Sorry I offended you, Anchorman. I did not and do not question your professionalism one bit, but I most certainly do question the attitude you display here. I’ve worked in the oil patch and I know full well that the level of seamanship skills required for rig towing and anchor handling is very, very high. I also know that, because of this, many anchor boat captains tend to feel that everyone and everything else is beneath them, and not worthy of serious consideration. But we’re talking apples and oranges here.
You haven’t persuaded me and my view remains that the liability of DE’s is not clear at all. You’ve got your opinion and I’ve got mine. Eventually it may well be decided in a court room, with the involved DE simply being a pawn on the receiving end of collateral damage in the bigger money game that is our legal system. I hope that other DE’s at least consider the possibility of what they might be opening themselves up to.
Getting to the more important issue, you’re right, I don’t like the 30-day loophole one bit. Neither do any of the over 100 towing vessel masters who are fellow members of the Master of Towing Vessels Association. I suppose we’re all full of shit, anchorman. Thanks so much for setting us straight on this. I also don’t think that the status of being an anchor boat captain should entitle a DE to sign people off to be towing vessel officers without restriction when what you do is in many ways quite different from what the rest of us do. When I have questions about tractor tug ship-assist operations I talk with people I know that do it for a living, I don’t call up my buddy who moves stone tows on the Hudson River. What makes anchor boat captains such experts on all things towing?
You may find this hard to believe, but when we were actively opposing the extension of the loophole this year I actually promoted the idea that an exception can and <strong>should</strong> be made for oilfield mariners with relevant experience. But definitely not in just 30 days. I offered a suggestion of 90 to 120 days as a compromise that received no consideration at all. Maybe you never saw or read the original towing vessel license NPRM, the interim rules, and the final rule from 2001 when they were published in the Federal Register. It’s easy to see that the Coast Guard’s decision to create the 30-day loophole for the >200 GRT licenses was just an arbitrary political decision made to appease people with big licenses and no towing experience or ability, and that’s a fact. The argument for extending the loophole was based almost entirely on the basis that since 30 days was what the <strong>existing</strong> standard was meant that it would be fine to extend that loophole using that same standard. Our argument was that the initial standard was too low to begin with. There was <strong>never</strong> any informed debate on what would be a suitable amount of time, then or now.
As to why and how you sign people off so quickly, well, in the end that’s up to you as a DE. If you want to enlighten us as to how and why you do it that way, please feel free. I sincerely hope that it never bites you in the ass.
And if you really believe that expanding a loophole that could be used for allowing dinner boat drivers to become towing vessel officers in as little as 30 days is a good idea then I’ll continue to question your judgment, just as I’ll continue to question the judgment of people in AWO and the CG who’ve never run a tug in their life making decisions on professional qualifications standards that they’re clearly not qualified to make and directly affect our safety on the water.