STCW - New Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Professional Mariner Forum
61

It has become far more than just “tactile.”

It is entirely possible to teach an illiterate man to perform a manual task like boat handling (the GOM is full of examples) but in the modern world of international operations it is a two handed job and “hands on” is becoming a lesser part of the whole.

Full knowledge of regulations, resource management and asset management skills are as much a part of the modern mariner’s toolkit as boat handling. Anyone can be taught to drive a boat but for better or worse, that isn’t enough anymore.

Personally, I believe it is for the better.

Lower level license holders are being dragged (all too often screaming and kicking) into the world of standards and management. The proposed changes to STCW and licensing are just part of the mix and those who are not capable of both operations and management will be forced out of the industry one way or the other.

62

someone pass me the popcorn,

this is getting better and more entertaining than anchorman and capt lee

[B][I][U]Lower level license holders are being dragged (all too often screaming and kicking
[/U][/I][/B]

this is getting really good, get me some beer for the popcorn

63

[quote=Steamer;23797]It has become far more than just “tactile.”

It is entirely possible to teach an illiterate man to perform a manual task like boat handling (the GOM is full of examples) but in the modern world of international operations it is a two handed job and “hands on” is becoming a lesser part of the whole.

Full knowledge of regulations, resource management and asset management skills are as much a part of the modern mariner’s toolkit as boat handling. Anyone can be taught to drive a boat but for better or worse, that isn’t enough anymore.

Personally, I believe it is for the better.

Lower level license holders are being dragged (all too often screaming and kicking) into the world of standards and management. The proposed changes to STCW and licensing are just part of the mix and those who are not capable of both operations and management will be forced out of the industry one way or the other.[/quote]

In my opinion it is for the better. There are no ‘lower level’ license holders in other countries that I know of other than a hp restriction. The US lower level license holders that are being dragged into upgrading their qualifications are for the most part happy to increase their knowledge but they do have a problem paying out of pocket for the ever changing requirements. Hopefully the USCG is finally catching up to the rest of the STCW world and this will be the end of it. Perhaps the companies that employ these mariners will provide some training money and living expenses instead of trying to delay the implementation and keep the standards low. Speaking strictly from an engineers stand point I know that a shortage of engineers still exists and I know some fine engineers that could fill these openings but they haven’t upgraded to an unlimited license simply because they didn’t have to. Now they are feeling the pinch in the lower level job market.
The USA needs world class engineers not lower standards.

64

[QUOTE=tengineer;23800]In my opinion it is for the better. There are no ‘lower level’ license holders in other countries that I know of other than a hp restriction. The US lower level license holders that are being dragged into upgrading their qualifications are for the most part happy to increase their knowledge but they do have a problem paying out of pocket for the ever changing requirements. Hopefully the USCG is finally catching up to the rest of the STCW world and this will be the end of it. Perhaps the companies that employ these mariners will provide some training money and living expenses instead of trying to delay the implementation and keep the standards low. Speaking strictly from an engineers stand point I know that a shortage of engineers still exists and I know some fine engineers that could fill these openings but they haven’t upgraded to an unlimited license simply because they didn’t have to. Now they are feeling the pinch in the lower level job market.
The USA needs world class engineers not lower standards.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most everything above, but take exception to the fact of the assumption that lower level means lower aptitude, training, or knowledge. Even though the licensing threshold between lower level and upper level is classified as 1,600ton domestic/3,000ton ITC, there are not many rules and regulations that meet this divide. All of those rules and regulations, including the recent VGP encompass most all mariners - upper and lower alike. True, they’re are a few old-timers that are great boat handlers and not very educated - if anything, I commend them for the ground work that allowed me to follow in their shoes, and even learning a think or two on my way to unlimited master. For all of the pissing contest on here from time to time, I have never assumed anything because of a perception, particularly one that is becoming a part of recent history.
Any blame for STCW, and the application of it, belongs to the college educated pencil pushers that we pay to get regulatory issues done with our tax dollars, rather than the ones kicking and screaming about how it applies to them.
The whole debate about foreign vessels in the gulf, has for the most part, been against foreign mariners and foreign companies, and very little effort has been made toward the regulator’s lack of bringing the US 100% STCW compliant so foreign companies can recognize US mariners within the flag state. The Norwegian (NIS), foreign register is the best example.

At the end of it all, all of that STCW training and assessments, may account for 5-10% of my learning when compared to the real world…and that’s being very liberal - maybe even a stretch.

