Sailing foreign flag?

[Shellback]

Shellback, supposedly the HR folks are supposed to know the requirements and equivalencies. I can't say this is always true but some HR jobs can pay quite well and the companies require some sort of sea-going experience in order to apply for those HR jobs. I wish they all did that. It would solve a lot of misunderstandings.

K.

I use to be an idealist too.. Then I found myself in discussions with HR folks about RFPNW and realized that many didn't have a very good handle on what was really required...Thats when I decided that the informed mariner, is the successfull mariner... Now, I leave nothing to chance when it comes to this business..

Jeffrox, thanks for posting that, I hadn't been around part 15 lately and it was driving me nuts that I couldn't find that passage...

[dougpine]

thanks for the info! I was never able to have anyone explain the equivalency to me, now at least I have an Idea of what to tell people when they wonder why it is not printed on my MMC.

You can do more than explain. Add a copy of the relevant CFRs to your application packet to the companies.

[Needs a Shave]

I know that a 3m can sail as master on 100 GT vessels and I also know that the CG will not print both on the license. This question was actually raised for a friend of mine this past year. He nearly lost his job because the CG license evaluator processing his renewal told him that he had been sailing illegally on a 100 ton vessel for the past 5 years. The evaluator was under the belief that since the license did say 3m but not "Master", my colleague did not meet the manning requirement. After a few phone calls and a couple of days, the matter was resolved and my friend was able to keep his job.

In this case, I guess it just goes to show that HR people aren't the only ones who might need to brush up on their CFR's.

[dougpine]

But it saves so much ink!

[seadawg]

You can do more than explain. Add a copy of the relevant CFRs to your application packet to the companies.

**that is assuming the HR type knows how to read and has at least a 3rd grade education..in some cases that might be quite a "stretch"??

**suggest that it is best to insist that all pertinent and relative "endorsements" be noted on the MMC regardless of whether "implied", "inherent" or "otherwise"!!

[Bucko]

Have you tried one of the smaller cruise ships like OS suggested? I know a bunch of guys who sailed for CruiseWest to get their start and they liked it. Lots of good shiphandling in the Inside Passage of SE AK. Also, have you tried Kelly Sweeney at maritimeheadhunters.com? He got me my first gig out of academy and has placed a bunch of my friends as well. He's not very expensive and well worth it.

[Shellback]

I know that a 3m can sail as master on 100 GT vessels and I also know that the CG will not print both on the license. This question was actually raised for a friend of mine this past year. He nearly lost his job because the CG license evaluator processing his renewal told him that he had been sailing illegally on a 100 ton vessel for the past 5 years. The evaluator was under the belief that since the license did say 3m but not "Master", my colleague did not meet the manning requirement. After a few phone calls and a couple of days, the matter was resolved and my friend was able to keep his job.

In this case, I guess it just goes to show that HR people aren't the only ones who might need to brush up on their CFR's.

I believe the NMC will print it, if requested to do so..There was a discussion about this very thing awhile back...

[Needs a Shave]

Thanks Shellback,

I'll look into it

[Shellback]

Thanks Shellback,

I'll look into it

Your welcome, I was hoping the party, that originally had this question, would show up and share their story...

[GLMAGRAD]

I am registered with Capt. Sweeney and I have tried CruiseWest but I haven't had a response from them and when I have called no one picks up the phone.

[mslilith2000]

I use to be an idealist too.. Then I found myself in discussions with HR folks about RFPNW and realized that many didn't have a very good handle on what was really required...Thats when I decided that the informed mariner, is the successfull mariner... Now, I leave nothing to chance when it comes to this business..

Shellback - I definitely agree that not only HR but the bean counters and every other department of administration can be full of people completely ignorant of anything maritime. And maybe this is an exception but I worked for a crewing service for a while and they would not hire anyone to work in the office unless they had some kind of MMD.

Although employment agencies (and those who work for them) are considered by many to be lower than pond scum, this particular agency and their "must have license" philosophy was pretty efficient. We had a pretty high success rate and more happy campers than most of our competitors.

