STCW Assessments sign-offs.... who can?

[Ea$y Money]

Just when you think you have it all figured out.... wham-o, a kick in the balls from our friends at the NMC.

Ok, here is the deal. Been working on classes and assessments for the Mate OICNW which most of the classes include the assessments as part of the course. The remaining assessments I have been getting done shipboard by 1600/3000 oceans masters.

Stay with me now... one of those very same masters applied for his 3rd mate and submitted the assessment package and 2 pages of that assessment pkg was signed by another master on this vessel. And if just to make it the more interesting I have some of my assessments signed by both of the above.

Now the master that applied for the 3rd recieved a letter stating;

STCW Assessment(s) - Also, thepolicy letter states that the assessments must be signed by a management level master, chief mate or 2nd mate with a corresponding STCW. We could not accept the assessments signed by xxxxx or xxxxx because they do not hold management level licenses.

So my questions are

1. Since these are all old-school captains that evolved way before the STCW stuff when the only requirement to become a captain was a note from their mother, does the "with a corresponding STCW" mean something more that haveing the A-II/2 embossed on their documents? None of the above have been thru any of the courses or assessments.

2. Did the NMC evaluator make a mistake?

Getting paniky here since my time to apply is near any insight would be much appreciated.

[Shellback]

Easy, I believe they are wrong..There is a few threads in here on RFPNW and who can sign( same signing requirements ) and from what I remember we got to the bottom of it..I have a bunch of stuff signed off from 1600 ton masters ...

I can reccommend a great licensing consultant who seems to get things straightened out in a hurry if you'ld like?

[DeckApe]

That he should need to pay anyone to make things right is a shame.

[Shellback]

Ya it sure is..What even worse is the mariner has to know more about what the regs entail than the people enforcing them...

[Ea$y Money]

Found several threads that suggest a 1600 master can sign, including one from Mr. Cavo. These add to the common sense approach that there would be little or no limited tonnage license issued if ALL assessments were required to be signed by an unlimited tonnage. I guess I will start looking up the appeal process and be ready to rumble. Anyone been thru a formal appeal?

Mr. Shellback, I will be in touch if I cannot resolve the situation with stamps, that is the amount left in discretionary funds after all these classes.

[cappy208]

1600 ton with the sctw code oicnw on the mmc is valid too. You know, since you correctly quoted the actual code. You need to call NMC and talk to the evaluator, and remind them that their own regulations allow a 1600 ton master with oicnw on their license is also authorized to sign off these assessments.
Yes it IS ashamed when the customer, in the endeavor to follow the law and regulations must know as much or more than the civilian in the government office they are applying to!

[Shellback]

Found several threads that suggest a 1600 master can sign, including one from Mr. Cavo. These add to the common sense approach that there would be little or no limited tonnage license issued if ALL assessments were required to be signed by an unlimited tonnage. I guess I will start looking up the appeal process and be ready to rumble. Anyone been thru a formal appeal?

Mr. Shellback, I will be in touch if I cannot resolve the situation with stamps, that is the amount left in discretionary funds after all these classes.

I meant to send you an email last night about this and I apologize..This testing has fried the last of my brain cells..
I had a few private email with Mr cavo about this very thing and thats the road I was trying to lead you down..

As far as the stamp issue goes I have a few left over from this horrendous outflow of cash that this process has cost, and will be happy to donate what I have...

[Ea$y Money]

Thanks for the offer Shellback! I will keep you in mind as time draws near and definetely a big congrats on passing the exams.

I am currently trying to craft my appeal even though I have yet to apply. This is just in case the issue pops up. Does anyone know what to reference to help prove my point. I have gone to the NMC website to the license verification tool and pulled up all three 1600 Masters and all have oceans and the STCW portion reads; II/2: Master, Chief Mates (500 Gross Tons or More). And I just so happen to have an assessment from a Master AGT oceans... looked it up and it reads the same. That leads to the question... where does it spell out any tonnage requirements for these assessments? All I find is; Master, Chief Mate, or 2nd Mate with corresponding STCW. No breakdown of what "corresponding" STCW is either.

It appears from the information that I have now that the only appeal would be to show the copies of their credentials with the II/2: Master, Chief Mates (500 Gross Tons or More) followed by WTF dude? Maybe with a little help from this forum I can find a better choice of words for the closing. Not that I will need it of course, I'm sure that last slip up was a one in a million.

[Shellback]

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1997/n6-97.pdf

Easy, check this NVIC out...There is some useful info in there as well..The first paragraph on page 5 might help..That is the closest thing to common sense that I have found so far..

[Shellback]

ctober 23rd, 2008 11:56 AM #3 jdcavo
Top Contributer

Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Washington, DC
Posts
842
Thanks
2
Thanked 76 Times in 54 PostsRep Power
5

We were asked this several times in the past week, and it was discussed this afternoon to make sure the application of the policy was understood. A Master 500 or 1600 GRT can sign the RFPEW or OICNW assessments.
James D. Cavo
USCG National Maritime Center
James.D.Cavo@uscg.mil
James D. Cavo

When Mr Cavo says something like this it's money in the bank..How to go about showing the interpretation of the policy to the evaluator is another story..Obviously this has been a matter of confusion for some time, look at the date of the post...

On a side note..

There was a questionaire that the REC gave me to fill out, at the end of the testing and there were some blank spaces for comments at the bottom..I let them have it a little about not having enough training on the policies that they are to over see..I also had a little unexpected problem show up over the rules of the exam room, which I may go into later but not until my new MMC shows up...