The Coast Guard issued a notice announcing the availability of dynamic positioning training certification programs. This notice is related to an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking on requirements for MODUs and other vessels conducting outer continental shelf activities with dynamic positioning systems
The Coast Guard is providing this information to assist the public in locating dynamic positioning training certification programs, and does not endorse or recommend any such program.
For additional information, please view the entire Federal Register notice.
The OSVDPA course looks quite extensive
Pfft the OSVDPA was just made by US OSV companies so they can get so licenses into the hands of guys faster and also be able to put AB’s behind the console. It was made to dilute the workforce and drive wages down.
And that strategy has worked very well for them over the years. The DDE license was born back in the day when it was decided by the OSV operators that, damn it, it just takes too long to come up with a C/E - Limited. So sea time requirements were reduced as, all the while, things down in the engine room only got more complex. And it’s not as if this was at least partially-compensated for by increased technical training requirements.
The USCG tends to be “customer-oriented” when it comes to things like this.
Same as it ever was…
[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;188519]And that strategy has worked very well for them over the years. The DDE license was born back in the day when it was decided by the OSV operators that, damn it, it just takes too long to come up with a C/E - Limited. So sea time requirements were reduced as, all the while, things down in the engine room only got more complex. And it’s not as if this was at least partially-compensated for by increased technical training requirements.
The USCG tends to be “customer-oriented” when it comes to things like this.
Same as it ever was…[/QUOTE]
The USCG certainly has handed out a lot of give-aways to the bayou mafia and oil patch Mariners. The USCG just did it again for the AWO with this ridiculous Subchapter M give-way. What a joke. Tugboat Mariners have gotten a little bit fairer treatment with the 2014 rule changes, but we are still getting the short end of the stick because that’s how the AWO wants it.
DP is a seamanship competence that is in demand in the US. Letting a the NI , an understaffed and overwhelmed private club in London, control the certification of US Mariners for DP is utterly absurd . It’s long passed time for the US to assert sovereignty and have the USCG takeover DP certification.
There is a perfectly good DPO Certifying scheme in place that is recognized world wide: http://www.nautinst.org/en/dynamic-positioning/
If NI doesn’t suite, there are the equally recognized DNV-GL DPO training scheme: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/RP/2014-04/DNVGL-RP-0007.pdf
There is a Catch 22; To be fully licensed DPO you need a certain time on DP vessels and hours of actual DP operation. If nobody want to hire DPOs unless they are fully licensed, how are they going to get the required experience?: http://www.nautinst.org/en/dynamic-positioning/
P> I don’t know if any of this actually applies to US operations. Presumably there are special rules for this as well as anything else in the Maritime field?
[QUOTE=ombugge;188524]There is a perfectly good DPO Certifying scheme in place that is recognized world wide: http://www.nautinst.org/en/dynamic-positioning/
If NI doesn’t suite, there are the equally recognized DNV-GL DPO training scheme: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNVGL/RP/2014-04/DNVGL-RP-0007.pdf
There is a Catch 22; To be fully licensed DPO you need a certain time on DP vessels and hours of actual DP operation. If nobody want to hire DPOs unless they are fully licensed, how are they going to get the required experience?: http://www.nautinst.org/en/dynamic-positioning/
P> I don’t know if any of this actually applies to US operations. Presumably there are special rules for this as well as anything else in the Maritime field?[/QUOTE]
Although the US does not yet have any requirements for DP, it should. The offshore industry in the
US has adopted the NI DP scheme based upon customer demands. I would not say that there is anything wrong with the NI Scheme, but it’s administration is far too slow. Nor should the US Government allow a foreign private club to dictate who is allowed to work in the US.
DP should be a license endorsement issued by the US Government, and only US licensed DPOs should be allowed to work in the US.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;188529]Although the US does not yet have any requirements for DP, it should. The offshore industry in the
US has adopted the NI DP scheme based upon customer demands. I would not say that there is anything wrong with the NI Scheme, but it’s administration is far too slow. Nor should the US Government allow a foreign private club to dictate who is allowed to work in the US.
