Why discrepancies between IMO tonnage and US tonnage?

Professional Mariner Forum
1

Hello everybody, my first post on here.

Just some thoughts, maybe questions here…

Have my sights set on an AB license in a couple of months and start climbing up the ladder.

Been quite miffed lately, looking at the vessels I work on, trying to figure out their certificates of inspection and why they can still count as under 100 tons. The largest one I sail on, by IMO standards, is just a ton short of 500…
Yet is counts as under 100, I am assuming, under the loophole that USCG calls “regulatory tonnage”. Another, by the way, smaller vessel- shows “Gross tons = R-98, I-403”

Reason for frustration- even though I work on vessels, that are ALL above 100 tons, I will only get a sea time letter for under 100 GRT.
Now, I keep reading that RFPNW is something that is almost expected from every AB, but it seems really difficult and extremely time consuming to acquire and this loophole crap just sits right in the path. Quite redundant to be working on vessels that would fit the “over 200GT” requirement, yet I have to find a school, possibly travel across the country to join some sort of schooling/program to get the necessary days (and a large number of them) on a vessel “over 200GT”. I feel a bit like I am wasting time. Should I?

Are we really surprised, that a lot of US sailors seem to fade in terms of competition on a global scale?

Why does USCG allow this GRT near coastal (or national waters) loophole? I’ve read threads from about 2009, mentioning something similar. Why is it still going on?
Why doesn’t USCG adhere to IMO standards across the board? Is it just particular type of vessels where this is allowed?

Please note, I might be [I]totally wrong here. [/I]It hasn’t been too long since I’ve started reading through the bureaucratic nightmare that is license regulations. A lot of things might still be unclear for me. Please correct me, where I’m wrong, I am genuinely trying to learn. Am I wrong here and just confused?

2

There are 2 different ways to measure tonnage. The US way, and the international way. Many newer vessels are measured both ways to help reduce confusion. And, since there are different (read “fewer”) regulations that apply to smaller vessels, lots of boats are specifically designed to be just under the threshold of a tonnage limit to ease the financial burden later on, for the owners.

Similar issues if you’re on a vessel only doing inland waters and want a near coastal/oceans license. Time counts only for a percentage of what you need.

3

It doesn’t matter which tonnage you use, they’re both under the threshold of 200 GRT or 500 GT (ITC). It sucks but that’s the rules, find a bigger vessel.

“At least 50% of the service must be performed on a seagoing vessel of at least 200 gross register tons (GRT) (equal to 500 GT). The other 50% may be performed on seagoing vessels that meet the requirements of reference (b) for qualification as an able seaman.”

4

Let’s hope future posts follow a little bit of research.

Have my sights set on an AB license …

AB is a rating not a license.

Are we really surprised, that a lot of US sailors seem to fade in terms of competition on a global scale?

You are an example of why some people look down their nose at American seafarers. First, take the time to learn how the system you want to work under actually works and what regulations apply to what you want to do. Just because you do not understand the industry and the regulatory environment doesn’t mean the industry, the regulations, and the world order are wrong or American seafarers are substandard … it just means you are clueless.

5

[QUOTE=sjöman;181408]…Quite redundant to be working on vessels that would fit the “over 200GT” requirement, yet I have to find a school, possibly travel across the country to join some sort of schooling/program to get the necessary days (and a large number of them) on a vessel “over 200GT”. [/QUOTE]

That is no longer a requirement.

6

Thank you for clarifications. I already mentioned I might be clueless about certain things, my apologies. It was also never my intention to come off looking like I discredit us, US merchant sailors. Far from it.
Some of you hold high ranks and have a lot of experience, so I understand how it might seem, when a rewbie hawsepiper comes up and proceeds to ponder in a frustrated manner.

I don’t know, though, how some of you read it as me trying to get around the system. It was just my thoughts, that a lot of US companies kind of screw over their own workers by using the legal tonnage “loophole”, however, if it isn’t a loophole, again, I fully admit, I might be totally wrong. A lot of what I said was based on what I had read right here on gCap (older threads) and it looked like a lot of other folks were quite frustrated, as well.

