Source: The STCW Code | Maritime Professional Training (MPT)
OK I must learn the emoji for sarcasm.
Thatâs somewhat less than âevery non-US mariner.â [emphasis added] Iâd also consider it necessary to corroborate a summary from a commercial non-governmental entity. I note that it ignores the more relevant reason that certificates may look different, because STCW allows some flexibility, see paragraph 6 of STCW Convention Regulation I/2 (âAt the discretion of a PartyâŚâ).
Just because you found it on the internet doesnât mean itâs accurate.
That is true, but I couldnât find any better proof than this non-governmental entity.
Do you have any irrefutable proof of the opposite?
I donât respond to loaded question fallacies.
2 Likes
Looks like the major FOCs are doing quite good overall:
Of course this does not reflect the number of ships in register.
But not so good in the MoU Parisâ current detention list:
https://www.parismou.org/detentions-banning/current-detentions
I had another reply ready before I realized the error in my ways.
The NVIC requirements that satisfy the STCW tables are in fact way more detailed than the STCW tables themselves.
I was going to say something snarky about having to be observed untangling a heaving line to satisfy NVIC 14-14 5.5.A, when I realized thatâs not in STCW Code Table A-II/5 like I had assumed it was. This explains why foreign mariners canât transfer their licenses to the US.
I donât really care that much to compare the different countriesâ version of whatever they call a NVIC, so who knows who really has more in depth training. Iâm just glad we donât have oral examinations like the folks in the UK.
I will agree all the signoffs on the NVICs are rather in depth, though how well executed they may be will vary. I had this argument with a chief when I was a 3rd mate, they nearly launched the fast rescue boat without the boat plug in. I believe it is a NVIC competency that you must check that the boat plug is in to have the fast rescue boat endorsement. He called me moron, and said he hopes Iâm the one who fell overboard when they launch the rescue boat without the plug. At the end of the day, If we compared Captain McCue to another cruise ship captain, Iâm not sure if the fact that at one point she explained to someone the definition of âAdmiralty coefficientâ (NVIC 10-14 10.3.A) makes her an inherently more qualified mariner. Itâs something everyone holding a license above chief mate has done, Iâd be interested to see how many folks holding C/M+ could tell you what it means today.
That being said, I still think itâs not because we have national endorsements that we are better trained than some of our foreign counterparts, but because we have âAmerican Flavored STCW.â The national endorsements are a very low barrier to entry. Mostly just sea time and fire fighting classes.
I think a fair analogy would be comparing a degree from an Ivy League school to the same degree from a small state school. An Ivy League moron could be worse at the same job when compared to the valedictorian of CSU Fullerton. There are still quite a few instances and doubt the term âHighly trained US Merchant Marine.â
STCW only provides very general guidance on how competency should be demonstrated (see columns 3 and 4 of the competency tables in the STCW Code).
When the U.S. first envisioned how competency under STCW would be assessed, it was envisioned that a candidateâs competency would be assessed by a âDesignated Examinerâ who would offer a professional opinion that that a candidate meets the STCWâs competency standard(s). This was described in the now cancelled NVIC 6-97.
That approach was widely rejected by the U.S. industry, in significant part over liability concerns associated with opining on the competence of a mariner. Accordingly, an alternate process was implemented, hence the detailed tasks in NVICs that are associated with each of the STCWâs competences and KUPs (knowledge, understanding, and proficiency). The rationale is that the âassessorâ is simply attesting to having witnessed the candidate perform the tasks as described in the NVIC, they are not opining on the competence of the mariner. Liability for a truthful attestation of witnessing the demonstration, as described in the NVIC, would be minimal or non-existent.
For those reasons, the NVICs provide guidance on specific tasks and how they should be performed which in the aggregate will demonstrate meeting the STCW competency standards. For example, for the STCW KUP for Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch, there are 32 separate tasks associated with the broad competence in Table A-II/1 of the STCW Code Plan and conduct a passage and determine position. An assessor would witness those tasks being perfromed as described in NVIC 12-14 rather than offering a professional opinion that the mariner meets the STCW competence.
3 Likes
One sweet thing about the USA is all the license/endorsements/proof fit in a nice MMC passport size book. Sometimes it baffles foreign folks and they ask for moar paperz!
2 Likes
And Canada.
2 Likes
2 companies I worked for in Singapore wouldnt employ Americans as they couldnât make head or tail of their license system.
The rest of the world was simpler obviously, hence we had crew from everywhere.
2 Likes
Following up on this after doing more digging.
STCW is only required if you berth in a foreign port. Hawaii/PR/AK are all domestic voyages, even if it includes a Panama transit. So you could sail from Maine to Hawaii on just a national 1600 Master (Oceans) License without the STCW 3000.
You could technically sail around with just unlimited master Oceans, no STCW, in the jones act trade. I dont think any respectable company should/would actually hire someone for that, but I know a lot of Great Lakes folks just have national endorsements.
Do they need STCW endorsement if they call at Canadian ports (Thunder Bay etc.)?
At Coastal Transportation Inc. many of the officers just have national licenses (usually 1600/3000, but all over the board. Some unlimited people too.) ). The boats travel between Seattle and Alaska. They travel though Canadian waters on the Inside Passage, but that is considered innocent passage, i.e. they donât stop at a foreign port.
Some officers hold onto STCW they got at an academy or elsewhere. Many donât. It is a pain in the ass, some say, to maintain certification they donât need, and could get in a few months if they ever did need it. (The companyâs annual safety training is more rigorous than any STCW course devised, so that doesnât figure into it.
2 Likes
It never came up on any of my trips to Canada, hauling iron ore from Minnesota. I only know of a few galley crew in the lakes with STCW. All I have is a USCG lifeboatman endorsement on account of working on a passenger ship during the summer.
Iâve sailed US and foreign ships, also managed both as Superintendent and Fleet Manager. Pros and cons to both sides, but I cannot speak ill of foreign ships, crews, or shipowners. US shipowners throw money at problems - calling a tech is as natural as waking up. Yes, thatâs a generalization but it is common enough to warrant mention. The cost of a tech for one day can exceed the monthly salary of a senior officer on a foreign ship, adding to the US vs. foreign cost difference. Foreign ships tend to do more repairs themselves. Many Chiefs took it personally if they could not repair something. And one cannot compare Filipino ratings to SIU crews.
I say with full confidence for seeing both sides that foreign training requirements for license and STCW renewal are lesser in the USA. License renewal is simply showing sea time and fulfilling the basic requirements, no need to sit for exams. Indians study for months for renewal - not because of lack of knowledge, but the fact exams are challenging. Ukrainians are similar. Not upgrading, just a routine 5 year renewal. A good friend in India is upgrading from 2nd Engineer to Chief Engineer and took a 6 month leave of absence to study and complete upgrade courses, which is typical.
4 Likes
That reads as if foreign mariners are subject to âlesser training requirementsâ when they train in the USA. That might be news to MPT and other schools where foreign and domestic students attend the same classes in the same courses at the same time. Are you claiming they are graded differently?
It sounds more like it depends on what country you get your licenses from. Just like the US orignal STCW may be more comprehensive than the international guidelines, it sounds like other countries renewal comes with a test. I hear so much grumbling from old timers about the two day refresher course we have to take to renew now, I cant imagine the bitching and moaning that would come from having to test.
1 Like
U.S. vessels do not need STCW in Canada, and Canadian vessels do not need STCW in the U.S. See the MOU between the USCG and Transport Canada.
3 Likes