DP should be a license endorsement issued by the US Government, and only US licensed DPOs should be allowed to work in the US.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that NI or DNV-GL dictate, or indeed has any influence on, where those having qualified as DPOs under their schemes are allowed to work. It is up to each flag state, or shelf state, to accept or refuse to accept the qualifications. (I don’t know of any that do refuse though)
As to a whether US should accept or refuse foreign DPO qualifications on vessels under their jurisdiction is obviously up to US authorities. The same goes for any other country before accepting US qualifications, if other than the accepted standard.
As far as I know, the only COCs and other Maritime qualifications issued by/on behalf of USCG accepted by other countries are those meeting STCW requirements.
If the US don’t have any DPO qualifications of their own it is obvious that any US citizen wanting to qualify as DPO need to hold a foreign qualification to be accepted for work anywhere, even in the US.
[QUOTE=ombugge;188532]I don’t think that NI or DNV-GL dictate, or indeed has any influence on, where those having qualified as DPOs under their schemes are allowed to work. It is up to each flag state, or shelf state, to accept or refuse to accept the qualifications. (I don’t know of any that do refuse though)
As to a whether US should accept or refuse foreign DPO qualifications on vessels under their jurisdiction is obviously up to US authorities. The same goes for any other country before accepting US qualifications, if other than the accepted standard.
As far as I know, the only COCs and other Maritime qualifications issued by/on behalf of USCG accepted by other countries are those meeting STCW requirements.
If the US don’t have any DPO qualifications of their own it is obvious that any US citizen wanting to qualify as DPO need to hold a foreign qualification to be accepted for work anywhere, even in the US.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you didn’t read the replies very carefully did you?
As far as I know, no flag state requires any DP certification. It’s all client driven.
The complaint is that American mariners are beholden to a private foreign entity that is inefficiently run in order to work in their home waters.
The desire of many here is for the USCG to institute an official DP endorsement and make it illegal to require any other DP certification for Americans to work in US waters.
but it is designed to allow you to get a USCG DP ticket on a pleasureboat with a joystick, hence as usual dumbing down the US mariner to ensure he cant be employed anywhere else in the world.
OSVDPA says there are 350 non classed vessels that have some kind of DP on them in the GoM
To whose benefit was this system created for…the vessel owners
PS Yes the NI was pathetically managed right when it needed to really pull its weight, its all fixed now.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;188567]Wow, you didn’t read the replies very carefully did you?
As far as I know, no flag state requires any DP certification. It’s all client driven.
The complaint is that American mariners are beholden to a private foreign entity that is inefficiently run in order to work in their home waters.
The desire of many here is for the USCG to institute an official DP endorsement and make it illegal to require any other DP certification for Americans to work in US waters.[/QUOTE]
And to make it illegal for anyone who is not a US licensed officer to be a DPO in US waters.
That was the big gripe. When we really needed their system to work it was shit. So we were dealing with a foreign entity that had zero concern for the people it was regulating, and it cost a lot of people money and heartache. We are used to dealing with broken systems here but usually there is some kind of recourse or rectification. By all accounts it does seems like they have gotten squared away in the last few months.
What’s your hard on for Mariners that work on unclassed vessels? That should be directed towards Kongsberg and the likes who install these systems on boats they know will not be classed and the USCG for allowing these boats to work in that capacity.
You still have to take both expensive NI classes “Induction and Simulator” and do the time to get the OSVDPA certification. I don’t see how it matters who gives you the final “certification”. You’re right though, it’s all fixed now. The turnaround time for NI is 3 weeks now. A friend I was in class with that gets more DP days than me just went through the NI. The OSVDPA program isn’t up and running yet anyway so I will do whichever the quickest after I log my final 19 days.
[QUOTE=coldduck;188622]What’s your hard on for Mariners that work on unclassed vessels? That should be directed towards Kongsberg and the likes who install these systems on boats they know will not be classed and the USCG for allowing these boats to work in that capacity.[/QUOTE]
The fact that a smaller vessel is unclassed , and possibly Uninspected , in the US, does not mean anything. Most US vessels are Unclassed. The same vessels probably would be classed (and inspected ) most other places in the world, but its simply is not required in the US. The lack of class, which means not classed DP either, for a vessel is meaningless.
This is a good example of where the NI does not understand the difference between US and foreign regulations and customs. The NI just makes a wild assumption that there must be something wrong with an unclassed vessel. There isn’t. It’s just not required for smaller vessels in the US.
