New Examination Process

[MikeH]

Hello,

I have a few questions about the upcoming changes to the TC examinations. I don’t know if any new information is out or if anyone knows anything, but I thought I’d ask. As 2018 is approaching fairly soon, I thought they might have some details ironed out by now…but it is TC.

I’m about to write first class electro tech, my last math based exam. I was planning on doing the knowledge exams and oral ASAP after Christmas, when I go on leave again, in an attempt to get these done before the new system takes place.

Due to a possible change in jobs, there is a chance I won’t be able to write these final 3 exams until later in the year.

• Do we know when the cut off date is when we can no longer write the exams at the TC offices?
• If I choose to do the course at the college, am I exempt from doing math courses, as I’ve already passed the first class exams recently?

Thanks for any help.

[JollyJack]

If you hold a 2M right now, have enough qualifying service to renew your Certificate, while holding your Certificate, served as OICW, 2/E or C/E, acquired 36 months of sea service on vessels of more than 750 Kw, out of which at least 9 months is served on a vessel with more than 3000 Kw propulsion power, you qualify for Chief Engineer STCW. See Ship Safety Bulletin 05/2017

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/mar ... -2017E.pdf

Look at Annex 1, note 1. Note that the Seafarer's Medical mentioned in 1.1.1.1. is issued under the MPR, NOT the CCG/TC MOU, so if you're Coastguard, you have to get a real Medical from an approved Doctor on the list of approved doctors. The CCG Health Canada Medical won't cut it.

So to answer your question, Mike, you don't need to write any more Exams. However, was I you, a 1M is a hellova lot better than a 2M when it comes to looking for work ashore in the future. All you have to do is Lecktech, EKs and Orals. EKG is on Monday afternoons and EKM is on Tuesday mornings. Leckytech is on Thursday afternoons. Your theory exams are good for life, you won't have to redo them. Get the Leckytech out of the way, then have a crack at EKs.

ANNEX 1 1.0 Requirements to obtain a CoC that meets the STCW 2010 (CoC-STCW 2010) (Engine Department)

1.1 A person who chooses to comply with the STCW 2010 and wishes to obtain a CoC as “Chief Engineer Officer (STCW)” must meet the following:

1.1.1 In order to obtain a CoC as “Chief Engineer Officer (STCW)” a person must:

1. hold a certificate issued under the MPR attesting to their medical fitness to perform the duties and undertake the voyages to which the certificate of competency applies;

2. hold a CoC as Second or Third or “Fourth Class Engineer (that meets the STCW Reg. III/1)”,or those of “Second Engineer Officer (STCW)” or “Officer in Charge of an Engineering Watch” (STCW); (see note 1 of Annex 2)

3. hold the following Certificates of Proficiency: (see RDIMS 10622741)
a. STCW Basic Safety;
b. Survival Craft and Rescue Boats other than Fast Rescue Boats;
c. STCW Advanced Fire Fighting; and
d. Marine Advanced First Aid;

4. provide proof of competency in:
a. Leadership and Managerial Skills; (see note 2 of Annex 2)
b. Maritime Law and Ship’s Business; (see note 3 of Annex 2)
c. English Language Skills; (see note 4 of Annex 2) and
d. Ship Management Practices taught using Propulsion Plant Simulator, Level 2 (see note 6 of Annex 2)

5. demonstrate they have the competences listed in column 1 of Table A-III/2 of the STCW Code, using the methods for demonstrating those competences set out in Section 3.1 of Annex 3; and

6. while holding one of the CoCs enumerated in paragraph 2, and serving in the function of an officer in charge of an engineering watch, a second engineer officer or a chief engineer officer, the person has acquired at least 36 months of sea service, on board vessels, other than a stationary MOU, that have a propulsion power of at least 750 kW, out of which a minimum of 9 months were served on board vessels that have a propulsion power of at least 3000 kW. (See note 8 of Annex 2)

Rights and Privileges
1.1.2 A CoC as “Chief Engineer Officer (STCW)” grants the holder the same rights and privileges as those granted to a person holding a “First Class Engineer” (that meets the STCW Reg. III/2) issued under the current MPR.