The fact that I need to get on bigger vessels is a given. That’s the only way up.

7

[QUOTE=sjöman;181529]I don’t know, though, how some of you read it as me trying to get around the system.[/QUOTE]

If that was aimed at me I never said you were trying to get around the system. I was explaining that the rule that says you need minimum of 200 GRT for RFPNW [B]actually[/B] says 200 GRT or 500 GT so even if the USCG counted the ITC tonnage of the boats your on they are still too small.

Basically, I was pointing out that it isn’t just “200 tons” and you’re getting screwed because the company uses the smaller GRT tonnage.

8

[QUOTE=sjöman;181408]Hello everybody, my first post on here.

Why does USCG allow this GRT near coastal (or national waters) loophole? I’ve read threads from about 2009, mentioning something similar. Why is it still going on? [/QUOTE]

Though this subject has been covered many times here is the short version. You’ll have to wade thru the CFRs on your own.
Up until oil was found offshore in the USA over 40 years ago the USA had one class of mariner commonly now called unlimited. They mostly worked for unions and sailed ships back when the USA was a major maritime country.
Once oil was found in the US Gulf of Mexico the oil companies hired shrimp boat guys to bring their supplies since they were small and the water was shallow, no need for ships. All they needed was a little drilling mud and lard. Eventually those guys started running into things and the oil companies thought it would be a good idea to have some requirement for the drivers of the boats other than the fact that they had a pulse. So…they suggested licensing them or hiring licensed professionals.
Since most of the licensed professionals were union and the oil guys HATE unions they wrote their own law via their paid representatives. This law lowered the standards down to the oral test level but it was better than no standard at all.
Since that time the vessels have gotten bigger and they keep writing regulations which get more complicated up to the level of requiring literacy. Therefore it is all very confusing and the poor USCG who didn’t write any of these regulations, but also didn’t object very strenuously for self preservation purposes, administers these CFRs. Be patient with them please and try to know answers before you ask them.
The USA was never crazy about SOLAS or IMO but has slowly been embarrassed into complying with some parts of it. At some point a ton will be a ton…be patient.

9

[QUOTE=tengineer1;181547]Though this subject has been covered many times here is the short version. You’ll have to wade thru the CFRs on your own.
Up until oil was found offshore in the USA over 40 years ago the USA had one class of mariner commonly now called unlimited. They mostly worked for unions and sailed ships back when the USA was a major maritime country.
Once oil was found in the US Gulf of Mexico the oil companies hired shrimp boat guys to bring their supplies since they were small and the water was shallow, no need for ships. All they needed was a little drilling mud and lard. Eventually those guys started running into things and the oil companies thought it would be a good idea to have some requirement for the drivers of the boats other than the fact that they had a pulse. So…they suggested licensing them or hiring licensed professionals.
Since most of the licensed professionals were union and the oil guys HATE unions they wrote their own law via their paid representatives. This law lowered the standards down to the oral test level but it was better than no standard at all.
Since that time the vessels have gotten bigger and they keep writing regulations which get more complicated up to the level of requiring literacy. Therefore it is all very confusing and the poor USCG who didn’t write any of these regulations, but also didn’t object very strenuously for self preservation purposes, administers these CFRs. Be patient with them please and try to know answers before you ask them.
The USA was never crazy about SOLAS or IMO but has slowly been embarrassed into complying with some parts of it. At some point a ton will be a ton…be patient.[/QUOTE]

Close but not 100%. In the '60s and early '70s, the 100 ton ocean operator and 300 ton uninspected mate and master covered the oilfield crewboats and workboats. The uninspected engineers license also covered vessels up to 300 gt. As the vessels grew in tonnage, the 1000 ton F&T master and mate were the norm along with the Engineer Motor Towing licenses. Early '70s, the M&O license came into being with 300 ton then later 500 and eventually 1600.

There were license give-a-ways for a couple of years but yes, politicians and CG were bought and paid for by the operators.

