USCG Announces Dynamic positioning training certification programs

[QUOTE=tugsailor;188672]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.[/QUOTE]

OK, now I get it; since the US is the world’s largest economy and only superpower it needs to have separate rules for everything.
International rules, regulations and norms are just a hindrance to the (in)efficient way things are run.

The “lite” regulations put forward by the USCG is at the request of “we the People”, as represented by vessel Owners, trade associations, their lobbyists and the Congressmen who they own. (You forgot the Unions, don’t they fit in here somewhere?)

Now, to make sure I understand; to follow the over-complicated rules and regulations that is used in the rest of the world would just not suite the reality of the US domestic fleet? To ensure the safety of operation and the safety of those who crew this large (and largely unclassified) fleet of “modern and highly efficient vessels” it is necessary to make it easy to obtain any kind of Maritime Licences that is only good for service on those same vessels while in home waters?

To actually follow the International Conventions, Treaties and Maritime Agreements that the US has signed up to is only to avoid US flag vessels leaving home waters from being detained in foreign ports. (Maybe also to avoid that US Mariners can find work on non-US flag vessels?)

OK, you got me convinced that the US is truly exceptional in more ways then one. (Now back to watch your truly exceptional way of electing your leaders)

[QUOTE=ombugge;188677]
Now, to make sure I understand; to follow the over-complicated rules and regulations that is used in the rest of the world would just not suite the reality of the US domestic fleet?
OK, you got me convinced that the US is truly exceptional in more ways then one. (Now back to watch your truly exceptional way of electing your leaders)[/QUOTE]

There you go again ignoring a fundamental difference of scope to fit your agenda. Area wise, you could fit 2 Europes into the US. A percentage of States and countries are maritime and some are landlocked but all of the maritime US States speak a common language and share cultural values unlike Europe’s maritime nations which are a hodge podge of bickering interests with different languages and cultures. We can have a homogenous coastal trade and you can’t. Not without a unifying system.
Since we are protecting your whiny little asses from the big nasty bear with our military umbrella pretty much for free, where the fuck do you get the audacity to suggest that we should kowtow to your way of doing things in our coastal waters and instead use a system which was created to suit your own completely different purposes?

There are things that are good about the US maritime regulatory system, and things that are done very poorly.

The unclassed DP vessels (mostly crew boats and PSVs up to about 200 feet, that service rigs and platforms on the shelf) are not one of the problems. It does not matter that the USCG allows these vessels to be registered as only 99 GRT, so these vessels are not required to be classed. The experience that the DPOs on the unclassed vessels get operating the same Kongsberg equipment as on the larger classed vessels is very similar.

The NI did modify its rules so that US Mariners are not required to hold STCW endorsements in order to qualify as DPOs. STCW does not apply to any US vessel under 200 GRT (that’s about 500 GT). The NI only requires that a mariner hold what they call a “vocational” license. What the US calls a “national” or “domestic” license.

However, the NI has refused to consider the fact that most of the smaller vessels these Mariners operate are unclassed. NThere is no reason for the NI to penalize US Mariners on the unclassed vessels by refusing to accept any of their DP seatime. That is absurd. When the NI insists on arrogantly doing that, then they should expect to be booted out and replaced by a US certification agency. And they should be. There is no reason why US domestic Mariners should have to put up with arrogant nonsense from the Eurocentric stuffed shirts at the NI.

The US only has about 100 deep sea foreign going ships, not much of a factor in global shipping, but it probably has five times as many small “home trade” commercial vessels as Europe. I’ve heard estimates of about 10,000 Uninspected towing vessels — tugs. Very few of them are classed. There are a lot of USCG inspected small passenger vessels, including all those oil field crew boats, thousands of them, none of which are classed. Whatever we have been doing ok this way for the last 200 years, it seems to have worked reasonably well. Why should we suddenly let a private club in London overrule our own government?

[QUOTE=tugsailor;188618]And to make it illegal for anyone who is not a US licensed officer to be a DPO in US waters.[/QUOTE]

It already is, we just need to do something about the waivers being issued too easily.

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;188696]It already is, we just need to do something about the waivers being issued too easily.[/QUOTE]

The foreign offshore companies and their loggyists are buying Congressmen and USCG Admirals in order to get these absurd waivers for foreign crew. It’s a complete sham and a fraud. The same way the AWO and bayou mafia has been buying them on other issues.

DPO needs to become a US issued endorsement on US licenses. That needs to become the only accepted certification in US waters. Of course, only US citizens can hold a US license.

I believe that the IMO is also looking into creating an STCW endorsement for DPOs. I hope so. It’s crazy for this important ship handling skill to be issued separately by a private club in London.

[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]
My comment also included non classed “DP systems” not just the vessels which they are on.
This is what caused a huge problem for US Mariners trying to prove their seatime as the vessels dont exist in any system internationally recognised.

