USCG Tonnage Limits on MMC

[QUOTE=Ctony;189084]What a unique looking vessel.
So these rigs are supposed to have nice accommodations on them? I guess looks can be deceiving…[/QUOTE]

There are some pictures with this article: http://www.kystmagasinet.no/nybygg/nye-ben-hur-full-drift-pa-feltet/

She ain’t no beauty:


But if you want to optimize capacity and minimize LOA, this is how it looks.

PS> Here it looks like they had cropped the bow a bit for the measuring to be done.

I’m rather partial to the older type of coastal fishing boat:

[QUOTE=ombugge;189086]There are some pictures with this article: http://www.kystmagasinet.no/nybygg/nye-ben-hur-full-drift-pa-feltet/[/QUOTE]

Where do they put the fisker?

[QUOTE=Emrobu;189088]Where do they put the fisker?[/QUOTE]

If you mean where the he*ll do they manage to squeeze in the crew, I don’t know, but here is a translation of a description I found:

The comfort for Nielsen and his crew, there’s nothing to complain about. With two double cabins and one single cabin, shower and toilet, closet with washer, dryer and glove dryer, spacious and good mess room /galley with freezer, refrigerator, dishwasher and stove, they have all the comfort they can desire between hard working sessions at sea.

It is quite amazing the amount of equipment they have managed to fit on this little boat. Repairs and maintenance must be a pain in the a**, with the limited space available to get to everything. Not likely that much will be done at sea though.

They probable do it the Norwegian way; bring the boat to a yard and tell them to “fix it”, while they are off to the Canary Isle or somewhere warm. “We’ll be back in three weeks”.

[QUOTE=ombugge;189093]If you mean where the he*ll do they manage to squeeze in the crew[/QUOTE]

No. I wonder where they put the fishes. Cause they catch fishes with this special creature, right?

[QUOTE=Emrobu;189097]No. I wonder where they put the fishes. Cause they catch fishes with this special creature, right?[/QUOTE]

Yes they do and they keep the fish fresh in RSW, shaved ice or in containers for different species.

[QUOTE=tugsailor;188253]If the minimum tonnage issued on a national endorsement is 2000 GRT, what would be the minimum tonnage limit on the corresponding STCW endorsement II/1 ? 4000 GT?[/QUOTE]
This thread got off track, and tugsailors original questions seem to have been lost in the mix.

It seems that JDCavo’s answer would imply that there are no tonnage limitations on the STCW endorsement? The new rule has wording for how tonnage limitations are applied to domestic endorsements, specified in GRT, bt there is no such language in the regs for international endorsements.

Using tugsailor’s example, a mariner has all the required seatime for an unlimited endorsement, except that none of the time is on vessels over 3000 GT. Lets say all his time is on vessels 2999 GT. He would receive an endorsement limited to 5000 GRT.
(2999 x 150%)= 4498, rounded up to the next 1000 GRT increment.

Title 46: Shipping PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS
Subpart D—Professional Requirements for National Deck Officer Endorsements
[HR][/HR]§11.402 Tonnage requirements for national ocean or near-coastal endorsements for vessels of 1,600 GRT or more.(a) To qualify for a national ocean or near-coastal endorsement for service on vessels of unlimited tonnage—
(1) All the required experience must be obtained on vessels of 100 GRT or more; and
(2) At least one-half of the required experience must be obtained on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more.
(b) If an applicant for a national endorsement as master or mate of unlimited tonnage does not have the service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a tonnage limitation will be placed on the MMC based on the applicant’s qualifying experience. The endorsement will be limited to the maximum tonnage on which at least 25 percent of the required experience was obtained, or 150 percent of the maximum tonnage on which at least 50 percent of the service was obtained, whichever is higher. However, the minimum tonnage limitation calculated according to this paragraph will be 2,000 GRT. Limitations are in multiples of 1,000 GRT using the next higher figure when an intermediate tonnage is calculated. When the calculated limitation equals or exceeds 10,000 GRT, the applicant is issued an unlimited tonnage endorsement.
© Tonnage limitations imposed under paragraph (b) of this section may be raised or removed in one of the following manners:
(1) When the applicant provides evidence of 6 months of service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more in the highest grade endorsed, all tonnage limitations will be removed.
(2) When the applicant provides evidence of 6 months of service on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more in any capacity as an officer other than the highest grade for which he or she is endorsed, all tonnage limitations for the grade in which the service is performed will be removed and the next higher grade endorsement will be raised to the tonnage of the vessel on which the majority of the service was performed. The total cumulative service before and after issuance of the limited license or MMC officer endorsement may be considered in removing all tonnage limitations.
(3) When the applicant has 12 months of service as able seaman on vessels of 1,600 GRT or more while holding a license or endorsement as third mate, all tonnage limitations on the third mate’s license or MMC officer endorsement will be removed.
(d) No applicant holding any national endorsement as master or mate of vessels of less than 1,600 GRT, less than 500 GRT, or less than 25-200 GRT may use the provisions of paragraph © of this section to increase the tonnages of his or her license or endorsement.

