Norleen Shumer just published this in her blog. Sounds like from now on, all those little STCW codes that are considered “inherent” (i.e. BST, RFPNW, etc.) will now be listed. This should help all of us out, especially those applying with foreign companies.
Question to NMC:
Sirs;
I have received my new issue MMC for Chief Engineer, Oceans,
6000HP. I note that in the STCW Competencies listed there
appears: ….”duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of
regulation(s) III/2; III/4; VI/2.” My previous STCW Endorsement
Certificate (Engineering) listed all of these AND also: VI/1. Please explain why competency in STCW Regulation VI/1 has not been continued and included in my newly issued MMC.
HERE IS NMC ANSWER -
Dear Mr. ———:
THE REGULATION VI/1 IS THE “BASIC SAFETY TRAINING”, IN WHICH WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED ON THE STCW. SINCE THE BST’S ARE A PREREQUISITE QUALIFICATION FOR THE STCW IT WASN’T NECESSARY TO BE PLACED ON THE INTERNATIONAL ENDORSEMENT. HOWEVER, WITH THAT SAID, DUE TO REGULATORY CHANGES; CREDENTIALS ISSUED AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, ALL INHERENT REGULATIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE CREDENTIAL. SINCE YOUR CREDENTIAL WAS ISSUED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, THAT REGULATION WAS CONSIDERED INHERENT AND LEFT OFF.
Thank you for contacting the Mariner Information Call Center.
OK I’ll bite…does anyone on here know just what and where these “REGULATORY CHANGES” are??
**my experienced as of late is that some of the folks at the NMC have a propensity for responding with what they think you want to hear when it is to their advantage…further you can ask two different people the same question and get the proverbial “two different answers”…SMOKE AND MIRRORS…thanks for the opportunity for this rant!!
There was none, a regulatory change requires notice and comment, you likely would have heard of it. What did occur was re-assessment of NMC’s practice and existing policy, including NVIC 6-00.
However, I don’t view this as a deliberate attempt to conceal or misrepresent anything. It is likely simply an inexact description of how the change came about from someone who is several layers removed from the “deciders.”
[quote=jdcavo;18282]What did occur was re-assessment of NMC’s practice and existing policy, including NVIC 6-00.
[/quote]
Mr. Cavo,
thank you again for your response…is there any continuity or consistency in what is contained in the MMC…how does one determine whether his/her document is correct and contains ALL that should be noted…how does one access and review this new re-assessment you refer to??
Jim, I would have to second what SEADAWG is asking. There are so many inconsistencies in their “policies” it is staggering. The key factor is the “civilian contract evaluators”. They are untrained, and pushing stuff through without consistency or knowledge that is needed. A certain member on this forum has been having an extreme uphill battle with his “evaluator”. His mmc is not being issued with the proper documentation for stcw and he has to appeal it now. He has all the proper certifications and training, but they are still holding up on it. It is unfathomable. Yesterday this member spoke to another mariner who just renewed his license, and without even trying to get an stcw endorsement, and with no paper work or any documentation at all, they issued him STCW 95 on his license! And here my colleague has all the documentation and everything in order and gets the shaft from these people who are IDIOTS!!!
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!
YOU ARE OUR ONE HOPE OF CHANGING THIS MESS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ON THE FORUM. PLEASE HELP IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.
Thank you very much.
Rob
MERPAC will be holding its fall meeting at NMC next week. It is expected thast they will be presented with a tasking to look into and make recommendations on this issue of what is noted on the MMC. Thta’s the best forum/process to pursue this.
based on my recent experience I can’t recommend that…in order to get the VSO endorsement added this July it took them two attempts to get it right…on the first attempt they managed to even leave off items that were noted on my old documents…as to my current new MMC that was issued in August09 it now lacks the notations for “inherent regulations”…might be time for someone to play the “Congressional Card”!!
I have been one of NMCs biggest critics, but I must give credit where credit is due.
I recently went in eight months early to renew because I had heard the horror stories. I went straight from the REC to MITAGS for two weeks of school, and my MMC was in the mailbox when I returned home - and it had been through a “medical waiver” requiring a spare pair of glasses.
It appears to have everything correct including VSO and STCW codes.
They must be doing something right.