[Revolver]

So to answer your question, Mike, you don't need to write any more Exams. However, was I you, a 1M is a hellova lot better than a 2M when it comes to looking for work ashore in the future. All you have to do is Lecktech, EKs and Orals. EKG is on Monday afternoons and EKM is on Tuesday mornings. Leckytech is on Thursday afternoons. Your theory exams are good for life, you won't have to redo them. Get the Leckytech out of the way, then have a crack at EKs.

You've been working at TC for too long


As per section 5 regarding annex 3; to get the ticket you need to provide documentary evidence that you've passed exams in subject areas a-e.
You have proof of b, d, and e; good for life, no need to bother with those subject areas again ever.
(If you did the 3/4 year cadet program after 2008, you don't need do any more exams, you may just apply for the CoC right now.)

As you know, you need to do Elec, EKG, EKM, and Orals now at TC; however, I have no idea how much longer exams at TC will still be an option.

I'm assuming there will be a gap between TC exams and organized approved college courses in which you can then have your documentary evidence proving competency in the required subject areas at a "management" level.

[JollyJack]

"As per section 5 regarding annex 3;" Are you still talking about SSB 05/2017? If you are, section 5 of annex 3 is about "Able Seafarer, Engine."

There will be no Exams at TC after the new version of the Marine Personnel Regulations come out of Gazette II. They are not written yet, so they are not even in Gazette I yet. Might be published late next year some time.

[Revolver]

I'm only a layperson not a lawyer haha

When I said section 5 I'm talking about 5 in your post:

"5. demonstrate they have the competences listed in column 1 of Table A-III/2 of the STCW Code, using the methods for demonstrating those competences set out in Section 3.1 of Annex 3"

[JollyJack]

If you have a Second Class (Motor or steam or combined) you have demonstrated those competencies set out in section 3.1 of annex 3. All clear now? If you have a Second Class, you will not need to write any more Exams, you have demonstrated you meet the requirements of STCW 2010 III/2, Management level.

[JK]

[Revolver]

Sure, and if I have my 3rd/4th class I haven't shown shit at the management level, so there must be hurdles in the way to go to 2nd/Chief then?


Well realistically If you can be a good second you should be able to be an ok Chief at least lol

[JollyJack]

Do you have discharges and testimonials as Second or ChieF? Have you met the requirements of STCW 2010 III/2? (Second Engineer) Do you have enough sea service over 3000 Kw> (9 months)? Do you have enough service to renew your CoC? Got a valid Seafarers Medical under the MPRs (NOT under TC/CCG MOU) Refreshed your MEDs and got a valid MAFA? Go to a TC office and fill in an EXN3 (Application for Examination) specify Chief Engineer STCW, pay $27:50 then wait for your Chief Engineer Ticket.

[D Winsor]

Do you have discharges and testimonials as Second or ChieF? Have you met the requirements of STCW 2010 III/2? (Second Engineer) Do you have enough sea service over 3000 Kw> (9 months)? Do you have enough service to renew your CoC? Got a valid Seafarers Medical under the MPRs (NOT under TC/CCG MOU) Refreshed your MEDs and got a valid MAFA? Go to a TC office and fill in an EXN3 (Application for Examination) specify Chief Engineer STCW, pay $27:50 then wait for your Chief Engineer Ticket.

Am I understanding these requirements correctly? If an engineer with as 3rd or 4th class CoC with discharges as a 2nd engineer on a vessel over 3000kw (on the Great Lakes there are engineers with 3rd & 4th class CoC sailing as 2nd engineer on a vessels up to 7000kw) and meet all the other requirenents listed. They will be able to simply walk into a T/C Office, with proof certification & discharges, fill out the paperwork, pay the fee and walk out with a Chief Engineer's CoC.

If so why would somone waste their time and endure the stress of writing all the exams currently required for a 1st or 2nd class CoC if they currently hold a 2nd class or lower CoC and will in a matter months potentially meet the requirements to upgrade to the new Chief Engineer's CoC? Is it just to have a certificate that will "look good on a Resume or CV" but other wise useless when it comes to someone in an office looking at CoC's to fill a vacant Chief's position on a ship?

[Revolver]

Yip.

So why does IMO and TC hate the safety of seafarers?

