guys, the tug is an Army boat, not navy and the “personnel” onboard would most likely be the army crew, the licenses they get from the government doesn’t allow them to cross oceans, thats why they need a delivery crew
More of the same …
You might want to ask the crew of the Henry Knox (LT-802) how they got from Tacoma, Washington to Hythe, England.
And I would love to know what “licenses” the government hands out to Army sailors.
Did you read the solicitation?
Steamer, I just read the solicitation and it is very specific.
SO! The solicitation for those who did not read it, sets out Minimum crewing, and of course to be competitive the company winning this bid is not going to hire any more than they have to. The trip starts from VA not FL. The military personnel will be 2 for most of the trip, there apparently to keep the secure parts of the ship secure from the crew. And an additional security detail for up to 17 days, presumably for the “Pirate Alley” part of the trip.
And the deadline for submissions is in a few days so they are most likely getting sweating to put the crew together now as the crew list with certs, resumes and licenses is to be submitted with the paperwork.
If anyone is interested I suggest submitting to all the companies not just to Prateek. (no offense to Prateek) I don’t qualify or I would be applying. If you don’t know the other companies do as Steamer says and do the research, they are all listed.
Steamer: I have worked on these tugs before, I have met the crews, Im sorry i called it a “license” but they do have some sort of qualification, and if the 802 is the one I think it is they got to England with merchnt sailors at the helm, msc contracted a company called Troika, the army did not take the tug across the pond, they might have been onboard but they were not in command
Steamer, respectful dissent, debate, and discussion are what made this forum the hugely popular place that it is. We have had very few flame threads. This one has the potential to head down that road and you’re the one waving the fan. I’d respectfully request that you put it down and return to a place of reason, from which place I will now add my two cents worth:
You’re, of course, approaching the concept of a two watch system from the paradigm you occupy, which is located somewhere south of the deck plating. The comments I’ve read on this thread regarding the issues of a two watch vessel crossing an ocean for the most part have come from deck department folk, who don’t, as dougpine wisely points out, get to nap while on watch. So, please grant the deck guys some leeway, as they are awake more than you are and have thus developed different attitudes than those of your esteemed department.
Please now indulge a personal observation: You are someone who is obviously skilled at identifying and then exploiting legal loopholes that allow one vessel to operate differently than another, thus legally flying in the face of a multitude of documented accident reports that point directly to fatigue as their cause. I applaud your willingness to be a company man. Save the boss a buck and get a gold star. I would venture to guess that the wonderful job you mention most certainly is shoreside.
You will without doubt come across so much better when you are less defensive, don’t lash out at those who disagree with you, and refrain from belittling the community here which is indeed made up of some of the finest professionals I have had the pleasure of getting to know.
Love,
C_A
[I]Army Reserve Magazine[/I], [I]Winter, 2005[/I] by [Hillary Anne Luton](http://findarticles.com/p/search/?qa=Hillary Anne Luton)
<!-- /pagination –><!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s1 weight=.7) –>"Is it the call of the sea that makes some Soldiers spend days or weeks or months sailing across the ocean? Is it the tilt of 128 feet of steel at 12 knots on calm waters? Or is it simply the desire to accomplish a demanding mission that few Army Reserve Soldiers will ever face?
<!-- google_ad_section_end (name=s1) –><!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s2 weight=.3) –>Perhaps the answer was “all of the above” for 23 Army Reserve Soldier-mariners who recently volunteered for a truly unique mission. These “salty” Soldiers navigated and sailed the MG Henry Knox Large Tug (LT-802) from Tacoma, Wash., to Hythe, England, in a mission that is believed to be the longest open-ocean tugboat mission in the U.S. Army Reserve’s watercraft history.
“This has been the most challenging Army mission and an excellent training operation,” said CW3 Tom Dike, 3rd mate.
Before the Knox could set sail on this historic 10,000-nautical mile mission, a top-notch crew had to be assembled. While the majority of the crew came from the 467th Transportation Company, volunteers also represented the 175th Transportation Company and the 805th Transportation Detachment, all from Tacoma, Wash., as well as the 949th Transportation Company, Baltimore, Md., and the 81st Regional Readiness Command (RRC).
‘We had a composite of multiple units, and the Soldiers came together seamlessly,’ said CW4 Mike Christiansen, 1st mate.
Over 5 1/2 months and countless hours were dedicated to preparing both crew and vessel for the journey that would take them over two oceans, one sea and the Gulf of Mexico."