[QUOTE=tugsailor;188638]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]
One system for merica one for the rest of the world…
The big scam in the USA is the way the USCG measures a boat, what gets under 99grt in the USA is probably over 1000+ grt in every other other flag state. That has been done for the vessel owners benefit to the detriment of the US mariner.
I can only assume the USCG doesnt have any online system to allow another country to look up a USCG specials therefore they possibly contributed to the slow processing of US Mariners

What is a “USCG specials”?

[QUOTE=tugsailor;188697]The foreign offshore companies and their loggyists are buying Congressmen and USCG Admirals in order to get these absurd waivers for foreign crew. It’s a complete sham and a fraud. The same way the AWO and bayou mafia has been buying them on other issues.

DPO needs to become a US issued endorsement on US licenses. That needs to become the only accepted certification in US waters. Of course, only US citizens can hold a US license.

I believe that the IMO is also looking into creating an STCW endorsement for DPOs. I hope so. It’s crazy for this important ship handling skill to be issued separately by a private club in London.[/QUOTE]
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/STCW-revised-adopted.aspx#.V6r326LzmDk
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/TrainingCertification/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx

Not sure about STCW endorsement but they are stating the standards of training which follows the IMCA guidelines in part B
But the USA being the most non aligned STCW flag state, the IMO might say it but the USCG will not ratify if the vessel owners complain as usual…
The reason the IMO has not touched this is that as you say its a ship handling skill, I dont believe there is a flag state in the world that mandates any hands on skill for a ticket, ( other than radio, radar, ecdis etc.)an unlimited Master means in theory you know how to run the vessel.
Along comes DP and now we need people who can handle a vessel, oops
So lets say you go into a DP sim and fail your vessel handling, so no DP ticket, what will your employer make of that, you have now been proved not competent to handle a vessel?
What will an insurance company make of that?
Huge can of worms
PS every cruise ship operating in US waters has foreign DPO’s on it.

[QUOTE=Flyer69;188709]What is a “USCG specials”?[/QUOTE]

boats they measure to ensure they are 99grt or under yet if anybody else measured it, it would be more then double that

The assessment is one of the things I like the most about the OSVDPOA scheme. Although I hold an Offshore Unlimited DPO certificate from the NI, I do see some value in also obtaining a DPO certificate from the OSVDPOA.

[QUOTE=Lee Shore;188694]There you go again ignoring a fundamental difference of scope to fit your agenda. Area wise, you could fit 2 Europes into the US. A percentage of States and countries are maritime and some are landlocked but all of the maritime US States speak a common language and share cultural values unlike Europe’s maritime nations which are a hodge podge of bickering interests with different languages and cultures. We can have a homogenous coastal trade and you can’t. Not without a unifying system.
Since we are protecting your whiny little asses from the big nasty bear with our military umbrella pretty much for free, where the fuck do you get the audacity to suggest that we should kowtow to your way of doing things in our coastal waters and instead use a system which was created to suit your own completely different purposes?[/QUOTE]
Maybe some facts are necessary here:
Europe incl. the European part of Russian Federation: 10.18 Mill. sq.km.
USA land area: 9.15 Mill.sq.km.
[U]European Union[/U] only: 4.35 Mill. sq.km.

Maybe more interesting from a maritime point of view is the length of coastline for the various countries: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-longest-coastline-countries-map.html

As for language problems, or lack of it; the maritime language for all European countries are English. Maritime English is part of the educational requirement for all merchant marine officers in Europe and other maritime nations, incl. Russia and China.
FYI: English is thought as second language in most European countries from primary school level.

Nobody is saying that you CANNOT use your own system in your own territorial waters. The question is only WHY??
It limits the possibilities for vessels so certified (or not certified) and the people holding special US Domestic licenses to operate outside those waters.

IMO rules are not specifically European, but internationally recognized (incl. by USA) They were created to ensure the Safety Of Life at Sea and the operational safety standard (ISM) of vessels operated by member states.

STCW was implemented to ensure uniform level of education and training for the people who operate these vessels and those who’s life is at risk from lack of knowledge of how to survive in an emergency at sea.

The Nautical Institute is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with consultative status at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
Their declared aim is to represent seafarers’ and practical maritime professionals’ views at the highest level.
That they have become the recognized certifying body for DP Operators is because they do not have a national agenda and national regulatory bodies are not up to date on this “tool”. Most require vessels operating on DP to have NI certified DPOs and ETOs on board though.

If compliance with these rules and principles are to kowtow to foreigners then what about kowtowing to the wishes of a small group of people who benefit from keeping national regulations and licencing requirements as weak as possible?

BTW, the nuclear umbrella and military support to defend Europe has little if anything to do with the subject at hand.

[QUOTE=powerabout;188707]My comment also included non classed “DP systems” not just the vessels which they are on.
This is what caused a huge problem for US Mariners trying to prove their seatime as the vessels dont exist in any system internationally recognised.[/QUOTE]

You mean the likes of “Enhanced Joystick” or “DP Class 0”?
I have come across a few boats that was declared as “DP Vessels”, but without any DPOs on board. Not US flag but owned and operated by US company)

They did not meet IMO requirement for such classification but ABS even has a class notation for it:

DPS-0 For vessels, which are fitted with centralized manual position control and automatic heading control system to maintain the position and heading under the specified maximum environmental conditions.

