[CaptPKilbride]

March 2007, NY, NY.

[Ken Bracewell]

Originally Posted by CaptPKilbride

March 2007, NY, NY.

I would inquire if I were you. I'll make a point to tell my deckhand to mention it to Boston next week when he gets his 200T also.

[Marmot]

Again, from the source ... which of course all good captains know this stuff already, right?

"Currently, for mariner licensing and documentation purposes, the only accepted equivalencies are for 200 GRT (domestic tonnage) and 1,600 GRT (domestic tonnage), which are recognized by STCW to be equivalent to 500 GT (ITC tonnage) and 3,000 GT (ITC tonnage), respectively."

The following is a good "escape clause" for those licensed under the new scheme:

"Increasing scope to 1600: If 500 ton exam completed before 1 Feb 2002 regulations went into effect, then the full examination must be taken. If tested after 1 Feb 2002, there are no additional testing requirements."

Personally, I have my reservations about the new automatic upgrade route because like most old school guys, I feel that it is a watered down system. However I can also agree that testing just eliminates those who are not good test takers and doesn't really prove much. All the more reason why the USCG requirements for real sea-time makes it a far better system for producing professional mariners.

So, out of the mud of regulations comes the gem of reality; the USCG 500 ton is equivalent to whatever the MCA or flag state says it is worth when you apply for a CeC or endorsement based on their interpretation of the STCW.

[CaptPKilbride]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Again, from the source ... which of course all good captains know this stuff already, right?

Is there an echo in here? Are you saying because someone like myself, or Ken Bracewell doesn't know this stuff we are bad captains?

Originally Posted by Marmot

"Currently, for mariner licensing and documentation purposes, the only accepted equivalencies are for 200 GRT (domestic tonnage) and 1,600 GRT (domestic tonnage), which are recognized by STCW to be equivalent to 500 GT (ITC tonnage) and 3,000 GT (ITC tonnage), respectively."

This was my understanding before reading this thread. Ken made a post stating that 500 GRT domestic was equivalent to 1600 ITC, and I asked for clarification.
Twice now you have intimated that I should already know this. This forum is a great tool for exchange of information. Everyone does not know everything, and I for one value being able to read others opinions and ideas. Making (what I consider to be) a snide remark about what someone else should already know certainly does not encourage open discussion.

[Marmot]

"Making (what I consider to be) a snide remark about what someone else should already know certainly does not encourage open discussion."

Perhaps the colorful smiley thing was too subtle. It is not "snide" to remark on the responsibility of a license holder to be conversant with the regulations under which the priviledges and responsibilities of that license are exercised. Even the regulators don't expect everyone to know everything, but they very rightly expect a license holder to know where to find the answer to a question about the limitations of that license.

I am sorry you took offence, none was intended personally. I am, however, very cynical about the level of knowledge held by far too many in this business. Several times very recently I have had to deal with the mess created by license holders (in one case a fake license) who because of their ignorance or arrogance have exposed owners, charter guests, and managers to frightening liability and very real financial penalties.

Holding a license isn't just about glad handing a charter guest or making a good landing and "open discussion" means talking about things that might not be comfortable to talk about.

[Ken Bracewell]

Originally Posted by Marmot

It is not "snide" to remark on the responsibility of a license holder to be conversant with the regulations under which the priviledges and responsibilities of that license are exercised. Even the regulators don't expect everyone to know everything, but they very rightly expect a license holder to know where to find the answer to a question about the limitations of that license.

Perhaps that's not fair. The USCG licensing regulations are a moving target these days (albeit not as elusive as the MCA regulations have been) so it can be confusing and difficult to find updates to regulations when we, the working license holders, are busy out to sea (i.e. glad-handing charter guests).

[Marmot]

"The USCG licensing regulations are a moving target these days ..."

How to get one has always been a nightmare but the limitations have always been crystal clear.

As far as international equivalencies, it is a mess. The institution of the storefront yacht licensing business with all its permutations has only made things worse for everyone.

The USCG rules regarding limitations are very clear, there aren't very many and they are easy to find online and in the set of CFRs that should be part of every licensed officer's toolkit. That is why I stated that the automatic upgrade is not, in my opinion, the greatest idea the CG has ever had. At least in the written exam they include a few questions that require a candidate to find and interpret written regulations.

And while not trying to be confrontational, anyone with time to hang out on internet yachting sites has the time and resources to keep current with the regulatory changes, knowledge of which is part of a professional mariner's job description and responsibility. That part is the one that forms the boundary between what the STCW code classes as "operational" and "management."

And finally, as a "working license holder" with an unlimited license I can assure you that a professional mariner is never too "busy" to understand his legal responsibilities.

[CaptPKilbride]

Marmot, I did take offense, and let me tell you why.

I had the understanding that my 500 ton license had no equivalency in the ITC scheme. Ken Bracewell posted that the 500 ton domestic and 1600 ton domestic licenses had the equivalency to the 3000 ton ITC. This contravened what I had previously believed, and asked about it. At this point *you* jumped in the mix saying that a good captain would already know this. Since I apparently did not know this, in your world I am not a good captain. Which is why I am offended.

I have always enjoyed good informative threads on this site, and feel that open dialogue is how we learn things. Your remarks were snide, and un-needed. Apparently you are quite an authority on these matters, and it could be so easy to simply set the record straight in a helpful and informative matter, as opposed to grading someone else in the process.

[Marmot]

The holder of a professional license is expected to know where to find and demonstrate comprehension of the regulations governing the exercise of the privileges that license conveys.

I am not "quite an authority," I am a professional mariner who subscribes to the above statement. The quotes I posted came directly from online sources available to anyone willing to expend a moment's effort.

[YachtForums]

I don’t want to speak out of rank, but I would like to note…

There have been a number of famous captains through the ages, ranging from Hook to Jack, but if ever there was a modern day captain that made a difference, was active in all aspects of the industry and was well-respected by all… it would have to be Kenny Bracewell. On the odd night in Lauderdale, I might group him into the Hook category, although I’m sure women have said worse.

Capt. Kilbride was one of YF’s very first members, probably within the first 200 people to join YF and he has been active ever since. To me, that shows a higher level of passion and responsibility to his profession. He’s exactly the kind of person we want representing the position, although at 177 posts in 4 years… he should be scrubbing bilges.

Marmot… you are so VERY well versed in the Ways of the Water that one can only speculate your position. I’m guessing that most salute you? (I’m not being sarcastic). If you are in this position, then who better to make changes that would help even the most diligent captains, as we have here, be better informed about their licenses and requirements?

[Marmot]

Geez, lighten up guys, is it the hot weather that creates such hypersensitivity?

Using the term "good captain" no more implies that everyone else is a "bad captain" any more than that well used admonition to the "prudent mariner" means that all others are imprudent.

I am not here to "make changes" since I am not in a position to change the licensing rules, no matter how much I would like to. Nor am I here to gore someone's favorite ox or knock the chip off someone's shoulder.

Having spent a fair amount of time in the training and evaluation side of the maritime industry I am in a position to recognize and comment on a question that speaks to the fundamentals of one's certification. This isn't about personalities and it isn't about me.

It is a shame that simply pointing out one of the more important aspects of professional licensing raises hackles rather than awareness.