In the STCW regs, however, there is no such language. There is only OICNW 500 GT or more, or Chief Mate/ Master 3000 GT or more. This would indicate to me that an unlimited mate or master, though issued a tonnage restriction in GRT on their domestic endorsement, would not have any such tonnage restriction on the STCW portion of their MMC, measured in GT.

The problem is that some US vessels are only measured under ITC, so how is that supposed to work with a tonnage limitation on the National endorsement? If you have a tonnage limitation of 2000 GRT does that qualify you to work on a US Flag vessel that is 3911 GT? To me the tonnage limitation a should be calculated for GRT and GT and both placed on the National endorsement?

go get the STCW endorsement, issued in GT, that corresponds with your national endorsement and you should be all set.

[QUOTE=Flyer69;190575]go get the STCW endorsement, issued in GT, that corresponds with your national endorsement and you should be all set.[/QUOTE]

We’re trying to figure out what that tonnage limit would be, have you read any of the thread?

[QUOTE=dredgeboater;190543]The problem is that some US vessels are only measured under ITC, so how is that supposed to work with a tonnage limitation on the National endorsement? If you have a tonnage limitation of 2000 GRT does that qualify you to work on a US Flag vessel that is 3911 GT? To me the tonnage limitation a should be calculated for GRT and GT and both placed on the National endorsement?[/QUOTE]

Looks to me like the problem isn’t that SOME US vessels are measured under ITC but that ALL US vessel are NOT. If they were there wouldn’t be any problem to figure out what applies where and how for whom.
If it was (and STCW applied in full for all US CoCs) this forum will be a quiet place, since these subjects appears to be the main topic of discussion.

There cannot be a simple mathematical formula to figure out the GRT vs GT or visa versa, since the rules for what is measurable is different. As has been pointed out by several contributors here,it is possible to get a vessel measured to 99 GRT, while it could be anything up to 2-3000 if GT is applied.

Nobody is disputing your RIGHT to have your own system of measurement and CoCs for purely domestic trade, the question is WHY??? It appears to cause nothing but confusion, even among those it affect the most, the mariners.

The explanation that US has a large domestic fleet, very long navigable rivers and waterway and a long coastline doesn’t wash. Other countries has as many vessels in domestic trade and as long rivers and coast line, yet have adopted IMO rules in full.

The explanation that it was to be kind to the Shipowners sounds a lot more plausible, although I do not understand the reason.
Why do US Owners think that “cheap is good” when it also increase the risk of accidents?
More to the point, why do Underwriters accept this, unless they are able to charge higher premium to cover the higher risk?
Even more to the point, why do US Maritime Authorities, who are responsible for ensuring safety and welfare of mariners, accept and condone this practice??
Where is the Unions who are supposed to act in the interest of the Mariners?

if the domestic endorsement if for more than 1600GRT, it’s an upper level unlimited endorsement. The STCW international endorsement should be for unlimited tonnage

[QUOTE=ombugge;190618]The explanation that it was to be kind to the Shipowners sounds a lot more plausible, although I do not understand the reason. [/QUOTE]

the reason is of course…PROFITS which come from reduced manning these domestic regulations provide to shipowners

Why do US Owners think that “cheap is good” when it also increase the risk of accidents?

the owners don’t really care about risk when there are PROFITS at stake…money trumps safety! old ships? who cares when a new ship will reduce net income? old lifesaving equipment? why replace it when the regulators don’t require us to?

More to the point, why do Underwriters accept this, unless they are able to charge higher premium to cover the higher risk?

because they are a competitive business who longs for the income from premiums and as long as there is one big enough underwriter who will right cover for a minimally manned vessel all the rest have to as well…the underwriters would be the most powerful force out there if they were a tight combine without competition.

Even more to the point, why do US Maritime Authorities, who are responsible for ensuring safety and welfare of mariners, accept and condone this practice??

read my lips…“POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS” to elected leaders who then dictate to regulatory authorities how to “regulate” their respective industries. in the USA, the maritime corporations OWN the USCG and if some Commandant came along and told the corporations that there was a new sheriff in town, the Congress would shoot him at sunrise and bury him at Boot Hill.

Where is the Unions who are supposed to act in the interest of the Mariners?

where oh where are they? who knows? under the bed? no, they too are competing for business from the shipowners. if there was only one union, then they too would have some muscle to flex but as long as we have so many maritime unions they are each nothing more than a 90# weakling which the big beach muscle duke kicks sand into their faces. then again, I seriously doubt any of the maritime union leaders even GIVE A SHIT for mariner safety. Just look at their response to the EL FARO!

the thing my friend is you are from a nation which has a strong maritime heritage and identity which includes vessel owners who are proud to have the finest ships regardless of the cost. Here we have no maritime identity even though we too have a strong maritime heritage. In our country, the shareholder is the most powerful force to recon with and even if an owner had pride in his ships, the shareholders will throw him to the wolves if they don’t get their pound of flesh too. what is a shipowner to do if he hears the wolves out there howling?