quote:

d. I'm not sure how this msg meets the COMDT's intent to revitalize the Marine Safety program. Nothing against MSTs or ASTs... but I'm not sure how those ratings prepare members for futures as marine inspectors.

Hmm... you're not sure how MST's are trained as marine inspectors? That's amusing.

So, you're telling me, that a MSSD with with over 10 years of inspection experience (maybe not all MI but regulatory enforcment experience), wouldn't make a good marine inspector because they have little to no sea time?

Wow, you don't check in for a while. This is positively ludicrous; to eliminate the former BOSN/WEPS feeders to the Marine Safety Warrant field will seriously limit the experience level of the inspections personnel. I’m not saying that an MST or an AST (???, WTF?) can’t be a descent Inspector. But knowing the regulations and requirements is different than having lowered a lifeboat or knowing by seaman’s eye what variables in numerous different arrangements will work out on deck; or having the experience to assess the risk of a process or arrangement before deciding to write that 835/PTP or detention. Believe it or not, sometimes things actually work or don’t work yet There is quite a bit of difference in having decked as a non-rate, if at all… before shipping out to MST or AST (???) schools and having supervised the various different deck evolutions. This experience can be gained, no doubt, but where is the revitalization solution? This is a definite step backwards for the Marine Safety Program. I’ve known some outstanding BOSN/WEPS Deck, Machinery and some double ended inspectors.

Where in the heck did the aviation ratings come into the equation? I’ve know some of those folks that did very well, but I’ve known quite a few more that were an embarrassment, purely due to inexperience and ignorance of deck issues.

Nope, this one needs a Mulligan/do-over. I hope that this is only a small part of the proposal to be decided on by the transportation committee. SSDD.

No amount of training can ever make up the experience gained in the field. Look at any industry. They have apprentice and journey men programs for just about everything. Our Petty Officers fit that role. Yes, a good Chief Engineer or Master, can see right through an experienced person as opposed to a book taught MI. Not too mention, these same people can BS these book taught people in the blink of an eye.

I have worked with some very intelligent MST's, and I have tried to teach them as much as possible. But there is no way to teach the intuitive insight gained by doing the job for the past 17 years, which helps the MI recognize those problems that are only found because of our background.

What's the solution? I am not sure. I think our lower level people are on the right track in trying to over come this hurdle. HQ seems to have blinders on. For MST's, it's about exposure and continued mentoring from the CWO's. On that same note, I still think the deck ratings will be missed, they brought valuable experience to the program. As for HQ, make the prevention side a career path and not a road stop. An officers career should not be slowed or ended becasue he specialized.

Finally, Sectors were a bad idea. Ship drivers do not have a clue about what the MI program does or how it should be run.

quote:

ally, Sectors were a bad idea. Ship drivers do not have a clue about what the MI program does or how it should be

From what I was told, they try and assign a "M" sector commander with an "O" deputy or vice versa.

Finally, Sectors were a bad idea. Ship drivers do not have a clue about what the MI program does or how it should be run.

In my opinion that comments works both ways. M and O should not have been mixed, neither knows how to make the transition work.

Well, this bill may very well correct the Sector model. Take a look at the Marine Safety section. Interesting to say the least.

Off on a slight tangent as far as Marine Safety, and it concerns licensing and credentialing. Had my first run in under your new system and will say that it left me with a far less than impressed image.

It is renewal time, and realizing the state of the Coast Guard, I download the appropriate forms and applications. Taking the time to dot the i's and cross the t's, and follow the checklist down the line. Through the rain, find a parking spot $$$ and up to the TREC.

First impression was surprising. Listening to the other transactions, they were not the surly, rude, government employees that have inhabited those places for years. I thought, this might not be so bad afterall, it's only a renewal. HA ! that was a foolish assumption.

Things are progressing along smoothly until the counter help asks for proof of citizenship and ID. He wants ONLY a passport or birth certificate, nothing else will do.

While loading my folder this A.M. I again rechecked the CG HQ checkoff and sure as shitz it states that a passport, birth certificate or MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENT issued after 3 Feb 2003. IT (the MMD) states in big bold letters citizenship UNITED STATES. Sure as hell, mine was issued after that date. Great says I, one less thing to carry down to the TREC.

So now the morning is starting to go to hell in a hand basket. I have proved my citizenship to thar REC numerous times in the past. I point out the MMD - nope, I point out my license as MASTER, issued by that REC, gotta be a US citizen to hold one - Nope.
Ah Ha, whip out that brand spanking , finger probe, body cavity search, revenue enhancing TWIC card. Gotta be a US citizen to get one, required by the CG or you'll be shot after 26 Sept if you don't have one. SORRY - the Coast Guard does not recognize the TWIC as an accepted identification item.

So then, a simple renewal has now degenerated down to another day off work, a trip to downtown with the associated bullshitz that entails, to show some fenderhead COAST GUARD bureaucrat a passport so that my license renewal can progress.


Count me as one of your happy satisfied customers and be sure that I will pass along to other mariners just how well things are going with the new improved CG.

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

I think I’d be more than a little unhappy too, Dana. Ought to be worth a letter of appreciation to the HQ office where the check off originated. Maybe with a copy to the OCMI or what ever he is known by in today’s CG. My fourth and last issue, other than one more for continuity, was in 1992 and each time they accepted the previous issue as proof of citizenship and noted so on the back. By the way, I thought you said one time you were going to call it quits?

Glutton for punishment, I guess.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Fishstyx:
Well, this bill may very well correct the Sector model. Take a look at the Marine Safety section. Interesting to say the least.