Must not be the one you thought it was …
It is an interesting coincidence that the Knox towed another LT across the pond. That other tug is the one that started this whole thread, the LT-806.
I haven’t said a word about the two watch system one way or the other. It is irrelevant to the legality of this delivery. That is a fact, a fact that is in direct opposition to the supposition and opinion posted as fact by a few who have been shown to be somewhat less knowledgeable than the contractor who they accused of being ignorant of the applcable statutes.
“So, please grant the deck guys some leeway, as they are awake more than you are and have thus developed different attitudes than those of your esteemed department.”
They have unimpeded leeway to not apply for the position. In my opinion, this leeway does not extend to posting misinformation and berating others for their “obvious lack of knowledge of the laws governing towing vessels …”
“Please now indulge a personal observation: You are someone who is obviously skilled at identifying and then exploiting legal loopholes that allow one vessel to operate differently than another …”
That is a peculiar take on the issue. I don’t seek loopholes, and I am not involved in this contract. I am, however, a professional mariner who has the level of knowledge about my industry to understand that there is a difference between what I may think is right and what is reality. I know that my personal views on manning issues are not necessarily the same as those of the USCG, the IMO, or any other regulator.
If you cannot differentiate between your opinion and the law then that, sir, is your burden, not mine. If you disagree with the rules governing this contract you have the right to lodge a protest with the government agency which let it. My pointing out the misinformation posted on this site may disturb you personally but again, that is your burden, not mine.
“You will without doubt come across so much better when you are less defensive, don’t lash out at those who disagree with you …”
I have nothing to defend, the rules are what they are and I didn’t write them. If you don’t agree with that reality, again that is your burden. I have little reason or desire to “lash out” at those who confuse opinion with fact. I will, however, not hesitate to point out factual errors where I find them.
i originally heard about this through a headhunter then yesterday a friend emailed me about it after he saw it at rigzone. Isent my MMC, TWIC, and PASSPORT in an email. i have the AB Unlimited w/STCW for RFPNW and Lifeboatman and GMDSS. I haven’t worked in a month and a half and i’m beginning to grab at most straws.
Great description to calm the stormy seas of doubt and uncertainty. A friend called and is on this gig and should know this am about security clearance and more. Will post if I learn more goodies, he said a 5k bonus after two deliveries. We shall sea!
Sounds like a good job for some people. Have fun all.
[B][FONT=NewCenturySchlbk-Bold][LEFT]Watches.[/LEFT]
[/FONT][/B][FONT=MIonic]LEFT Title 46 U.S.C. 8104 is the law applicable to the establishment of watches aboard certain U.S. vessels. The establishment of adequate watches is the responsibility of the vessel’s master. The Coast Guard interprets the term[FONT=MIonic-Italic][I]watch [/I][SIZE=3][FONT=MIonic]to be the direct performance of vessel operations, whether deck or engine, where such operations would routinely be controlled and performed in a scheduled and fixed rotation. The performance of maintenance or work necessary
to the vessel’s safe operation on a daily basis does not in itself constitute the establishment of a watch. The minimum safe manning levels specified in a vessel’s certificate of inspection take into consideration routine maintenance requirements and ability of the crew to perform all operational evolutions, including emergencies, as well as those functions which may be assigned to persons in watches.
(b) Subject to exceptions, 46 U.S.C. 8104 requires that when a master of a seagoing vessel of more than 100 gross tons establishes watches for the licensed individuals, sailors, coal passers, firemen, oilers and watertenders, the personnel shall be [/FONT][I][FONT=MIonic-Italic]divided, when at sea, into at least three watches and shall be kept on duty successively to perform ordinary work incident to the operation and management of the vessel. [/FONT][/I][FONT=MIonic]The Coast Guard interprets [/FONT][I][FONT=MIonic-Italic]sailors [/FONT][/I][FONT=MIonic]to mean those members of the deck department other than licensed officers, whose duties involve the mechanics of conducting the ship on its voyage, such as helmsman
(wheelsman), lookout, etc., and which are necessary to the maintenance of a continuous watch. [/FONT][I][FONT=MIonic-Italic]Sailors [/FONT][/I][FONT=MIonic]is not interpreted to include able seamen and ordinary seamen not performing these duties.
© Subject to exceptions, 46 U.S.C. 8104(g) permits the licensed individuals and crew members (except the coal passers, firemen, oilers, and watertenders) to be divided into two watches when at sea and engaged on a voyage of [B][U]less than 600 miles[/U][/B] on the following
categories of vessels:
(1) Towing vessel;
(2) Offshore supply vessel; or,[/FONT][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]FONT=MIonic Barge.
