMED. Deven clearly stated the license he was going for in his first post. What you say is true, but within the context of this case, and how far along Deven is, his problem stems from not getting 1.5 days as a QMED. That cannot happen, regardless of vessel…like I said and provided why. Previously qualified time will not help, he has all of that, more than enough. It’s a simple math problem 720-516= 204 days required. I hate to say that the Coast Guard is correct and so is Deven’s assessment of needing 14 months to get the required time working an equal time schedule.
I cannot see Devin having a leg to stand on since someone decided to apply the law after all these years, but I would certainly try if I were him. I personally think he’s going about it the wrong way. The Coast Guard has failed in such a systemic way by not following “a means of determining and verifying the qualifications an applicant must possess to be eligible for certification to serve on merchant vessels” ref.Title 46 § 10.101, that it has become apparent and proven, that for the better part of two decades an expectation and culture has been developed, at the fault of the Coast Guard, that has allowed QMED-Oliers to get 1.5 days on certain vessels, to the point where the regulation ( I mean law actually) has been proven inadequate, outdated, and never followed. There is an obligation for this to be fixed, and not at the expense of an unsuspecting individual. Unfortunately, it would literally take an act of Congress since it’s explicitly stated as law and not administrative regulation.[/QUOTE]
That is really the context of the argument I will make in my appeal. My point about the laws was to basically say that since it is based on an interpretation of the law, it wasn’t really unlawful in the first place. If this were so, the CG could fine every captain who gave out 12 hour discharges. They won’t do this, maybe because they are nice, but most likely because they couldn’t prove in a court of law that what these captains have been doing is unlawful.
But someone was right, as far as beating a dead horse. The Coast Guard uses definitions of day and year (360 days) as their own entity that doesn’t mean anything compared to the actual definitions of each. This is a huge part of the confusion. If I were to work 365 days in a year, would I not get credit for those extra 5 days that go over the coast guards definition of a year? Probably I would, but if I go over their definition of a day, I do not get credit. If I were an apprentice to the machinist trade, would those hours I worked count towards my sea time, even if I worked more than 8 hours in one day? In that case, or even if I worked 8 hour days every day at the machinist trade, I could become an engineer by working on diesel engines on shore faster than I can by actually being out at sea! That is inherently stupid. I have probably 3 or 4000 hours of diesel engine experience, but according the Coast Guard out of my 8400 hours, much of that time doesn’t count.
Regardless, my main argument would be that the Coast Guard’s actions put me in an unfair disadvantage on my vessel, and they have practiced selective application of the new policies until very recently. They are also retroactively changing the status of a pre existing relationship by taking my sea time away from previous, which is basically a direct slap in the face to my rights as a citizen of this country. I am told by most that the Coast Guard is taking a hard line policy on this issue, so my chances aren’t that great, but like I said, I’m willing to try just about anything. So any suggestions are very appreciated!
