What happens when license upgrade application is lacking?

Maritime Topics Maritime Training & Licensing
1

Does anyone know what is standard procedure when the NMC reviews your upgrade application and determines it to be lacking in some way?

Does the evaluator simply wait for you to submit documentation that you have corrected whatever is lacking (more seatime, another class, etc) and then approve you to test? Or is it a situation where, once you correct what is lacking, your application is basically looked at again and re-reviewed in its entirety, maybe even by a different evaluator?

I want to submit an application for an upgrade to Chief Mate. My assessments are done. I will complete the last of my CMM classes this month (I only took enough CMM classes to cover the assessments that cannot be done on a drill ship).

Depending on how my seatime and vessel tonnages are interpreted I may be approved outright if the interpretation goes my way, or I would be 27 days short if it did not.

I would like to submit now and see what happens. If I am denied I could simlply go and get another 27 days seatime. But I don’t want to submit early if that means the whole application is reviewed all over again once I get the required seatime.

Also, if, during the time I am trying to accumulate 27 days seatime the USCG were to implement some onerous change in policy (i.e. require that all CMM classes now need to be taken, change tonnage requirements, etc) would I be subject to the new policy if my application was already in process?

2

They send you a letter telling you what you’re missing/how many days short and once they receive it, the application process continues.

3

I was missing some stuff the other day, and they sent an email, called, and sent a letter. I called them back, and the evaluator was actually helpful!

4

I think you have 60 or 90 days( can’t remember) to keep your application valid and submit the missing documents

5

[QUOTE=Tugboattim;84461]I think you have 60 or 90 days( can’t remember) to keep your application valid and submit the missing documents[/QUOTE]

60 days if the REC identifies something is obviously missing from the package. If it’s accepted by the REC, you’ll get a letter telling you what is lacking and will have 90 days to provide what is deemed to be lacking.

6

[Also, if, during the time I am trying to accumulate 27 days seatime the USCG were to implement some onerous change in policy (i.e. require that all CMM classes now need to be taken, change tonnage requirements, etc) would I be subject to the new policy if my application was already in process?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the responses. Looks like I’ll probably have 90 days to come up with 27 days seatime if it doesnt go my way initially. Very doable.

Just for grins, anyone know the answer to the 2nd part of my question shown in quotes above?

7

I have always been under the impression that once yer process has begun (application, renewal, etc) that any ‘new’ legislation would not apply as it wasn’t in place at the time yer process began

8

[QUOTE=Jolly Tar;84522]I have always been under the impression that once yer process has begun (application, renewal, etc) that any ‘new’ legislation would not apply as it wasn’t in place at the time yer process began[/QUOTE]

That’s sounds correct to me, but look at this thread=> http://gcaptain.com/forum/professional-mariner-forum/9914-cm-assessments-stcw.html

9

[QUOTE=TedTed;84508][Also, if, during the time I am trying to accumulate 27 days seatime the USCG were to implement some onerous change in policy (i.e. require that all CMM classes now need to be taken, change tonnage requirements, etc) would I be subject to the new policy if my application was already in process?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the responses. Looks like I’ll probably have 90 days to come up with 27 days seatime if it doesnt go my way initially. Very doable.

Just for grins, anyone know the answer to the 2nd part of my question shown in quotes above?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the specific policy, but in every instance of a major policy change I have been aware of, there has been reasonable transition, or in most cases, grandfathering. In the case of STCW 2010, the STCW amendments specifically provide that someone who begins service or training before July 1, 2013 has until January 1, 2017 to meet the new requirements.

10

Depends on the specific policy, but in every instance of a major policy change I have been aware of, there has been reasonable transition, or in most cases, grandfathering. In the case of STCW 2010, the STCW amendments specifically provide that someone who begins service or training before July 1, 2013 has until January 1, 2017 to meet the new requirements.

Well, I know in my particular case I worked for 2 years on a 2500 GT vessel all the while thinking that the time would count toward an unlimited Chief Mate license.

Then in Sept 2011 Policy Letter 11-12 came out mandating that “over 3000 GT” is equivalent to “over 1600 GRT” and all of a sudden none of that time counted toward an unlimited license.

11

[QUOTE=TedTed;84624]Well, I know in my particular case I worked for 2 years on a 2500 GT vessel all the while thinking that the time would count toward an unlimited Chief Mate license.

Then in Sept 2011 Policy Letter 11-12 came out mandating that “over 3000 GT” is equivalent to “over 1600 GRT” and all of a sudden none of that time counted toward an unlimited license.[/QUOTE]

That has been policy for 10 years. See NMC policy letter 15-02 http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/policy_letters/pdfs/15-02.pdf It’s in para 5.d All that 11-12 changed from its predecessor was allowing the GT of dual measured vessels to be counted on domestic or international voyages, 15-02 had only allowed it for international voyages.

12

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I read policy letter 15-02 myself and pretty much came to the same conclusion. Its just that I had quite a few people who told me several years ago that the HOS Sandstorm (2520GT) would be a good vessel to accumulate seatime toward unlimited chief mate. I figured that many people couldnt all be mistaken but they were obviously were.