We all have heard that it’s coming, has anyone used a Ouija board and divined exactly what the USCG might be up to in this area. All I have been able to find in writing is “…a new section with guidance on special licensing or training requirments…”
I understand that the Nautical Institute will no longer issue DP certificates to anyone with lower than a 200t license after the first of the year. This I beleive is a good thing, gone will be the days of an AB “running” the boat!
That would be crazy! I run a 100t DP2 vessel with an unlimited DP cert. and couldn’t do my job without it. There are more and more 100t DP2 vessels coming into the market everyday. The bigger oil companies are requiring the vessels to be DP equipped. You’ll never be able to get an operator with a bigger license to operate these vessels with the drop in pay and stautus.
I understand your concern, I too ran 100t dp2 boats. and it will put pressure on the 100t operators, but I did read the letter from IMCA (I believe), It was very clear on that point. So existing 100 tonners with Dp certs will be like gold. But back to the question, What is the USCG planning here?
here is an article from this site: [B]Dynamic Positioning Operator Qualification Changes Announced[/B]
[LEFT][B]By [gCaptain Staff](http://gcaptain.com/forum/author/admin)[/B][/LEFT]
[Share On Facebook](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgcaptain.com%2Fdynamic-positioning-operator-qualification%3F22097&t=Dynamic%20Positioning%20Operator%20Qualification%20Changes%20Announced%C2%A0%7C%C2%A0gCaptain&src=sp) [B] February 22nd 2011 · 2 Comments [/B]
[[IMG]http://gcaptain.com/forum/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/51441-21-300x200.jpg[/IMG]](http://gcaptain.com/forum/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/51441-21.jpg)The Nautical Institute has announced two major changes in their qualification procedures for Dynamic Positioning Operator certification that will become effective January 1, 2012.
First, they are significantly restricting the amount of “prior” sea time a person can apply toward the document. Many mariners have several months or even years of DP operating experience before they attend the “Induction” course that is the first step toward certification. That prior service can now be counted toward the 6 months of DP watchstanding service required to qualify for the document. After January 1, the Nautical Institute will only credit a maximum of 30 days of prior service, so everyone will need to document at least 150 days of sea time after the Induction course. This will significantly extend the qualification time for many people who can now take advantage of the current procedures.
The current system requires a person to obtain 30 days of “familiarization” time after attending the Induction course. Then a total of 180 days of DP watchstanding experience must be obtained, in addition to completing the advanced Simulator course. A person who has been working on DP boats prior to attending the Induction course is now entitled to apply that prior DP time toward the 180 days of watchstanding time. When the procedures change he will only be able to use 30 days of that previous time, meaning he will have to obtain 5 more months of DP time before he can apply.
The second change is that a person will be required to hold at least an OICNW or OICEW level license (200 ton Mate or above or DDE or above) to apply for DPO. Although this doesn’t affect many boat personnel, it will impact drilling companies who are grooming industrial personnel without CG licenses for DPO certification. The effects of this change won’t be felt immediately because anyone who is in training for DPO prior to January 1, 2012 can still complete the process without holding a license. The Nautical Institute policy isn’t clear on what constitutes “in training,” but it would certainly include anyone who has attended an Induction course. The policy does clearly state that existing DPOs will not be affected, so anyone who is currently certified but doesn’t hold a license will retain their DPO authority.
Any companies who have plans for advancing their personnel to DPO certification should keep the January 1, 2012 effective date of these changes in mind. Individuals who have prior service on DP vessels should try to complete their training and apply before that date to keep from losing their time. Personnel without licenses who want to obtain DPO certification should complete at least the Induction course prior to the end of the year so they can be considered “in training.”
[I]Via Houston Marine Training Services. Image courtesy Kongsberg[/I]
Ok, but that still does not answer the original question. “What are the Coast Guards intentions regarding this issue”.
Will a person that now holds a DPO certificate but does not have a license still be able to be in charge of a Navigational Watch just because he can maneuver a vessel while it is on DP mode or by using the Joystick while it is on joystick mode? I believe we are talking about Apples and Oranges here…Coast Guard License vs DP certificate while in charge of the Bridge of a Self Propelled Vessel…[B]The Nautical Institute has announced[/B] [B]two major changes in their qualification procedures for Dynamic Positioning Operator certification that will become effective January 1, 2012[/B].
I forsee the NI certificate being not worth the paper it’s written on in the US with the news that nobody under 200 tons can get one because of all the 100 ton boats in the oil field that have it. Hell you don’t build one today with out it. In reality in the US you do not have to have anything saying your qualified by any regulatory body to operate in DP. The only ones that care about any thing like that are the oil companies and then it’s only the majors.
Maybe we will see the CG do something but I doubt it. We would first have to see the IMO pass something and then it would be years before the CG got around to doing anything about it.
[QUOTE=Jemplayer;51764]I forsee the NI certificate being not worth the paper it’s written on in the US with the news that nobody under 200 tons can get one because of all the 100 ton boats in the oil field that have it. Hell you don’t build one today with out it. In reality in the US you do not have to have anything saying your qualified by any regulatory body to operate in DP. The only ones that care about any thing like that are the oil companies and then it’s only the majors.
Maybe we will see the CG do something but I doubt it. We would first have to see the IMO pass something and then it would be years before the CG got around to doing anything about it.[/QUOTE]
Just Curious, why would that negate someone currently holding a valid DPO certificate. It would stop unlicensed people from getting one in the future. Sounds like NI will make the prior licensing a requirement on their own with or without USCG input.
[QUOTE=stevefoster;51761]Ok, but that still does not answer the original question. “What are the Coast Guards intentions regarding this issue”.
