The build requirement is what should be removed, or at least modified for GHG reduction technology. Why not tell a US shipowner, ok, you can build a new vessel anywhere, but it needs to meet 2050 IMO standards for emissions regulations or needs to have alternative fuel ready technology. We then renew the US Fleet and meet carbon reductions. And the money saved to build outside is what would be used for the emerging technology on the vessel. Win for the owner, the regulators and our grand children.
7 Likes
The price of a new âUS builtâ baby container ship would buy you a huge shiny new LNG ship with all the bells and whistles (regas equipment, etc).
You mean like this JA-compliant vessel?:
Designed by HHI, S.Korea, built by a Norwegian owned shipyard with mostly foreign machinery and equipment. Welded together from (mostly) American steel by proud (mostly) American welders.
Here is the DNV listing for the earlier Aloha Class vessel âDaniel K. Inouyeâ
https://vesselregister.dnv.com/vesselregister/details/34847
PS> Have a look at the Machinery listing
Wrong on both answers. Iâm talking about the training in the USMM, not the age of our ships.
I have read many times that US and British MM officers are the best trained in the world. I have sailed with many bright engineers and mates that I would compare to any foreign officers you could come up with.
Iâve also raised a few beers with Danes (and others) that are impressed how we kept all these WW2 era ships running right up through the 1980âs.
I recall when a huge storm came across the North Pacific and caused delays on two APL container ships, one foreign-flag and the other US. The foreign ship lost a lot of containers and showed up in LA in very bad shape. The US ship lost two (2) containers and did not suffer any mechanical delays.
If you want to sail foreign, go ahead. Donât drag me down into those 3rd-world conditions.
1 Like
The registry of the MV Bright Field means it was a flag of convience. This meant it was allowed to have lower maintenance standards because they lack the capability to enforce stricter criteria. The ship was Chinese owned and Chinese crewed.
Due to lack of maintenance the main engine and steering lost power at a critical time. We can thank the alertness of the American pilot and radio traffic to warn the entertainment vessels and the harbor that he had lost control of the Bright Field. The damage and injuries were bad.
1 Like
Oh hear we go again with FOC shaming. There have been plenty of incidents with national/closed and open registries that anyone can google a rebuttal. Are there bad apples in the industry, of course, its in all industries, but focusing on nationalities is a lack of emotional intelligence.
Maybe there was a major difference years ago between US and foriegn mariners but I think that gap has closed. As far as deckhands go as cold as this sounds I am preffering the foriegn crew over the Americans. They get to work and are not chronically bent over their phones. Brutal honesty and I am glad I probably have less than ten years to go in the industry. The work ethic has become appalling.
3 Likes
Thatâs completely backwards.
What? Do you need a drug test?
3 Likes
@Meme.Lord @Capt_Phoenix I must not be saying this right. Let me clarify.
Certain positions on small vessels operating INLAND ONLY in the US, and all positions on fishing vessels operating within US waters do not need any credential. No MMC at all (so no STCW)
Inspected and larger vessels operating US INLAND WATERS need the required National Endorsements on their license. No STCW needed. I understand all that.
âŚHowever in my previous comments I am speaking about deep sea routes only, because the Jones Act video at the beginning of the thread mentions and targets the deep sea JA routes (US Mainland to Hawaii, PR, Alaska)
soâŚ
FOR DEEP SEA ONLY:
Every Mariner must be STCW to sail - no matter what country issues the license, what flag the ship carries etc. STCW is part of the UN and is international adopted/recognized.
Now, for US Citizens sailing deep sea, as per above (because the US agreed to the STCW Convention thingy), obviously we need STCW. For example, Kate McCue for example is sailing Master on a cruise ship registered in Malta, and she only needs the STCW requirements on her credential.
However, the US Government/USCG has decided that in order to sail on a US flagged vessel (Still talking about deep sea here) US mariners will need - in addition to STCW - the National Requirements. So with my example of Capt. Kate; in order for her to sail on the Pride of America (US flagged deep sea cruise ship), she will need STCW, and on top of that, the National Endorsement.
In other words the JA vessels sailing the routes mentioned in the video require STCW, and the National Endorsements. The extra requirements of the National endorsement (basically the USCG exams) is above and beyond the international minimum.