This bill has been removed. Can you give another link?

quote:

Originally posted by sanrayo:

quote:

Originally posted by Fishstyx:
Well, this bill may very well correct the Sector model. Take a look at the Marine Safety section. Interesting to say the least.

This bill has been removed. Can you give another link?

If you go to the link and search HR 2830 you'll find it. The site's search engine expires for some reason.

quote:

Originally posted by MastersMate:
Off on a slight tangent as far as Marine Safety, and it concerns licensing and credentialing. Had my first run in under your new system and will say that it left me with a far less than impressed image.

It is renewal time, and realizing the state of the Coast Guard, I download the appropriate forms and applications. Taking the time to dot the i's and cross the t's, and follow the checklist down the line. Through the rain, find a parking spot $$$ and up to the TREC.

First impression was surprising. Listening to the other transactions, they were not the surly, rude, government employees that have inhabited those places for years. I thought, this might not be so bad afterall, it's only a renewal. HA ! that was a foolish assumption.

Things are progressing along smoothly until the counter help asks for proof of citizenship and ID. He wants ONLY a passport or birth certificate, nothing else will do.

While loading my folder this A.M. I again rechecked the CG HQ checkoff and sure as shitz it states that a passport, birth certificate or MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENT issued after 3 Feb 2003. IT (the MMD) states in big bold letters citizenship UNITED STATES. Sure as hell, mine was issued after that date. Great says I, one less thing to carry down to the TREC.

So now the morning is starting to go to hell in a hand basket. I have proved my citizenship to thar REC numerous times in the past. I point out the MMD - nope, I point out my license as MASTER, issued by that REC, gotta be a US citizen to hold one - Nope.
Ah Ha, whip out that brand spanking , finger probe, body cavity search, revenue enhancing TWIC card. Gotta be a US citizen to get one, required by the CG or you'll be shot after 26 Sept if you don't have one. SORRY - the Coast Guard does not recognize the TWIC as an accepted identification item.

So then, a simple renewal has now degenerated down to another day off work, a trip to downtown with the associated bullshitz that entails, to show some fenderhead COAST GUARD bureaucrat a passport so that my license renewal can progress.


Count me as one of your happy satisfied customers and be sure that I will pass along to other mariners just how well things are going with the new improved CG.

Just for clarification, non-citizens are able to apply and obtain a TWIC card. There are certain categories of visas that are authorized. Likely the reason the TWIC was not authorized for use as proof of citizenship.

Man, truly sorry for this experience. I've not had the pleasure of an REC assignment so can't really provide much assistance here. You always have the option of contacting the Sector the REC you visited is attached to and discuss the matter with the Chief of Prevention. That's what I used to recommend when I'd get complaints about the REC on the Arrivals Desk phone a few years back. Generally it produced results and received several calls of thanks (my name was usually taken due the mysterious phone tree losses!)

The intent of my posts on this is that the CG is trying to do the right thing. Everyone knows that. However, the level of cooperation with Industry since being incorporated into the Homeland Security Department has not only waned, in some cases has become adversarial. The timing of the Baltimore Sun’s ALJ article was certainly inopportune, but just one of those coincidences that occur.

I hope you understand that in my 30 years I’m fully aware of what can and can’t be done under 14USC89 and the PWSA, MTSA, PSC, SOLAS or however you want to frame CG authorities to board, detain or seize. I’ve done fisheries, HMIO, L/E (first seizure in 1977 wearing chambray’s, pistol belt and a WWII era flap holster!) boardings. And as you’ve stated, in more “recent” days, the industry has been cooperative and understanding since the focus on them has been changed, for the most part. However, the frustration level has been building for some time now. Coastal units have been conducting armed 4100 boardings forever. And in some cases, under the “SIV” program “M” personnel were also armed to conduct boardings. As you toil away out there day after day, only to return to the office and catch upon MISLE data entry, you provide your own evidence of OPTEMPO increase. Industry also realizes the brunt of this mission performance is on YOUR back.

I work on the inland rivers now. Can you understand the feelings of the commercial mariner seeing that 20-something coming aboard with a sidearm, when the CG hadn’t armed an inland river boarding team since before those ID card applications were warehoused? What industry cannot understand is why the CG is not utilizing “THEM” as a resource like the mariners of the WWII were. Even the trucking industry has trained drivers to observe and report while out on the highway. I’ve stomped out a few fires of misunderstanding since I retired, trying to inform why things are approached the way they are, but lately I am beginning to wonder myself.

Case in point; “Back Captain, Back!” What happened to “Sir”? Or just, “Get back!”? The impression given, whether intended or not is purely adversarial. Unless that boarding is really going south for obvious reasons, or a personality/misunderstanding reason, have you had to perform verbal judo with a professional mariner? Perception is everything. Is this what you want to portray? Put that shoe on your foot, see what you think.

In today’s world, the terrorist have succeeded and the mariner also realizes the need for controls in the maritime industry. They would be foolish not to, quite a few are veterans and very patriotic. They just do not understand why they are perceived to be the foe and not considered a valuable asset and force multiplier.

As far as this thread is concerned, the level of backing that industry is willing to provide to Congress is contingent on how cooperative the CG is willing to be with them. I’ve heard it before, that they just cater to industry anyway. Let me tell you, the Commandant’s Staff, specifically the Marine Safety field should take stock of the current situation and consider asking for industry input on how to respond to committee and seek their backing or you may consider working for the “new” agency or, a recently retired Commandant presiding over a “certain” classification society.

That’s ten cents now.