Gents,
I hope everyone knows about Ship Security Officer training. Seems those of us sailing in a licensed commercial capacity need this endorsement on our STCW by July 01, 2009 to sail.
So if my license renewal took 115 days does this mean a simple STCW endorsement will take as long? Almost four months?
Awaiting further edification.
I beleive one only needs it on their STCW certificate if they are sailing as the ship’s designated security officer.
Only the person designated as the vessel security officer needs it.
Ok, so if the designated security officer goes ashore to get a haircut and delegates the duties to another officer. The delegated officer must have the SSO endorsement on their STCW?
Is there a requirement for the security officer to be aboard at all times!? That’s a new one on me. SSO is an administrative, not operational, position as far as I know.
My sources now tell me the endorsement will take 30 days at the NMC.
Has anyone since June '08 had a turn around of 30 days getting their endorsement?
Delegated SSO: If I were a detail oriented Security auditor, I would want to insure any officer that could be delegated the Ship Security Officer has the proper endorsement on their STCW by 7/1/09.
Would this be a “No Sail” or 835? PSC issue?
In other words any officer that could be delegated the Ship Security Officer function needs the endorsement? Realistically the Designated SSO cannot remain aboard all of the time.
Most learned forum readers please advise.
[quote=Captmad;9221]My sources now tell me the endorsement will take 30 days at the NMC.
Has anyone since June '08 had a turn around of 30 days getting their endorsement?
Delegated SSO: If I were a detail oriented Security auditor, I would want to insure any officer that could be delegated the Ship Security Officer has the proper endorsement on their STCW by 7/1/09.
Would this be a “No Sail” or 835? PSC issue?
In other words any officer that could be delegated the Ship Security Officer function needs the endorsement? Realistically the Designated SSO cannot remain aboard all of the time.
Most learned forum readers please advise.[/quote]
It’s the same as medical PIC. Whoever is in that capacity, needs the STCW endorsement. I’m certain it would be an 835 in an inspection, because you can’t sail. I don’t know of much liberty taken during an inspection though.
You have lead a charmed life! No unscheduled “inspections”. No unscheduled PSC’s either.
In summary any officer that could be delegated the SSO duty must have the endorsement.
This certainly needs clarification If some of think the SSO has to be onboard at all times and others of us (me) think the SSO doesn’t have to be onboard at all times. Could be it’s subjective and up to the discretion of each inspector. Great huh!?
“A” Ship Security Officer has to be (well, should be) aboard at all times. ISPS isn’t only in effect “part of the time”, it’s all of the time, and the ship should be ready to respond and effect the administrative/physical requirements at all times.
Most of the time this means either the Master, or the Chief Mate needs to be aboard at all times, as well it should be. If the old man goes out to dinner during a port of call, the C/M stays aboard, and vice versa. When the relief rotation comes aboard, it’s the same deal. On occasion, you’ll even run into a C/E who is certificated, and now I would imagine that he/she will need to have an endorsement on their STCW.
Actually, that’s a good question for Jim Cavo: Under the current scheme, can a properly certified Engineer get the STCW endorsement as a SSO?
All I can say is suck it up. It’s supposed to have worked this way since the date of implementation back on 01 July 2004.
Those of you that don’t have the paperwork yet, you’ve had a 4 1/2 year reprieve. Time to get with the program, eh?
Just because it says Engineer on a license does not preclude them from the joys of SSO.
Getting back to orginal question: If anyone is to serve as a SSO they need the endorsement. Have not seen anything to contrary.
[quote=Captmad;9226]You have lead a charmed life! No unscheduled “inspections”. No unscheduled PSC’s either.
In summary any officer that could be delegated the SSO duty must have the endorsement.[/quote]
Yes indeed. Charmed life. It’s all about attitude.
Regardless of duties, including the SSO, there’s nothing that precludes that person from getting off the ship. As a matter of professional judgment, some may disagree, but what is the point? If the facility is secure and all security is implemented as per risk assessment and well trained in their duties, the SSO and the captain can make that decision themselves, regardless of what an inspector says. Under that same mentality, nobody should be allowed to leave the vessel that has any duty whatsoever. The OS roving the maindeck isn’t anyless important than what the SSO does, or the captain. Most likely, it will be that person that saves your life by spotting a fire or someone falling overboard first.
The captain can make his judgement accordingly. That why the big bucks…and answering to the CG.