Please note the source is 46CFR15.705. As the people being hired for this job are sailing on U.S. documents, it would behoove them to be aware of the pertinent regs. As was noted in another post, arriving in a foreign port with a 2 watch system may cause some problems. Government vessel or not, there are international regulations to be dealt with.
[/FONT]
Yes, it would. It would behoove all licensed officers to be able to read and understand the laws under which they exercise the responsiblities of their license.
“As was noted in another post, arriving in a foreign port with a 2 watch system may cause some problems.”
If the vessel is operating and documented in the same manner and equipped and manned to the same level as those vessels which were detained this may well be true.
“Government vessel or not, there are international regulations to be dealt with.”
Yes, and a professional mariner should be competent to discover those regulations and determine their applicability to the operation proposed.
I hope that you will respond with the list of EU amd IMO regulations that put an American seaman’s documents at risk.
For those who prefer the short version, please Google MCA MSN 1767. This is the UK interpretation and implementation of the EU and IMO regulations concerning manning levels and work hours.
And in case anyone has forgotten already, the boat in question is a US Army vessel, a US military asset. It is equivalent to what the MCA describes as a “fleet auxilliary” and is exempt.
If the sea lawyers want to have a go at it, the bid solicitation describes in no uncertain terms the "minimum crewing requirements and watch rotations"and since the vessel is not an inspected vessel under USCG rules, that contract requirement is the US Government’s declaration of a minimum safe manning document for the proposed voyage that is very carefully described as to route and duration. It should fulfill the requirements of the EU regulations in the event some PSC officer desires to detain a US military vessel.
It really is what it is …
Please note the source is 46CFR15.705. As the people being hired for this job are sailing on U.S. documents, it would behoove them to be aware of the pertinent regs. As was noted in another post, arriving in a foreign port with a 2 watch system may cause some problems. Government vessel or not, there are international regulations to be dealt with.
[B]Good try uberturtle… waving the cfr at him…he’s already said that he does not agree with some of the governing regulatory policies of this country such as IMO,CFR,SOLAS and others, so you are orating to deaf ears. He has no clue, has already made up his mind that he is right and everybody else is wrong, and worse…doesn’t really care. But he has the right to voice his opinions just as you and I do… Actually I rather enjoy some of his tirades…I once asked C/E to please take the Stbd. list out of the boat…he faced forward, cocked his head a little to the right and said “What list?”[/B]
Wish I could go, sounds like an easy paycheck, made that run dozens of times…tip, find some money for cartons of cigs and Cokes for Suez Pilot, turn off AIS in Gulf of Aden…and fuel inside the STROG is expensive.
Safe Trip to those who go!!!
re: manning and watches
IMHO…ignore the “subjectivity” of what is considered “prudent seamanship” for a minute…if you are operating any vessel under the authority of your license then you are answerable to the regulations of the organization that gave you that authority and issued the license…is that “sea lawyer” enough:rolleyes::rolleyes:??
majority of “boat” deliveries I have been on had 3 watch wheelhouse/deck/engine room+cook…all the deliveries I make do!!
**last I checked the USCG issued my license and not the US Army or US Navy for that matter!!
I have been selected for this position to sail as an AB Unlimited, who else is going with me?
Congrats! Keep us informed, ok? I’m really curious to hear how things go.
How did I miss this one?
Funny. That’s exactly what you need…a two-watch system during an ocean crossing, followed with a transit through pirate waters, on a small tug that has most likely never been inspected, or classed, and the only argument that can be made to deem this trip anywhere close to the standards that a professional mariner should expect, is the same argument that would negate their presents to begin with.
This will make a sea story similar to my stories of making and breaking tow while only wearing flip-flops and Bermuda shorts.
Hey I used to do that in Hawai’i! Nothing like being on the working end of a tug in nothing but slippers and surf trunks.
Be careful anchorman, you’re gonna get Steamer’s bloomers in a bunch again. We just got him calmed down.
Thanks for posting that stunning insight. As such an honorable and concscientious Son of Magellan, you really should immediately contact the USCG, MSC, and MARAD to let them know they are on the verge of collaborating in the commission of a federal crime and putting the entire crew and contractor in the position of co-conspirators. They probably don’t have your level of comprehension of the laws that apply to this sort of thing.
It is good to know that there are such well-informed and knowledgable defenders of the Code on this board. Surely with such clarity of thought and purity of purpose, you have already filed suit to prevent MSC from allowing this travesty to continue.