Just wondering what the process is… I was under the impression that the same letter of transfers from the Company would be good.
Apparently not. It has to be signed by the Chief Mate per the evaluator. Is that correct?
Now where do I find the Chief Mate.
The company issued me the letter verifying the transfers.
Just wondering if that is the process and in the CFR.
Sounds like you want the STCW equivlent endorsement to Tankerman PIC. It appears you didn’t read the checklist…halfway down the page it says:
- Qualify for a National Tankerman PIC (DL); and,
- Provide a Record of Transfers signed by the master or chief mate on
the OIL TANKER.
NOTE: If the national transfer record is signed by someone other than
the master or chief mate, a letter signed by the master or chief
mate on the OIL TANKER is also required indicating that
We like to shit on the NMC a lot, but I can understand some of the evaluators frustrations due to people not reading the well published and simple to follow CHECKLISTS.
Or NVICs. See paragraph 4.b of Enclosure (1) to NVIC 22-14:
As specified in 46 CFR 13.603(a)(2), mariners must demonstrate the standards of
competence in Table A-V/1-1-2 of the STCW Code. Mariners may be considered to have
met this requirement if they have completed a Coast Guard approved Tank Ship:
Dangerous Liquids course and provide a statement signed by the Master or Chief Mate of
an oil tanker that the mariner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the signer that he or
she is fully capable of supervising transfers of dangerous liquid cargo, including those
operations specified in 46 CFR 13.127(a)(4)(i) through (xiii). The documentation of the
cargo transfers required for the national endorsement as Tankerman-PIC DL by 46 CFR
13.203 may be used for this purpose. However, because some of the persons identified in
46 CFR 13.205 will not have personally witnessed the demonstrations of competence,
this letter will only be acceptable as evidence of meeting the standard of competence in
the STCW Code if it is signed by the Master or Chief Mate of the oil tanker.
The NVIC also includes an acceptable sample letter with the required statement of competence.
FFS, I blame USCG fully for the fact that people don’t read NVICs. Only sadistic bureaucrats could choose such a painful method of communication. They always start with several worthless and incoherent out-of-date memos to put you to sleep way before you get to any nuggets of information.
Then the one you linked is 71 pages long. I’d rather read War and Peace.
1 Like
What??
Uhmmm…no. That’s a ridiculous expectation. If the simple, easy to read, 1-2 page checklist was not available, and standard reply was “all info is in NVIC”, I’d say GTFO and side with the [stupid] people.
But, for 8+ years, the checklists have been available. They are simple, easy to read, and should result in success if followed. Thus, a tad bit of sympathy for the bureaucrats.
You’re right. “No ‘cuz I said so” is way better than “No, and here’s why…”
I guess I need to assume your “leadership” style and assume y’all are a bunch of omadhauns who don’t care or are incapable of understanding why things are what they are.
3 Likes
Just what he asked. How’d he supposed to find that chief mate now, long after he signed off that vessel?
The whole thing makes no sense.
The company is not going to issue a letter of loads and discharges, at least not for deep sea. Nobody in the office has the slightest clue what cargo was loaded, when, and where, and how this person was involved.
If this person has a PIC and yet somehow doesn’t have the STCW equivalent, then they should have been much more involved in the cargo process, and thus should have known what they needed for documentation, when it is easy to find the Chief Mate. He’s in the office with the Grainger catalog.
Or they could just email the ship they were on and ask for a letter.
Sounds to me like this is a barge situation.
1 Like
The responses helped so that is great for everyone. I admit always searching gcaptain for similar experiences over any other website.
I connected the checklist with the requirement but did not find it in the CFR.
Mr. Cavo, thanks for linking it to the NVIC.
STCW 2010 has always been vague or rigidly implemented, which IMHO makes training mayhem increasing power differentials (think MITAGS) for 1000-5000 dollars a pop and a piece of paper to show. Just that - my opinion…not a discussion.
It seems most interpretations of VAGUE verbiage like “demonstrate the standards of competence” have their definition and fine print in the NVIC’s with the correlation brought out in forums such as this - gcaptain is great, the facebook for mariners. BTW google did not help with the first 30 links.
Now to the beef. Oil/Chem/gas pollution is pollution and as dangerous whether national or STCW, so why the difference?
I do not as a rule challenge bureaucracy coz I don’t have pockets deep enough to be golfing after my second indictment. Call me whatever (liberatarian) but family comes first and I talk to my finances.
My rebuttal is cussing the shit out of them in forums including TikTok and hoping “AMERICANS FIRST” becomes a reality soon (Article 2 of the Constitution).
I’d take PRIDE in that.
Finding the C/M - there is no contact info from a while ago and even if it was available for what it is worth, isn’t “standards of competence” causal.
Also not sure how his sig overrides the company’s authority of evaluating competence since the risk, liability and cost of the asset is far greater with the company. I have never heard of a casualty investigation identify or question the individual C/M who signed off on the competence/neglect. It has always been the years of experience and the authority of the credential.
It sounds like passing the buck - Bureaucracy to Business to Master to C/M. That leaves the deplorables.
Why not just have a USMLE/LSAT/Bar/SAT/ACT/PSAT - take your pick or alternative (ESL, SOL, whatever) and if the competence is not rocket science and does not require a GPA of > 2 (maybe 1 IDK), then call it what it is but don’t pass the buck.
I get your frustration, and mostly agree. But we must pick our battles and sometimes it’s easier to just play the game. In this case, the rules to the game are easily understood via the checklist. Nothing is a secret, nor are any requirements cryptic. Applications that check the boxes sail through and are approved.
Perhaps the company can get in touch with the mate or captain to sign your letter(s)? Check the box…
1 Like
The person who witnesses the particular competency is the person who signs off on it. Whomever signed the letter from the company did not witness anything. It would be wise to keep your Training Record Book (or whatever your want to call it) with you to get them signed off as the particular competency is demonstrated.
We should have seamen’s books like other countries do. They should have check off and sign off boxes for all required assessments.
If you really want to work on a tanker, go out for 90 days as a third mate…. I have heard there are numerous companies hiring third mates without PICs right now. Doesn’t matter if it’s with MMP, MEBA, AMO, or private. I have heard from all, that there is at least one company from each of those options that will hire you.
If you’re an ATB guy yeah get your PIC. Most carry oil. If you’re a deepsea guy and don’t mind sailing foreign, I would recommend sailing on non tankers. You make more money and most likely have less risk of cancer. I’ve sailed and met several junior officers in their 20s that have PICs but aren’t using them.
for what it’s worth, I got a bunch of endorsements once eventually wizening up and getting the all inclusive JR. Eng. endorsement, stopped by the SUP hall and was immediately sent to join Chevron in Hono to sail the Mississippi. (as pumpman)