10

[QUOTE=tengineer1;181547]Though this subject has been covered many times here is the short version. You’ll have to wade thru the CFRs on your own.
Up until oil was found offshore in the USA over 40 years ago the USA had one class of mariner commonly now called unlimited. They mostly worked for unions and sailed ships back when the USA was a major maritime country.
Once oil was found in the US Gulf of Mexico the oil companies hired shrimp boat guys to bring their supplies since they were small and the water was shallow, no need for ships. All they needed was a little drilling mud and lard. Eventually those guys started running into things and the oil companies thought it would be a good idea to have some requirement for the drivers of the boats other than the fact that they had a pulse. So…they suggested licensing them or hiring licensed professionals.
Since most of the licensed professionals were union and the oil guys HATE unions they wrote their own law via their paid representatives. This law lowered the standards down to the oral test level but it was better than no standard at all.
Since that time the vessels have gotten bigger and they keep writing regulations which get more complicated up to the level of requiring literacy. Therefore it is all very confusing and the poor USCG who didn’t write any of these regulations, but also didn’t object very strenuously for self preservation purposes, administers these CFRs. Be patient with them please and try to know answers before you ask them.
The USA was never crazy about SOLAS or IMO but has slowly been embarrassed into complying with some parts of it. At some point a ton will be a ton…be patient.[/QUOTE]

In late 1960s and early 1970s US companies operated US-flag boats under 300 GRT with (mostly illiterate) Coonass Skippers who could not navigate in open waters. (At least not without seeing platforms to “jump” between)
The problem was that they were not all operating in the GOM, but also in S.E.Asia, the North Sea etc.

Since most supplies to rigs in the Java Sea, Gulf of Thailand, off Vietnam and off Peninsular Malaysia, came from Singapore, this was a dilemma for the boat operators.
For those boats working out of Balikpapan in Indonesia, Labuan in Sabah, or Miri in Sarawak, this was not a problem, since they never left sight of land, or platforms, or needed to clear out.

Singapore Marine Department did not consider the un-licensed so-called “Masters” adequate for outward clearances from Singapore, while US Authorities demanded US passport holders and was watching like hawks.

In 1970 I served as “Navigator” for an American company operating 5 boats in S.E.Asia. The boats were usually crewed by US Master, Mate and Chief Eng., the rest locals.
My job was to go on board boats that was going from Singapore to “high seas” (I.e. drilling rigs in open waters), or to serve in any of the locations mentioned above.
My job was to get them there safely and back, or to either fly back, or take another boat back to Singapore for docking, repairs etc.

It was a bit of a surprise to come on the first boat and find that there were not even a log book, or any other paperwork. Even more so to realize that the Skipper couldn’t even read or write.

After a few months I found out that me newly minted Master F.G. License was used to clear out boats from Singapore that I was not even on. I quit and swore not to work in the oilfield any more.
With the shipping crisis in 1974 I ended up back there, however. But this time on the rigs, acting as “Insurance man” or “Rig mover”.
As a Marine Consultant I did some recruiting for the boat operators looking for “foreign” Masters, Mates and Engineers for their now mostly Panama flagged boats, or for Mates to serve on US flagged boat with un-licensed “Masters”.

Those were the days. May they NEVER come back.

11

[QUOTE=tengineer1;181547]…Up until oil was found offshore in the USA over 40 years ago the USA had one class of mariner commonly now called unlimited. They mostly worked for unions and sailed ships back when the USA was a major maritime country.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. The current structure is the result of a rulemaking that began in 1983 that “simplified” the license structure, about 40 deck licenses were eliminated or consolidated. There used to be MORE licenses for specific trades. A common example that will be familiar to anyone with an unlimited license in the 1980s is the replacement of the license as “Master of Freight and Towing Vessels of Not More Than 1,000 Gross Tons” with “Master of Steam and Motor Vessels of Not More Than 1,600 Gross Tons.”