It's been a very long time but back when many of the shipping companies also prefered to have licensed personnel in HR. Not all, mind you. Not even many. But at least a few got it right. I wonder if there is any correlation between crew rention rates and crappy HR.

K.

[Shellback]

[QUOTE=mslilith2000;24561]

I use to be an idealist too.. Then I found myself in discussions with HR folks about RFPNW and realized that many didn't have a very good handle on what was really required...Thats when I decided that the informed mariner, is the successfull mariner... Now, I leave nothing to chance when it comes to this business..

Shellback - I definitely agree that not only HR but the bean counters and every other department of administration can be full of people completely ignorant of anything maritime. And maybe this is an exception but I worked for a crewing service for a while and they would not hire anyone to work in the office unless they had some kind of MMD.

Although employment agencies (and those who work for them) are considered by many to be lower than pond scum, this particular agency and their "must have license" philosophy was pretty efficient. We had a pretty high success rate and more happy campers than most of our competitors.

It's been a very long time but back when many of the shipping companies also prefered to have licensed personnel in HR. Not all, mind you. Not even many. But at least a few got it right. I wonder if there is any correlation between crew rention rates and crappy HR.

K.

That sounds like a very good policy that was in place...I don't really want to cross the line and say, that I think all HR people should have certain credentials on an MMC...As I am sure you have seen, there are some very good office people who are very competent ,who would be excluded if that were the case..And that would be very unfortunate..

All I was really getting at,was the fact that when I was knocking on doors , I had the realization that not all HR people are created equal and I found it odd that folks that should have been in the know, weren't always aware of what certain requirements were...Or weren't familiar with the CFR's..

[richard8000milesaway]

bottom line: don't assume anything. get everything printed in your MMC.

wait, isn't this a shipping foreign post?

so it is true: every new post ends up with Licensing and/or BOOBS.

[Shellback]

bottom line: don't assume anything. get everything printed in your MMC.

wait, isn't this a shipping foreign post?

so it is true: every new post ends up with Licensing and/or BOOBS.

Ya, looks like we strayed a little, oh well...I hope this will make up for it..!

[capitanahn]

Foreign shipping companies need lots of third mates on their ocean going ships.
Please look into the European shipowners, German, Britain or Singapore etc.

[RDEagan]

Checking map to see where in Europe Singapore is. Sorry, I'm an asshole sometimes

Ryan

[skycowboy]

It is just south of Drunkonmyassistan

[CMA_Decky]

Hit 'em in the face with this:
Title 46: Shipping
PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS
Subpart H—Equivalents


Browse Next
§ 15.901 Inspected vessels of less than 100 gross tons.

(a) An individual holding a license as mate or pilot of inspected, self-propelled vessels of over 200 gross tons is authorized to serve as master on inspected vessels of less than 100 gross tons within any restrictions on the individual's license.
(b) An individual holding a license authorizing service as master or mate of inspected, self-propelled vessels is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of non-self-propelled vessels other than sail vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license.
(c) An individual holding a license authorizing service as master or mate of inspected, sail vessels is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of other non-self-propelled vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license.
(d) An individual holding a license authorizing service as master or mate of inspected, auxiliary sail vessels, is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of self-propelled and non-self-propelled vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license.
[CGD 81–059, 54 FR 150, Jan. 4, 1989]
<!-- / message -->

<!-- controls -->

The wording of this is causing issues for our graduating class this year. The NMC is saying that because it says "less than 100 tons" that makes us unqualified for 100 ton master license since a 100 ton master runs ships "no more than" 100 tons. As a result of this technicality they're not letting us print 100 ton master on our license this year. Bunch of BS if you ask me.

[Jeffrox]

It's not new info, it's always read "less than 100 tons".

[CMA_Decky]

It's not new info, it's always read "less than 100 tons".

But in the past they've let us print Master, 100 tons NC on our license.