Neither IMO nor any other Classification Society has anything similar. Must be specifically intended for operation in US waters?

[QUOTE=ombugge;188714]You mean the likes of “Enhanced Joystick” or “DP Class 0”?
I have come across a few boats that was declared as “DP Vessels”, but without any DPOs on board. Not US flag but owned and operated by US company)

They did not meet IMO requirement for such classification but ABS even has a class notation for it:

Neither IMO nor any other Classification Society has anything similar. Must be specifically intended for operation in US waters?[/QUOTE]
No, most class has notation for DP nothing as it was fitted to cruise ships and tug boats etc.
The idea was to have a std of equipment that had control of a vessel but didnt meet DP1, what it is, is not defined.
Not intended for a vessel that is required to use DP as part of its contract
ABS also has DP2 Enhanced which is a great idea as there are manyy DP2 vessels out there with far more redundancy than a std DP2 vessel ( and in many cases far safer)yet doesnt meet DP3 which was shown to be a severely flawed set of rules proven by the Deep water Horizon incident.
IMO doesnt recognise DP zero nor does the NI but maybe now have to bend the rules for US mariners on their USCG specials which is the only reason the OSVDPA was created.

Just out of curiosity; how common is it to have dedicated and separate DPOs on vessels in the US?

Most serious operators of vessels with DP 2 or higher require all Deck Officers to hold NI DPO certification and keep sufficient officers on board at all times to meet IMCA guidelines: Key DP personnel training and experience [B](M 117)[/B]

NOTE: IMCA can only issue Guidelines, but some flag states require full compliance for vessels under their flag, as well as some shelf states, when working in their waters. (Many Operators and Underwriters likewise)

When operating in DP mode, minimum TWO qualified DPOs are required to be on the bride at all times, one of whom must have full DPO certificate.

The required manning on such vessels are thus; Master & Chief Officer = Senior or Full DPO, 2 x 2nd. Officers w/min. Junior DPO cert. + ETO w/DP endorsement.

Since the DP system doesn’t do much good unless the machinery and equipment it relies upon is working properly, the Chief Engineer and other senior engine room staff is also required to be trained and knowledgeable about DP functions and requirements. (Special training and certification for Electricians (ETOs) and Engineers are required)

If the vessel is doing Dive Support, or very complex DP operations, the Master cannot be part of the regular DPOs, thus an additional Mate with full DPO is required.

If the DPOs are NOT qualified Deck Officers, or not capable of taking manual control of the vessel in case of DP failure, a capable Deck Officer must be on the bridge, in addition to the DPOs.

How does this tally with the practices on US flag DP 2 / DP 3 vessels?

What non classed systems are you talking about? I’m talking about Kongsberg KPos, L-3 NMS 6000, and Beier IVCS 2000.

[QUOTE=coldduck;188718]What non classed systems are you talking about? I’m talking about Kongsberg KPos, L-3 NMS 6000, and Beier IVCS 2000.[/QUOTE]

I do not have a problem with NI refusing to give DP seatime credit for non-classed DP systems.

But NI refuses to give DP seatime credit on fully approved DP systems just because the vessels are unclassed.

There is nothing wrong with these USCG inspected vessels. There is nothing wrong with DP seatime gained on them.

This refusal is why the NI must be decertified in the US, and replaced by a new US DP certification from a government agency with a new type of DP certificate. That must be the only DP certificate recognized in the US.

And yes, the USCG is screwing American Mariners by allowing all these ridiculous tonnage exemptions for the owners, and then penalizing US Mariners with ridiculously low tonnage limitations on their licenses.

The issue is the non classed vessel dont meet DP1 DP2 or DP3 class requirements and its not just the bridge gear which may well be?
If the USCG had designations for the vessels then maybe the standard could be measured but for all the NI knows is it has a DP system and a triple expansion wood fired steam engine in the engine room and a large paddle wheel on the stern

[QUOTE=coldduck;188718]What non classed systems are you talking about? I’m talking about Kongsberg KPos, L-3 NMS 6000, and Beier IVCS 2000.[/QUOTE]
One US company you didnt mention had to admit they make DP something systems to their own standard when the NI was trying to understand and allow for these systems.
You only get class designation for the system after the FMEA meets the Class approval therefore you can ship anything when you dont need to meet class designation, some might some might not?
Unless of course ABS issues half a certificate?
( of course you can get your type approval certificate, well maybe?)

ombugge, what is the criteria for obtaining a “junior DPO” certificate if you don’t mind me asking? I’ve never heard of it. And again, to obtain a OSVDPA certificate when they are finally up and running, you still have to take both NI approved classes “induction and simulator” and do the time and get signed off. What difference does it make who issues the final certification?