There is nothing that even says the SSO has to be an officer that I’m aware of. If it was up to me, the SSO would be a stand alone person along with the MPIC being a certified Paramedic and I would give both liberty if I chose and the CG can kiss my butt till they get back.
Some companies, in their security plans, mandate the Master as the SSO. If that is the case, you can not delegate that duty to subordinates regardless of who has what.
On the rig I am on the Chief mates are the SSO’s.
Depends upon the VSP. I may delegate the responsibility upon leaving to get a haircut and that person must have the endorsement. Unless I am missing something.
Capt Lee: Not staying aboard on the chance our friends from the CG may come aboard either.
Ditto everything Anchorman wrote. IMHO, SSO is an administrative assignment not a watch or duty.
What’s next? The SSO can’t sleep either so you must need 2 or 3 of them!?
[quote=Captmad;9297]Depends upon the VSP. I may delegate the responsibility upon leaving to get a haircut and that person must have the endorsement. Unless I am missing something.
Capt Lee: Not staying aboard on the chance our friends from the CG may come aboard either.[/quote]
You can never delegate “responsibility”…that may be the one thing that does not fly.
The VSP does come into play, most undoubtedly.
You are supposed to have a STCW certificated SSO onboard at all times, whether it’s you getting a haircut, or going out to dinner. Not making sure you have someone onboard able to assume the duties in your absence; that shows a lack of responsibility.
Usually the top 4 aboard ship are trained as SSO’s (meaning the C/E and the 1 A/E), and at the very least it’s the Captain, and Chief Mate on each rotation. Some designate the C/M as the primary SSO, others designate the Master as primary. It doesn’t really matter in the scheme of things, as long as there “is” one aboard. And yes, it can be a pain in the ass. So what else is new.
In the workboat industry, it’s usually the Master, or Relief Master, it just depends on how the VSP words spells it out.
Jeffrox - Are you telling me that the MAA, or one of his designates wasn’t always aboard the ship? Being the SSO is a duty, just maybe not one that you’re keen on holding.
Why don’t all of you pick up your VSP, and a copy of the ISPS code, and sit down and do some reading.
There were no MMA’s on my Naval Vessels so I can’t answer that; I was in charge of security on days/nights I was assigned duty on the watchbill so not really the same animal. 
The last Comercial vessel I worked on had ONE individual that had been to any SSO school, (it was not on his STCW Cert either, yet), and he wasn’t always on board when we were in Port AND there was no other SSO when he rotated home!:eek:
There are lots of other issues with this vessel, but that’s a story for another time!
[quote=El Capitan;9327]The VSP does come into play, most undoubtedly.
You are supposed to have a STCW certificated SSO onboard at all times, whether it’s you getting a haircut, or going out to dinner. Not making sure you have someone onboard able to assume the duties in your absence; that shows a lack of responsibility.
Usually the top 4 aboard ship are trained as SSO’s (meaning the C/E and the 1 A/E), and at the very least it’s the Captain, and Chief Mate on each rotation. Some designate the C/M as the primary SSO, others designate the Master as primary. It doesn’t really matter in the scheme of things, as long as there “is” one aboard. And yes, it can be a pain in the ass. So what else is new.
In the workboat industry, it’s usually the Master, or Relief Master, it just depends on how the VSP words spells it out.
Jeffrox - Are you telling me that the MAA, or one of his designates wasn’t always aboard the ship? Being the SSO is a duty, just maybe not one that you’re keen on holding.
Why don’t all of you pick up your VSP, and a copy of the ISPS code, and sit down and do some reading.[/quote]
You can easily make an argument that letting anyone off the vessel, for whatever reason, shows a lack of responsibility, and be right 100% of the time, provided you’re the Master. You also have the latitude to go the other way as the Master.
Please provide the verbatim text that says “SSO onboard at all times”. I cannot find it. I know the SSO is required as is the Captain, but the Captain getting a hair cut or talking on a pay phone down the pier does not mean someone else is now the Captain. I don’t see where it’s different being an SSO.
I do agree with you’re opinion as a matter of professionalism, but opinions are not the common denominator of any code that we are subject to follow.
I can see delegating duties. That is not a problem, but I think it’s micky mouse bullshit to delegate “authority” to a person, by reliquishing being the SSO for a hair cut, and while you’re gone, you have nothing to answer for legally if something happens.