All OSV’s and crew boats are inspected.
[QUOTE=coldduck;188632]All OSV’s and crew boats are inspected.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s true, all OSVs and crew boats are inspected.
99 percent of tugs are Uninspected in the US.
Most OSVs under 99 GRT are probably not classed. As far as I know, all crew boats are under 99 GRT. There may be some classed crew boats, but probably damn few.
You have to think about it from the UK point of view (as the NI does being a bunch of Brits sitting in London). In the UK (and everywhere else in the civilized world) virtually all commercial vessels, including tugs, are inspected. I do not know the class rules in the US, much less the UK, but I expect that even most small commercial vessels are also classed in the UK. So, from the NI point of view a vessel that is unclassed, is deficient. It’s rather weird, and not worthy of much consideration.
I am am not saying that the NI point of view is correct for the US. It isn’t. This is a reason why the NI is not the right organization to be entrusted with certifying DPOs in the US. The NI just does not understand the regulations, customs, and working conditions in the US.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;188567]Wow, you didn’t read the replies very carefully did you?
As far as I know, no flag state requires any DP certification. It’s all client driven.
The complaint is that American mariners are beholden to a private foreign entity that is inefficiently run in order to work in their home waters.
The desire of many here is for the USCG to institute an official DP endorsement and make it illegal to require any other DP certification for Americans to work in US waters.[/QUOTE]
It is true that no flag state issue DPO Certificate, but they do specify training requirements and approve training facilities.
For DPOs working in the Norwegian Sector, or on vessels under Norwegian flag anywhere, it is stipulated that only NI or NMD can approve such facilities.
To act as DPO it is required to hold a valid DPO Certificate issued by NI. This is regardless of nationality of the person, (or the vessel, if working in Norwegian waters)
To have DPOs who are NOT part of the normal Deck Officer complement is rear, but I’m not sure if it is prohibited. If so, the OOW must be present on the bridge at all times, even when on DP, however.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;188628]The fact that a smaller vessel is unclassed , and possibly Uninspected , in the US, does not mean anything. Most US vessels are Unclassed. The same vessels probably would be classed (and inspected ) most other places in the world, but its simply is not required in the US. The lack of class, which means not classed DP either, for a vessel is meaningless.
This is a good example of where the NI does not understand the difference between US and foreign regulations and customs. The NI just makes a wild assumption that there must be something wrong with an unclassed vessel. There isn’t. It’s just not required for smaller vessels in the US.[/QUOTE]
NI is a neutral body that happen to be situated in London, just like IMO, OCIMF, IMCA and several other Shipping institutions with world wide reach.
That every internationally recognized organization, or institution, must have special rules, or exemptions from rules, to suite some countries special situation is not realistic.
Most countries comply with the international norms and rules to avoid complications and conflicts when their vessels and seafarers operate in other countries.
I believe the US does so too, only the purely domestic fleet and seafarers that works domestically are affected by the special national rules insisted on by USCG.
[QUOTE=ombugge;188649]NI is a neutral body that happen to be situated in London, just like IMO, OCIMF, IMCA and several other Shipping institutions with world wide reach.
That every internationally recognized organization, or institution, must have special rules, or exemptions from rules, to suite some countries special situation is not realistic.
Most countries comply with the international norms and rules to avoid complications and conflicts when their vessels and seafarers operate in other countries.
I believe the US does so too, only the purely domestic fleet and seafarers that works domestically are affected by the special national rules insisted on by USCG.[/QUOTE]
See. Europeans just don’t understand the way things work in the USA.
The USCG did not insist on the more lightly regulated approach that the US takes. The “People” did (especially, the vessel owners, their trade associations, their lobbyists, and the Congressmen who’s votes they buy with campaign contributions).
You make my point, the NI is the wrong organization to regulate DP in the US because it does not understand that the USA, the World’s largest economy and only superpower, has been as successful as it has been because it charts its own relatively efficient course, instead of getting tied up in unnecessary over-complicated multilateral European red tape or “international norms.”
The US has a huge domestic fleet.
The NI and European “international norms” simply do not fit the needs and realities of the US domestic fleet.