Anyone (Jollyjack) can comment on the rumours I am hearing that sea time for the junior tickets will not be recognized, unless it is time in "charge of the watch" - EEOW ? Transport Canada is reportedly enforcing this starting in July this year.

As we all know, a fourth or third on a large ship is rarely in charge of a watch, and therefore this would create a pretty severe road block for seatime acquisition. What is the purpose of this rule. Why has it come to being.

From where I stand, this makes not much sense.

Thanks,

Certification for 3rd and 2nd Class requires 6 months in charge of the watch MPR 145 and 146. Once a 4th Class Engineer, has acquired 6 months as Junior on Watch, ie, NOT in charge of the watch, his sea time no longer counts for higher Certification, he MUST have 6 months IN CHARGE OF AN ENGINEERING WATCH or IN CHARGE OF MACHINERY to progress to 3rd Class. This came into effect on 1st July 2007, when the Canada Shipping Act 2001 and associated Regulations came into force. Sea time as a Junior still counts for renewal of Certification, ie, a Junior with 4th Class can still renew his Certificate, but cannot be issued a 3rd Class until he has 6 months IN CHARGE OF AN ENGINEERING WATCH OR IN CHARGE OF MACINERY OVER 500 Kw

146. (1) An applicant for a Third-class Engineer, Motor Ship or Steamship certificate who holds a Fourth-class Engineer certificate with STCW endorsement for the same type of vessel to which the certificate sought relates shall meet the requirements set out in column 1 of the table to this subsection and the corresponding specifications set out in column 2.

TABLE

1. Hold a certificate Fourth-class Engineer certificate with STCW endorsement.

2. Experience After having acquired the qualifying service required for a Fourth-class Engineer, Motor Ship or Steamship certificate, acquire at least 12 months of qualifying service as follows:

(a) at least 6 months of sea service as engineer in charge of the engineering watch or in charge of the machinery on one or more of the following vessels that have a propulsive power of at least 500 kW:
(i) a motor vessel other than a stationary MOU, in the case of an applicant for a motor ship certificate, or
(ii) on a steamship, in the case of an applicant for a steamship certificate;

For 2nd Class, it's 750 Kw.

It is what it is. Nobody ever said you need intelligence to be a lawyer.

I argued that a roundsman on a watch, ie the Junior, is "in charge of machinery" because he looks after it. The legal definition is that the Chief Engineer is in charge of the machinery. I suggested to Junior Engineers on Marine Atlantic ferries they take a summer off to work on a whale watching launch, a fishing boat or a tour boat, to get time in charge of machinery, as long as the vessel is over 500 Kw, they'd be fine.

It just seems like a silly rule. I would take anyone's experience as a rounds guy or gal in a complex engine room, over small boat experience for the benefit towards a Marine Engineering License. I know from experience working as fourth on large passenger ship, I was the one in the engine room running around starting up the boilers, pumping sludge, troubleshooting purifiers, firing up the evaporators, etc.

I've never heard of this for STCW compliance from other parts of the world; not to mention, it seems easy to say well just get small boat time from our perspective, but the employment realities, vis a vis, mortgages and continuity of life, makes this a real hardship for young engineers. Its just not right.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at HQ, and find out what the real end game is. All signs point to the abolishment of a Canadian Marine Engineering License though home grown means, with the introduction of these types of "roadblocks".

you assume there is a plan DD.
Remember it is another government department with instructions from the Master to cut 10-15%/

Hope you like tankers on the rocks

STCW Manilla Amendments, Regulation III/2 (2.1) (2nd Class)

http://www.imo.org/ourwork/humanelement ... nts/33.pdf

2. Every candidate for certification shall:

.1 Meet the requirements for certification as an Officer in charge of an engineering watch on seagoing ships powered by main propulsion of 750 Kw or more AND HAVE APPROVED SEA SERVICE IN THAT CAPACITY. (my italics)


Regulation III/3 (2.1) (3rd Class)

2. Every candidate for Certification shall:

.1 Meet the requirements for certification as an Officer in charge of an engineering watch

STCW 95, currently in force:

Regulation III/2

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of chief engineer officers and second engineer officers on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of 3,000 kW propulsion power or more shall hold an appropriate certificate

2 Every candidate for certification shall:

.1 meet the requirements for certification as an officer in charge of an engineering watch

Regulation III/3

Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of chief engineer officers and second engineer officers on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of between 750 kW and 3,000 kW propulsion power

1 Every chief engineer officer and second engineer officer on a seagoing ship powered by main propulsion machinery of between 750 kW and 3,000 kW propulsion power shall hold an appropriate certificate.

2 Every candidate for certification shall:

.1 meet the requirements for certification as an officer in charge of an engineering watch.

The Manila Amendments are not yet in force. The Marine Personnel Regulations have to be changed, to meet the new requirements and that will take more than a day or two, especially as staff numbers decrease and retirees are not replaced with new hires.....if you can find new hires to agree to substantial pay cuts to join TCMS. TC wages run about 33% or less of seagoing wages, and you get 2 weeks vacation a year instead of 6 months (if you work day for day)

While 6 months in charge of a watch is required - if you have that already - how does dry dock time play into that?

Are days in dry dock/lay up 8 hours of work per = 1 day?

I have heard from some people:
-they are 1/3 days
-they are full days up to a maximum of 90 days then they are 1/3 days

I looked though some information including the T2203 (or whatever the number is - the 2007 effects that are linked in the dieselduck training link) which didn't make a good definition of what dry dock/lay up/maintenance period is work in time.

Qualifying service on articles starts on the day you sign on and ends on the day you sign off. Time is calculated on the Julian calander, where 1st January is day 1 and 31 December is day 365 (366 in a leap year). If you sign on 1st January and sign off 31 January, the calculation is 31 - 1 = 30, so you get 30 days. Doesn't matter where the ship goes or what it does, you have no control over that. The MPRs specify "in charge of a watch" for 6 months for 3rd and 2nd class. That means you have to be in charge of an engine room watch.

The maximum number of engineers required on a ship, according to the safe manning regulations in part 2 of the MPR, is 2. Any additional engineers are at the behest of the shipowner. 2 engineers, suitably qualified, are enough to ensure a ship completes a voyage safely and the hours of work and rest requirements are met, if they work 6 and 6.

TP 2293, chapter 3 covers qualifying service, this comes up as a .pdf file

www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp2293/pdf/hr/tp2293e.pdf

If there are no articles to sign onto, because the deck crew isn't aboard for dry dock, testimonials signed by the Chief (and/or the Capt) are sufficient evidence of date of engagement and the date of discharge?

And with that it makes me think of another question, for proof of sea time is it necessary to show both testimonials AND discharge book. Or is either acceptable (and stated in TP2293 3.3 6) 12 hour days will only be counted as such if you show matching testimonials)?
I always assumed that was the purpose of testimonials, but aside from this time in dry dock my Discharge book always matches the testimonials I make.

Officially, discharge book gives dates signed on, and worth day for day. Testimonials indicate 8 or 12 hour days and duties (EICW, Day work, rating, etc.) 12 hour days = 1.5 days qualifying service per day served. Discharge book with no testimonial = day for day.

Policy is where there is no discharge book, testimonials are accepted at face value as to dates, hours, rank etc.

Good to know!
The St.John's office has a not-so-positive rep for being...uncooperative...and I have experienced it in parts during my cadet time and sea training manuals. So next time I will be getting my time counted I'll be going in knowing the regulations and policy to back myself up, which might even tick them off more - but what has to be done has to be done.