reality??dream on…the “reality” is that these “regs” were developed by the USCG to placate the management of a segment of the marine industry enabling them to lower vessel manning requirements which in turn made the ATB concept very competitive with coast-wise and deep draft shipping…the “reality” is that it is all about the “Benies”!!
I was on a Bludworth ATB when the bow ram failed and we were ejected from the notch. Not a pleasant experience, to be sure.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;20987][I][/I]
ATBs are considered the same as “dual-mode” ITBs under [FONT=Verdana][URL="http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
In my reading of NVIC 2-81 there is an absence of a bright line distinction between Pushing Mode and Dual Mode ITB’s that would support the general statement that “ATBs are considered the same as dual mode ITBs.” I understand that the USCG may be making decisions on licensing and regulation based on that assertion, but I don’t see the support for it in the language of NVIC 2-81, specifically as follows:
“A [B]Pushing Mode[/B] ITB tug may
be -connected to the barge with either a rigid or an [B]articulated connection[/B] system.”
A [B]Dual Model[/B] ITB is similar to a tug and barge where the. tug is secured in the
barge notch or on fenders by means such as [B]wire rope, chains, lines or other tackle[/B]
now commonly used in offshore towing in that it is in all respects equipped to tow
by hawser.
By those definitions alone ATBs would seem more likely to fall under the “Pushing Mode” category. I understand that part two of those definitions goes on to describe the differences between towline pull stability and installed equipment etc. which may (or may not as we heard from jnovak) make a stronger case for ATB’s to fall into the “Dual Mode” category - but the language used is not definitive, it is vague and descriptive. For example, there are “and” “or” and “for example” descriptions which point the reader in a direction but do not preclude multiple interpretations.
I think it is worth the time for the USCG to publish a NVIC which clearly addresses ATBs. Crowley’s new 750 class is going to be larger than a lot of tankers - I think it would make sense to be able to upgrade an unlimited license from sea time on of them the same way you would on a similar size tanker - which would be the case if they were considered parallel to Pushing Mode ITBs right?
Anyway thanks for all your informed and helpful replies over the years Mr. Cavo, they are always appreciated.
Seems like there was an editing error there, but just to be clear that was supposed to start out with a quote from jdcavo, and “Pushing Mode” was supposed to be bold in red.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;20987][I][/I]
ATBs are considered the same as “dual-mode” ITBs…[/QUOTE]
In my reading of NVIC 2-81 there is an absence of a bright line distinction between Pushing Mode and Dual Mode ITB’s that would support the general statement that “ATBs are considered the same as dual mode ITBs.” I understand that the NMC may consider them the same, but I don’t see the support for it in the language of NVIC 2-81, specifically as follows:
“A [B]Pushing Mode[/B] ITB tug may
be -connected to the barge with either a rigid or an [B]articulated connection[/B] system.”
“A [B]Dual Model[/B] ITB is similar to a tug and barge where the. tug is secured in the
barge notch or on fenders by means such as [B]wire rope, chains, lines or other tackle[/B]
now commonly used in offshore towing in that it is in all respects equipped to tow
by hawser.”
By those definitions alone ATBs would seem a lot more likely to fall under the “Pushing Mode” category. I understand that part two of those definitions goes on to describe the differences between towline pull stability and installed equipment etc. which may (or probably does not, as we heard from jnovak) make a stronger case for ATB’s to fall into the “Dual Mode” category - but the language used is not definitive, it is vague and descriptive.
For example, there are “and” “or” and “for example” descriptions which point the reader in a direction but do not preclude multiple interpretations.
I think it is worth the time for the USCG to publish a NVIC which clearly addresses ATBs. Crowley’s new 750 class is going to be larger than a lot of tankers - I think it would make sense to be able to upgrade an unlimited license from sea time on of them the same way you would on a similar size tanker - which would be the case if they were considered parallel to Pushing Mode ITBs right?
Anyway thanks for all your informed and helpful replies over the years Mr. Cavo, they are always appreciated.
I was a plank owner on the Jamie A. Baxter. It was an ITB. Once out of the notch it was able to manuever as a vessel but could not tow. It had a central ram that extended and once locked in the cradle was able to (with the help of the mains) pull the tug into the notch for a ridged connection. The tug was built in Strugeon Bay Wisconsin and the barge (a gantry crane and conveyor belt system) was built in Avondale Shipyard in La. The tug was sailed down from Wisconsin and mated with the barge at Avondale with very few modifications. The tug had to be constantly kept ballasted so that if we needed to we could eject manually or automatically away from the barge. The unit could take 17 foot seas before the decision to eject was made. At that time that was the definition of an ITB as per USCG. All my time on that vessel counted towards my 3rd Mate AGT…
steve,
I see this is a very old post but ryplying in the hopes you may read it. I also worked for cf on the baxter early 80’s. Long since lost touch with any of the guys I worked with. Do you know of any way to obtain a crew list from those days? BTW, my grandfather designed that boat, Hjalmar E, Breit Jr., he was known as Del Breit.
thx
Hjalmar E. Breit IV
256-483-6259
hebiv@bellsouth.net