I feel like once there's an inevitable incident where a inexperienced (though that's possibly subjective?) Chief kills some people, there should be a class action lawsuit.
Can that happen? Haha

[JollyJack]

One of the conditions is that you must have met the standards of STCW III/2, which covers both 2nd Class and 1st Class. However "Management" standard has been fixed at 2nd Class. As you point out, there is no point in stressing about 1st Class exams, they are not required for Chief Engineer STCW.

Revolver, nobody hates safety for seafarers, Companies are a bit averse to paying for it, that's all. Seafarers always have been, and always will be, disposable. YOU just have to make sure you aren't one of them. That's why there are Safety Committees run and operated by the crew. Employers, ie, ones who direct the work, (NOT who pays the pay cheque) are not permitted to sit in on Safety meetings. (Top 4) Minutes must be kept and presented to a TC Safety Officer when required. Any safety concerns MUST be addressed, if not, TC has a whole raft of Health and Safety Officers and an official complaint will stir the pot. Charges are usually laid against the EMPLOYER, (ie Capt, Chief, Mate, 2nd) who directs the work and/or controls the unsafe condition. Believe me, MOSH has a much bigger stick than the Canada Shipping Act.

[D Winsor]

Revolver, nobody hates safety for seafarers, Companies are a bit averse to paying for it, that's all. Seafarers always have been, and always will be, disposable. YOU just have to make sure you aren't one of them. That's why there are Safety Committees run and operated by the crew. Employers, ie, ones who direct the work, (NOT who pays the pay cheque) are not permitted to sit in on Safety meetings. (Top 4) Minutes must be kept and presented to a TC Safety Officer when required. Any safety concerns MUST be addressed, if not, TC has a whole raft of Health and Safety Officers and an official complaint will stir the pot. Charges are usually laid against the EMPLOYER, (ie Capt, Chief, Mate, 2nd) who directs the work and/or controls the unsafe condition. Believe me, MOSH has a much bigger stick than the Canada Shipping Act.

This is intersting when you say that Senior Officers (Capt, Chief, 1st Mate & 2nd Eng.) should not be taking part in Safety Committee Meetings. One of my previous "Employer's" made it mandatory that Senior Officers attend and actively participate in Safety Meetings. In fact in most cases the Captain usually "Chairs" and submits the minutes of the meeting to the Office

[JollyJack]

Nope, the Employer, in the Canada Labour Code part II, is the person or persons who direct the work, not the Corporate entity which provides a pay cheque. I have done MOSH inspections at which, after the initial "information meeting", the top 4 have been politely asked to leave while we met with the Safety Committee. On occasion, it sometimes means huffing and puffing by the brass, then the politeness becomes a bit less civil.

Some confuse "safety meetings" with "crew meetings" (we called them "family planning meetings" with BP in the North Sea), they are two different things. A safety meeting takes place to discuss, note and TAKE MINUTES of safety concerns. These minutes are to be accessible to a TC Inspector when a MOSH Inspection takes place. Any action on a safety matter noted in the minutes, including NO action, will be checked and, if necessary, actioned by the MSI.

A crew meeting is usually a bitching session to air grievances.

[geezer09]

I have only quickly glanced over it, but it seems that SSB No.: 09/2017 indicates a step back from TC in terms of this "New Examination Process".

Instead of completely changing the exmination process from the current MPR to align ourselves with the STCW 2010 convention; simple amendments have been added to include leadership and maritime law components to the exams.

I think this SSB means one of two things

1) TC has changed it's mind about this whole thing and is going to keeps it's former MPR with only slight amendments

2) TC has realized that this transition period is very silly and nobody knows how to make any sense of anything that is going on. (I say this after having talked to many examiners from all over the country. Most of them seem more confused than I am and unable to provide much help). Therefore it has decided to stick more firmly to the current MPR instead of operating in a state of limbo between the regulations that do exist and the ones that STCW 2010 dictate should exist. Once the new regulations are written, it will then publish a new version of the MPR which will include most of the changes mentioned in the previous SSB 05/2017 which are nulled by SSB No.: 09/2017.

In other words, is this a way to smooth out the transition period or is it a clear and definite step back to former regulations.

Any thoughts?