65

I agree, especially with "The whole debate about foreign vessels in the gulf, has for the most part, been against foreign mariners and foreign companies, and very little effort has been made toward the regulator’s lack of bringing the US 100% STCW compliant so foreign companies can recognize US mariners within the flag state. The Norwegian (NIS), foreign register is the best example."
I would add that STCW is just a minimum standard which all nations should adhere to and the knowledgeable mariner would probably know most of what is required already. The US got a bad international reputation several years ago when they were handing out limited licenses based on employers recommendation. From an engineering standpoint the new requirements ’ should’ help produce better engineers however as with any education requirement there will be those who simply want to get the paper and not the education, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Now if they’d just eliminate that silly “OSV only” endorsement the US mariners would really be making serious progress.

66

Doug, with that diatribe you nailed the head right on the hit…I have been preaching just that for years…Captains teach mates…mates teach ABs, ABs teach OSs, Chiefs teach firsts, etc, etc, not necessarily in that order because there is no law against Captains teaching OSs or ABs…My first year as Master of a supply boat for Petrol Marine in 1985 I fired 38 people because I came from the ships and sea-going tugs and thought that everybody in the mud boat industry were supposed to know what they were doing as we did where I came from…big mistake…I had to lay back before I got fired for being too demanding…the Valdez incident was the best thing that ever happened to our industry…nuff said.

67

May I add that wipers and oilers teach 3rds, 2nds, 1sts and chiefs. Those guys have saved my can many times and I always listen to them as they’re the ones closest to the action. There are those who for whatever reason aspire to no higher than oiler but that shouldn’t be frowned upon. A good experienced oiler is worth at least a couple of brand new 3rds.:slight_smile:

68

I just can’t see adding any more “required” classes for engineer’s licenses. Just keep a “comprehensive” exam.

Looking at the new proposed requirements, it’ll wind up like the flashing light requirement for the deck. More money out of your pocket for a class that no one fails and very few can actually put into practice.

69

Wow, I step out of the room for a couple of weeks and my thread gets totally hijacked, but in a really entertaining way!

And had I known we were going to include Bloom’s Taxonomy, holy crap, I wouldn’t have gone on vacation! Bob, I thought I was the only geek on this forum. Next thing you know you’ll be talking about Maslow…

Keep it up, gents! It’s what keeps me coming back to gCaptain again and again.

70

[quote=injunear;23825]I just can’t see adding any more “required” classes for engineer’s licenses. Just keep a “comprehensive” exam.

Looking at the new proposed requirements, it’ll wind up like the flashing light requirement for the deck. More money out of your pocket for a class that no one fails and very few can actually put into practice.[/quote]

The “comprehensive exam” such as required in Canada and some other countries is an excellent idea but I don’t see it coming any time soon for a couple of reasons. One: The USCG isn’t interested as it would require them to have real examiners. Now they have folks who just generate random questions from a known data base, print them out and hand them to the candidate. Since the Freedom of Information Act every candidate has the questions and the answers to the test available before they ever sit for the exam. But if a true exam system was instituted such as other countries have the USCG would need people who can actually submit the candidate to an oral exam after they finished the written exam. [they used to have them]The written exam in some countries includes an essay portion where the engineer has to explain how he/she arrived at the answer. These things would require the USCG to have dedicated examiners and that’s not going to happen. No one enlists in the CG with the goal of working in a REC! Two: there would be an uproar from the maritime companies if license standards were increased too high because as the requirements became more stringent the pool of available mariners would shrink and market forces being what they are pay would have to go up as companies competed for a finite number of available legally qualified mariners.

71

And yet, it happens all the time…

72

danzante:

“…And had I known we were going to include Bloom’s Taxonomy, holy crap, I wouldn’t have gone on vacation! Bob, I thought I was the only geek on this forum. Next thing you know you’ll be talking about Maslow…”

Ya, sorry about that. It sorta creeps out sometimes.

On a side note… woooow! Anyone reading gCaptain sure wouldnt think there was a litteracy problem in the maritme industry. There are some very articulate mariners lurking. Woe be the person who starts a cat fight here!
Bob

73

[QUOTE=bob;23852]danzante:

“…And had I known we were going to include Bloom’s Taxonomy, holy crap, I wouldn’t have gone on vacation! Bob, I thought I was the only geek on this forum. Next thing you know you’ll be talking about Maslow…”

Ya, sorry about that. It sorta creeps out sometimes.

On a side note… woooow! Anyone reading gCaptain sure wouldnt think there was a litteracy problem in the maritme industry. There are some very articulate mariners lurking. Woe be the person who starts a cat fight here!
Bob[/QUOTE]

And to think we used simply kick the shit out of each other on the waterfront. Oh, how times have changed… :slight_smile:

74

I totally stole this info from a newsletter, but I think it does a great job of outlining all the major issues of the NPRM.