12

[QUOTE=sjöman;181408]Why does USCG allow this GRT near coastal (or national waters) loophole? I’ve read threads from about 2009, mentioning something similar. Why is it still going on?
Why doesn’t USCG adhere to IMO standards across the board? Is it just particular type of vessels where this is allowed?[/QUOTE]

The US domestic GRT existed long before the International Tonnage Convention and the small boat operators are used to it. The ITC specifically allows countries to use their own GRT for national purposes and I’m sure others still do as well. All the small harbor cruise ships, other small passenger vessels, crew boats, many tugs, etc utilize the exempted spaces allowed in the US GRT system to make relatively large boats that are under 100 GRT because of the laxer rules that apply to vessels under that threshold.

[QUOTE=tengineer1;181547]At some point a ton will be a ton.[/QUOTE]

A ton is a ton, but gross tonnage has nothing to do with tons.

13

It isn’t just the US that has a vastly different tonnage admeasurement scheme. The ITC was created to allow an agreed international scheme as Capt. Phoenix so eloquently describes above. Like the US, other countries still used their own tonnage schemes for domestic trade. Of course the Panama and Suez Canals also have their own schemes, too. . . . but those are more directly oriented to generating revenue.

14

[QUOTE=ombugge;181554

Those were the days. May they NEVER come back.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like Offshore Logistics…

15

[QUOTE=injunear;181567]Sounds like Offshore Logistics…[/QUOTE]

Not Offshore Logistics but a still existing company. (No name here)

When I was doing this, Offshore Logistics brought in the first boat with over 3000 IHP and with a BOW THRUSTER to S.E.Asia. The Good ol’ Boys was not impressed; What, they don’t know how to “walk the boat”??? The ultimate of modern BS. Any REAL boat handler don’t need non of that.

16

Gross tonnage is a measure of the internal open space that cargo can be held in
You can see the formula here:

As I understand it, if you build bulkheads to disrupt the internal space of the boat, then you keep the GT lower and it is overall easier and cheaper to run.

17

[QUOTE=shayburly;182193]As I understand it, if you build bulkheads to disrupt the internal space of the boat, then you keep the GT lower and it is overall easier and cheaper to run.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. If a space is not designed for cargo or human occupancy then the US system allows you to not count it. That’s what void spaces are, where you have a space that has no means of loading cargo and only manhole hatches with 5,000 bolts as a means of access.

18

[QUOTE=shayburly;182193]Gross tonnage is a measure of the internal open space that cargo can be held in
You can see the formula here:

As I understand it, if you build bulkheads to disrupt the internal space of the boat, then you keep the GT lower and it is overall easier and cheaper to run.[/QUOTE]

It may be cheaper, but not necessarily easier. A imaginary number does not make operation easier. That depends on where and what the vessel is used for. Small ships are frequently used in difficult waters with bad weather conditions, due to ice, or with navigational challenges in the form of reefs, narrow passages and strong current etc.

Sailing a VLCC from AG to the LOOP, via Cape does not present as many problems as sailing along the Norwegian coast with a coaster.
As the saying goes; A coastal Skipper gets nervous when he cannot see land, a VLCC Master when he do.

19

[QUOTE=ombugge;182205]It may be cheaper, but not necessarily easier. A imaginary number does not make operation easier. That depends on where and what the vessel is used for. Small ships are frequently used in difficult waters with bad weather conditions, due to ice, or with navigational challenges in the form of reefs, narrow passages and strong current etc.

Sailing a VLCC from AG to the LOOP, via Cape does not present as many problems as sailing along the Norwegian coast with a coaster.
As the saying goes; A coastal Skipper gets nervous when he cannot see land, a VLCC Master when he do.[/QUOTE]

You completely misunderstood what he was saying. Using tonnage hatches and other loop holes makes the gross tonnage lower (the “size” of the ship isn’t any different) which makes it “easier to run” in terms of regulatory headache for the company.

Having a 200ft crew boat that’s still only 99 GRT is an example of this trick in use.

20

great info here, I love gCaptain, thank you guys!