# Transport Canada certification of Naval skills



## jewalsh (20 Oct 2010)

For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the superior training that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.

My experience with these retards (I mean Transport Canada) has shown that these government rejects do not give a crap about the training that the Navy gives their personnel.

You can be a seasoned Bos'n, NCIOp, NAVCOMM, MARS Officer, MESO/MSEO etc. and they still don't give a crap about that.

One excuse that I heard is that our MOU with those dummies was not renewed but I refuse to believe them.

The main guy in Victoria admits that the Naval training is 5 times greater than any civilian training for Damange control and all other forms of training but nothing he can do about it (of course only the "finest ??? " Canadians get the honour to be part of Transport Canada in Ottawa).

I called their office to book a test and the dummies on the other end of the line does not know what a maneuvering board is! What a reject!

Comment if you like but Transport Canada does not care about the service that the Navy provides to the World.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2010)

It’s a fine tradition that TC Marine has. I included time served running as a volunteer 40-50’ boats owned by a museum, with letters of support from ship masters and the museum, that my duties included being vessel master, crewing and training, repair and maintenance of the vessel, organizing and carrying out shipyard refits, etc,etc yet that time in their eyes did not count as it was not “commercial” However they were happy to include my time on BC ferries despite my main occupation seemed to be coffee drinking, parking cars and breaking up fights. TC Marine also only took 25 years to figure how to allocate sea time for hovercraft, despite being the biggest operator of such. It was also amusing when the Captains with “Coast Guard tickets” found that their tickets were only valid in Canadian waters and they could not take a CCG ship through the Panama Canal on their tickets. I have no doubt that TC Marine shall have a measured and well thought plan for your situation by the RCN bicentennial.


----------



## Strike (21 Oct 2010)

Easy guys.  My Dad is one of those TC guys in Ottawa of which you speak.

jewalsh: PM me the exact issue and I'll see what the old man suggests.  He might even have some people you can talk to directly.

Now, if you're just talking about not automatically getting a ticket without testing, you're out of luck.  Get the package, study the work and sit the test.  If it's something else, no promises, but I'll see what I can get for you.

Of course, it's amazing that I'm willing to help at all given that you are bashing the very organization that my dad has spent so many happy years with.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Oct 2010)

jewalsh said:
			
		

> For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the *superior training* that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.





			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> I too would cut the NAVRES budget by 3 million after seeing the *quality of leadership and lack of dedication  * of the 24 NRDs.



So which is it?


----------



## navymich (21 Oct 2010)

jewalsh said:
			
		

> For whatever reason, Transport Canada wont recognize the superior training that the military gives their members for any civilian BWK qualifications.



There is a big difference between a BWK and an NCIOP.




			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> I called their office to book a test and the dummies on the other end of the line does not know what a maneuvering board is! What a reject!



Ask a DMech or Cook onboard an MCDV and they probably don't either.  What does that say about them?  Only that it doesn't involve them so why should they know or care.  The same could very well be said for the guy on the other end of the line.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So which is it?



 really well trained dudes who are bad leaders with no dedication, where do I sign?


----------



## Antoine (24 Oct 2010)

Professional in many fields are tested on regularly basis such as when renewing license. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that a qualified MARS officer might need to pass professional exam. However, I am surprised that the federal doesn't recognize in a way or an other your MARS qualification.



> You can be a seasoned .... MARS Officer....and they still don't give a crap about that.



Can anyone else confirm that ?


----------



## Jolly Roger (24 Oct 2010)

Antoine said:
			
		

> Professional in many fields are tested on regularly basis such as when renewing license. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that a qualified MARS officer might need to pass professional exam. However, I am surprised that the federal doesn't recognize in a way or an other your MARS qualification.
> 
> Can anyone else confirm that ?



There are provisions in "The Examination and Certification of Seafarers - TP 2293 E" published by Transport Canada for equivalencies of MARS Officer training and various NCM courses.

Chapter 2 - sec 7 - Table IV lists the MARS relevant training equivalencies
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp2293-chapter2-77.htm

Chapter 3, under "Ranks and Ratings" has information regarding NCM training.

I am no expert, but I have documented my time and relevant courses. This was the advice given to me by MARS Offices senior to myself. 

Jewalsh - I wouldn't take the word of one Transport Canada Official on something this important. There are alot of resources on the Transport Canada site to give you some references to give what you deserve. 

Best of luck!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2010)

Jolly Roger said:
			
		

> There are provisions in "The Examination and Certification of Seafarers - TP 2293 E" published by Transport Canada for equivalencies of MARS Officer training and various NCM courses.
> 
> Chapter 2 - sec 7 - Table IV lists the MARS relevant training equivalencies
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp2293-chapter2-77.htm
> ...



I think this is the crux of the problem.  Someone who HAS NOT bothered to document their time, relevant courses and qualifications, nor their equivalent Civilian qualifications or done a PLAR or written the Civilian Tests required, will cry foul when there is none; only their not following the laid out rules.

