One more inch and it's a cutter, anyone see or here anything about the new boat/cutter. This is not the first time the CG has done this, we had some river boats with a BM1(in charge) not an OIC, no sea time nor sea pay. I think we had some old landing crafts just shy of being a cutter also.

I can remember the river boats that were 64-11". Ive been on one once in Bayou Labatre back in 96-97.

T

I believe it was at HQ today.

Are we speaking of the new maritime security boats the navy built for USCG nuke sub escort units?

I was on a 75' WLR. The number started with 75, as did the other 75' WLRs. We were called CGC, but technically we were not in commission, we were in service. The OIC was a BMCM and we did not fly a commission pennant and we did not get sea pay but it counted for sea time. The same went for the 65' WLRs, their numbers started with 65, not 64. There was also that 85' boat, not cutter, in the Pacific northwest that was shoved down our throats by a special appropriation ("hey, Senator Bubba, our boatyard is hurting, can you throw a little pork our way? We'll make sure the usual percentage gets back to you as a 'campaign contribution', of course")

You can call ANT Colfax and ask them about this.
GUNS

It's been a long time but don't the regulations change for licensing, etc for 65'+ in the civilian world. Is it a modified hull made for civilian use?

Do you mean registration (the vessel) or licensing (the crew)? Both go by tonnage, but licensing goes by use and gross tonnage, and registration, according to the Floriduh website which may be incorrect, goes by displacement. For registration, any vessel over 5 tons must be federally registered, and certain vessels under 5 tons may be federally registered.

Tom,
Not that I'm aware of, but if there is something to that I'm curious what it is.. Anyone got any ideas?

Wray...

65' or 20 meters kicks in some rules of the road lighting requirements, and weren't there some proposals for pleasure vessels over 65' to have to comply with the AIS requirements that commercial vessels have.

The "cheapskate" frugal tack of not being designated a "cutter" saves a lot of admin burden and money. Super coxswain, not an OinC.

Don't remember if it was for passenger for hire and less that 65'. I seem to remember some thing different if more than 65'. Also seem to remember alot of vessels in the day that were 64'-11"

quote:

Super coxswain, not an OinC.

For Ant Colfax the BMC is the OinC.

GUNS

quote:

Originally posted by RWLucas:
We were called CGC, but technically we were not in commission, we were in service. The OIC was a BMCM and we did not fly a commission pennant and we did not get sea pay but it counted for sea time.

All cutters under command of an Officer in Charge are In Service. Only cutters commanded by a CO are commissioned. Kind of a misnomer for a Enlisted Cutter to have a Commissioning Ceremony.

quote:

Originally posted by truebm2:

quote:

Originally posted by RWLucas:
We were called CGC, but technically we were not in commission, we were in service. The OIC was a BMCM and we did not fly a commission pennant and we did not get sea pay but it counted for sea time.

All cutters under command of an Officer in Charge are In Service. Only cutters commanded by a CO are commissioned. Kind of a misnomer for a Enlisted Cutter to have a Commissioning Ceremony.

Yes, that was the point. Someone else posted that some boats that were actually 65' or more were not "commissioned" or "cutters" so they were operated by a coxswain, not an OIC, which would be incorrect since as we both pointed out, an OIC is the commander of a vessel in service, not a commissioned vessel.

Both Coast Guard Regulations, and the Shipboard Regulations Manual define a "Cutter" and length is not a factor.

In short a "Cutter" has an assigned crew and the facilities to support the crew.

We have had cutters less than 65' and we have boats greater than 65'. There is nothing magic about 65'.

It's like the E-10 thing, just because people keep saying it, does not make it so.

A minor point on the 65' length, not worth much, but confusing by its wording.


From the awards manual,
For the purposes of the award, sea duty is defined as duty performed:
(1)Aboard any commissioned Coast Guard cutter 65 feet or more in length;

I think MasterMate got it right, it's a move to save money and administration headaches. bfayer CG Regs. states the all vessels 65 ' and over are Cutters.
Cutter Name, Put into service(OIC)/commisioned(CO), Command Cadre, Sea Pay, Sea Time, little things like PFDs not required to be worn on deck while U/W, the list goes on and on.
It's kinda funny what a 1 inch difference can make or should make.

quote:

Originally posted by MCCOASTIE:
I think MasterMate got it right, it's a move to save money and administration headaches. bfayer CG Regs. states the all vessels 65 ' and over are Cutters.
Cutter Name, Put into service(OIC)/commisioned(CO), Command Cadre, Sea Pay, Sea Time, little things like PFDs not required to be worn on deck while U/W, the list goes on and on.
It's kinda funny what a 1 inch difference can make or should make.

I don't make this stuff up.

From COMDTINST M5000.3B (Pg. 107): "10-1-1 (2) “Cutter” or “Ship” includes every type of Coast Guard vessel that has an assigned personnel allowance and that has installed habitability features for the extended support of a permanently assigned crew."

Length is not a factor in the definition. We have the cable boat in D9 (72') which is not a cutter, we had the 85 footer in San Fran that was not a cutter (sold to Alameda). Most of the first 10 cutters were less than 65’ as were many of the cutters that followed them.

In the hierarchy of regulations, CG5000 has preeminence. Other instructions may list 65', but it is not part of the definition of a cutter.

Just as you will find the term E-10 in Coast guard instructions, there is no military pay grade of E-10. No matter how many times it is repeated it does not make it so.

Lenght is NO LONGER a factor in the definition, I stand corrected.

Im surprised that the CG hasnt put anything about this new boat into the public domain (unless Ive missed it.)

Well, I wont be "that guy." But I'll tell you, its a MFPU thing.

Heres some pix: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbrickett/3309705199/]

oops:

[url=h

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1110,