But thereâs more. The USCG wonât issue an STCW endorsement unless the person applying already has, or is applying for at the same time, the National Equivalent. So in order to sail deep sea on a US MMC (even on a foreign flagged vessel), you need the STCW "AND* National Endorsements. This means that Capt Kate (and all other US internationally sailing officers) must have both her National and STCW endorsements, even though Malta (and the rest of the world) only cares about the STCW endorsements. This is more rigorous than other nations, like the Philippines, where their officers will only have STCW
Please let me know if my understanding of this is wrong.
What youâre not understanding is that USCG issued STCW endorsements are in addition to the US National endorsement. The international STCW standards are met based on the national USCG standards plus additional requirements. The checklists for STCW endorsements arenât everything you need to meet STCW standards, theyâre what you need above and beyond USCG national standards to meet STCW standards. The USCG looked at their existing licensing requirements and added things to bring them up to STCW standards and those things are only required for people wanting the STCW endorsements.
3 Likes
I believe thatâs completely backwards.
1 Like
The national licenses existed first, then additional requirements were added for people that wanted to add STCW endorsements. Those additional requirements were not the entirety of what STCW required, only what STCW required and were not otherwise covered by the corresponding national licenses. Thatâs why youâre required to have the national endorsement in order to get an STCW endorsement.
First to address what @Meme.Lord said:
I know this isnât your comment, but whether you or I are right @Capt_Phoenix , I think we both agree that US Mariners sailing deep sea have -by definition- more training/testing/requirements than a Maltese seafarer based on each of our understandings. Let me know if we are on the same page here.
Now to:
I can see how that might make sense, but if thatâs the case, then why are sea service requirements listed on the STCW checklists?
So what you are saying is that if for example the Philippines Coast Guard had a (STCW) âChief Mate 3000 GT or More Management Levelâ checklist on their website, it would have MORE requirements than the USCG NMC Checklist with the same name? Because some of the requirements are only shown in one of our National Checklists?
This point is very true. Go sail on a foreign flag ship, flag of convenience or regular 1st world registration, and all they look at is the STCW endorsements. The canât even understand the USA license levels. And many times their engineers donât have propulsion mode distictions.
For example, in many cases, a jr officer is a jr officer. As long as one has OICNW/OICEW the jr officer can sail as 4e/3e or 3o/2o.
Some countries, one can get a master/chief engineer license on seatime alone sailing as a jr officer, and never required to sail as sr officer (and no testing or additional classes required for raise of grade, no mode of propulsion requirements, and most definitely no bullshit âassessmentsâ).
To say STCW requirements are universal around the world, as the USCG tells us mariners, is a completely untrue statement.
1 Like
Because STCW has specific sea service requirements laid out in the treaty that donât always align with USCG requirements for a national endorsement. (They are usually basically the same but when theyâre different the STCW sea service requirements are in most cases greater than US domestic requirements.)
1 Like
I have no way of knowing what training and testing a Maltese seafarer is required to undergo or how that compares to ours.
In one critical way, it is definitely wrong.
The STCW does not specify how an administration must meet STCW, it is left to the discretion of each Party (to be reviewed and confirmed by a panel of âcompetent personsâ from other administrations).
In the United States, we have elected to have certain of the knowledge-based competencies in STCW âcertificatesâ assessed and satisfied by completion of the examinations for the required national endorsement. So the national exam is not âabove and beyond the minimum,â it is part of meeting the requirements for STCW.
Also, taking into account the flexibility and discretion of how an administration meets STCW, with regard to certificates there is not one size fits all. That is why you cannot substitute a course approved by another administration for one required by the U.S., the U.S. requirements in how STCW is met are unique to how the U.S. has implemented STCW.
Itâs also important to consider whether Malta issues certificates, or if they do as some other administrations do, they only âendorseâ or recognize certificates issued by other administrations. In the latter case, the administration does not have any requirements to qualify for a certificate as they donât issue them, they only issue a document recognizing the certificate issued by another administration.
No, see above. Assuming they issue certificates, any checklist will likely have different requirements, but not necessarily the same or more.
The USCG does not tell you that, see immediately above.
What is universal is the terms of the STCW, in particular its standards of competence. What is not universal is how an administration has elected to meet the requirements of the STCW. e.g. STCW specifies that Masters of vessels of 500 GT or more must have knowledge, understanding and proficiency for berthing and unberthing under various conditions of wind, tide and current with and without tugs, but STCW does not specify how that is to be demonstrated.
3 Likes
He is right, he mean every non-US mariner.
He was specifically talking about US mariners.
Thatâs a bold, broad statement. Can you support it with substantive evidence? Iâm guessing not.