200GRT NC Mate (suitable for int’l voyages) will require three years of sea time (1080 days) for an original issue. This is three times longer than the current requirement. (As this relates to STCW, it is unlikely that we can have any effect on it, but it will make finding NC mates in the 200 ton category very difficult for international voyages or voyages which enter foreign waters.)

Rating Forming Part of a Navigation Watch (RFPNW) still requires service on vessels over 200GRT. (Time that is extremely difficult to obtain in many parts of the industry.)

The lowest level Master/Mate licenses for Oceans, foreign going routes, will now be 1600 tons. No new Ocean 500, 200, 100 ton licenses of any kind will be issued. Existing licenses of this tonnage will be renewed. Primary qualifying time for 1600/3000 will be 75GRT.

There will be a route to upgrade from a current 500grt license to the new 1600 ton license. It is crucial that anyone who qualifies for a 500grt license now gets it now, before these changes become final. Otherwise you will be stuck getting a mates license and serving for several more years before qualifying for your masters license.

Flashing light will be required for all licenses (not ratings) subject to STCW code (all over 200GRT, all Oceans, all NC int’l.) and for upgrades if not previously completed.

To obtain 1600 GRT Mate or Master, applicant must qualify for AB and RFPNW (the requirement is a hurdle for all new applicants for ANY Ocean or NC Int’l Mate or Master license.)

All licensing pathways above 200GRT operating in waters subject to STCW Code will require sequential advancement from Mate to Master. (This differs from the current scheme.)

OUPV for near coastal waters will be limited to sailing on domestic voyages out to 100nm.

Mariners holding a valid STCW endorsement on or before the effective date of the final rule will NOT need to take additional training to retain the STCW endorsement. (USCG is aiming for July 2010) Any future upgrades will only need to meet the requirements for the new credential being sought.

Mariners currently in the application process should move forward as rapidly as possible to avoid new requirements.

To clarify the impact of adoption of rules, any new mariner wishing to progress to mate or master of any vessel that transits foreign waters or into Ocean waters (>200nm from shore) will now be required to obtain a 1600GRT/3000GT license, REGARDLESS OF THE TONNAGE OF THE VESSEL.

Engineers holding DDE or limited tonnage licenses will be restricted to domestic voyages. The STCW licensing route for engineers will now require lengthy training programs.

The deadline for comments is February 16th, 2010.

75

Yeah I got the same newsletter, from one of the schools, anyone know the accuracy of the July 2010 date. I’m sure they are shooting for that, but is that realistic for them (The USCG)? I haven’t seen anything from the CG with that magic date yet. Maybe I just missed it. Personally I need it to be more like December 2010.

76

This is the first time we’ve seen a possible effective date for the rule changes, which is very helpful for mariners scrambling to get their final classes or sea time in to qualify for an upgrade. Several contributors have offered estimates.

Any idea how the newsletter came up with that date?

The NMC has failed to respond to an email with the question about an effective date. I do know that the USCG wants to fast track the changes.

77

Doug-

Sealawyer talk around the galley table says you have to wait 72 hours after crew change to engage in fisticuffs with a crewmember. Federal offense if it’s 71 hours.

I think this is pure BS. Any input?

No luck with CFR search but my keywords might not be legalese.

Just curious, (gotta captain I wanna introduce to a frying pan).
Just kidding…sort of.

78

Thanks, Maritime Professional Training, thanks Fran :smiley:

79

[quote=seadog!;26795]Doug-

Sealawyer talk around the galley table says you have to wait 72 hours after crew change to engage in fisticuffs with a crewmember. Federal offense if it’s 71 hours.

I think this is pure BS. Any input?

[/quote]

Don’t know, but if I recall correctly, a few years ago one of the SF Bay pilots used a fire axe to make his point with another pilot while onboard the pilot boat outside the Gate and the USCG said it was no concern of theirs.

80

As far as timing of implementation, does this give any insight? Found on MM&P Weekly Wheelhouse.
[B]FOUNDATION FOR STCW CONVENTION AND CODE REVISION NOW IN PLACE[/B]

The International Maritime Organization Subcommittee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) has approved draft amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (the STCW Convention), and its associated Code. The proposed amendments will be submitted for adoption to a diplomatic conference in Manila on June 21-25.
The proposed amendments mark the first major revision of the two instruments since 1995. MITAGS Executive Director Glen Paine participated in the U.S. delegation to the meetings, and MM&P Pilots Vice President George Quick was on the International Transport Workers Federation delegation, which represented the interests of labor.