Will a person that now holds a DPO certificate but does not have a license still be able to be in charge of a Navigational Watch just because he can maneuver a vessel while it is on DP mode or by using the Joystick while it is on joystick mode? I believe we are talking about Apples and Oranges here…Coast Guard License vs DP certificate while in charge of the Bridge of a Self Propelled Vessel…[B]The Nautical Institute has announced[/B] [B]two major changes in their qualification procedures for Dynamic Positioning Operator certification that will become effective January 1, 2012[/B].[/QUOTE]
Um, Really??? Last time I checked only an officer can be in charge of a bridge watch. therefore if a DPO does not have OICNW he must be under the direct supervision of an Officer, just like a Helmsman!!!
[QUOTE=Jemplayer;51764]I forsee the NI certificate being not worth the paper it’s written on in the US with the news that nobody under 200 tons can get one because of all the 100 ton boats in the oil field that have it. Hell you don’t build one today with out it. In reality in the US you do not have to have anything saying your qualified by any regulatory body to operate in DP. The only ones that care about any thing like that are the oil companies and then it’s only the majors.
Maybe we will see the CG do something but I doubt it. We would first have to see the IMO pass something and then it would be years before the CG got around to doing anything about it.[/QUOTE]
You won’t see anything from the USCG until an accident occurs that involves loss of life or a major spill and DP is a significant contributor to the cause. The USCG knows next to nothing about DP and do not want to regulate something new, trust me on that one. That being said, I think you will see some type of domestic certificate in the US for companies to fall back on for insurance purposes.
When the USCG originally got DP vessels they were sending people to a DP school in Vancouver. Now of course they have their own DP school in Virginia. I went through it in 2003 or 2004 and it is a good basic school but that is pretty much where it ends for them. There is no advanced requirement, the rest is OJT which is why they had a few incidents (not publicized) with some of their DP vessels. The most significant I can remember was the new MACKINAW running into a jetty in Duluth I believe.
Additionally, the people that will do the inspections of DP systems when the Coast Guard starts that will be taking the word (pretty much) of the companies when doing their inspections because who do you think is going to write the requirements for them???
Hope so Senior Chief!
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;51774]You won’t see anything from the USCG until an accident occurs that involves loss of life or a major spill and DP is a significant contributor to the cause. The USCG knows next to nothing about DP and do not want to regulate something new, trust me on that one.[/QUOTE]
You got that one right! Electrical propulsion is a great example as well.
It is really unfortunate that in the absence of any CG input, a group of English businessmen have set themselves up as the world authority and gatekeeper for DP. The English have a solid history of turning over technical certification to private groups that turn the opportunity into profit or power. There is a vacuum in the DP certification area and if the CG can’t or won’t participate then American mariners will have no choice but to play by the rules created by a foreign “club.”
This is one more reason why the CG should stop pretending it cares about American seafarers and the American merchant marine and turn maritime oversight and certification over to another agency which truly has an interest in promoting American maritime progress.
Maybe we should form a GCaptain DP Institute for Domestic DP Licenses and form our own club…
Right on, we don’t need to go to London for the paper.
Luckily I got my paper from London a day before they changed everything…
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;56153]Luckily I got my paper from London a day before they changed everything…[/QUOTE]
Lucky you, congratulations…I envy you…
Interesting thread on DP certification, thanks for the insightful posts. I know little about the Nautical Institute, but wondered why & how a UK trade organization was dictating DP matters in US waters. Is it simply for lack of any alternative, nothing DP in STCW so no USCG interest, and no US-based organization to cover the field? Is insurance requiring the NI certificate for all DP operators, or the vessel operators are just following what each other does? I’ve seen what the UK MCA has pulled-off in the yacht world, a convoluted and overpriced training & licensing scheme that they tried to push on the entire world of non-commercial boating. Fortunately I steered clear of them.
I could never make sense of the DP certification path – seemed very difficult to find the training console time, like a bottleneck in the process, so I never started on it. Probably a career mistake, DPO seems to be the only deck jobs available these days. It’s like my Master 1600 Oceans license is missing a fundamental component, and I wasn’t sharp enough to see it a few years ago. I understand that DP is a complicated system that controls critical maneuvering, and heck I’ve never even touched one, but that seems like a long and steep certification path. Did the DPO on a 100ton crewboat go through the same certification path as the DPO on a big drill rig? Heck, if I could see light at the end of the DP certification tunnel, I might plop down my cash for the induction course . . . but the light is still obscured by that soupy London fog, so I’ll hold off, again. Let me know when the US DP Club opens, I’ll join up!
Regards,
KB
The Nautical Institute is an international organisation run by and for the benefit of professional mariners. There are no business interests or otherwise connected to them. There are branches wordwide, including several in the USA. No need to get too paranoid.
While I agree that there are no business interests other than their own it is a british organization, it just has branch chapters in other countries. The head office and their printing press is in england. I do not know how much of their head leadership is not british but there may be some.
Greenhorn, regarding your completely off-topic reply, if you read my comments you´ll see that I am not asking the number and location of their offices. They definitely do not represent me, and I see no benefit from that group in England. If you want to call me paranoid, then I´ll call you an idiot. Now go back to the pub where you belong.
“There are branches wordwide, including several in the USA. No need to get too paranoid.”
Didn’t someone say that “just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you?”
This is the first statement on the Nautical lnstitute’s webpage that tells why they have “branches.”
"The principal aim of the branches is ‘to promote the activities and increase the membership of The Nautical Institute in the area.’”
It sounds like the description of a virus to me … replicate replicate replicate.