This applies in many CF Trades, where one has to follow the correct procedures and rules to gain a Civilian Certificate or Seal.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2010)

The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.

While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.
> 
> While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....



Slight tangent:  on my PAL and RPAL courses, you had to drop a cleaning rod down the muzzle and see it protrude into the breach.


----------



## Veovius (25 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....



Sorry to keep tangenting.... 

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to clear chamber, drop mag, then put that 90 degree plexiglass thingie in there to refract the light down the barrel.  This is only to ensure there's no barrel blockage, and since you've just cleared the chamber (and the chamber needs to be clear to insert the light thingie), it should be fine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The other reason "may" be by analogy with getting a gun license; if you don't do "their" course, you deprive them of the course and testing fees.
> 
> While I actually have no interest in getting a civilian firearms license, I cringe at some to the things I hear about the "saftey" course. there is no way (ever) that I will consider looking down the barrel of a weapon to ensure it is "clear" (even a muzzel loader); yet you must do this to pass their test....





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Slight tangent:  on my PAL and RPAL courses, you had to drop a cleaning rod down the muzzle and see it protrude into the breach.





			
				Veovius said:
			
		

> Sorry to keep tangenting....
> 
> I'm pretty sure you're supposed to clear chamber, drop mag, then put that 90 degree plexiglass thingie in there to refract the light down the barrel.  This is only to ensure there's no barrel blockage, and since you've just cleared the chamber (and the chamber needs to be clear to insert the light thingie), it should be fine.




Ringading ding! And we're off!!! ;D


----------



## Pat in Halifax (2 Dec 2010)

One must keep in mind, the Navy trains all it's trades to operate "warships", not Lakers, Oil Rigs or Container ships. The way I look at it, the Navy is refusing to recognize TC regulations as they are inadequate in the environment (physically and mentally) in which we sail. We train to do the job - the best we can; not to go after civilian quals plain and simple.
All this said, each trade has someone to contact for civilian equivalency - Ours (stokers) is done by an ex-stoker who can be contacted through the stoker website and I KNOW there are others.
All I can say....if you want a civilian 'ticket', go that route. The Navy is not here to train future civilian crews; it is here to train crews for short notice deployment in operational combat vehicles.
I'll stop now...I am rambling...and getting antsy!


----------



## chrisf (2 Dec 2010)

I've never served on a navy ship, but based on my experience on civillian ships, I'm guessing any training the navy provides is leaps and bounds ahead of civillian training... both in initial training and ongoing skills maintenance... the fact that transport canada doesn't recognize quals is an insult... even basic things, like an MED...


----------



## FDO (2 Dec 2010)

So why not take your superior training and skills and challenge the exams? That will show those TC weenies!!   :nod:


----------



## Pat in Halifax (2 Dec 2010)

I cannot say for certain who's training, from a purely trade point of view, is superior as I have never sailled on the civilian side.  We 'train' (and I mean continually) within the trade (stoker) right up to the rank of CPO2 which equates typically to about 20+ years service. I suppose the experience garnered is the kind of stuff that no school could ever teach. We train to the degree that if any piece of equipment were to 'take a bullet', we should be able to make it operational again. Unfortunately, we (figuratively) shoot ourselves in the feet way too often and make the impossible a reality. My personal motto - Everyone in the uniform (Navy) is responsible to ensure those grey things slip quietly in and out of harbour - How we do that is not taught nor is it in any 'rule' book. I might add here-This tends to drive the CM (Configuration Management) and LCMM (Life Cycle Management) people batty! I have been part of many converstions following along something like -...." Q-Why is there a pickle jar being used as a lubricator for the air start on an MWM generator? - A-Because the $1000 part was unavail when we were 300 miles south of Greenland in sea state 6 you f***ing w***!" --- Look....I am getting all 'excited' again!!!
As for TC not accepting the quals - Yes, it is an insult but so are many other things in life I no longer take personal offence to.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (2 Dec 2010)

Retired FDO:
Many years ago, I did go for my 4th Class motor (diesel) ticket in Ontario. It was quite simple but fortunately (or unfortunately?) I never kept it up - no requirement. What I would really like to see is a TC examiner come to CFNES (or CFFSE) and sit a Cert 3 EOOW Board. This is not a "mine is better than yours" discussion-It is the requirement for the position - it differs dramatically (I suspect).
I will now mention that none of the TC stuff covers DC, daily emergency ex's with about 1 in 5/6 full blown all-ship evolutions, seamanship evolutions involving all personnel (RAS, jackstays, SARs etc). Again, it is something that can't be printed in a book and learned and then examined for. There is actually a move afoot within the trade to do exactly what is done 'outside' - Provide a trainee with a "package", have him/her learn it and then Board them. This WILL NOT work because experience is key to these tickets we get. If 7 gearbox temps come into alarm when the ship is 'prosecuting' "something", trust me-we will NOT be 'stopping to investigate' right away. This is not something we can teach but we can prepare trainees for it through elaborate scenarios. The tempo is on a completely different level and always will be.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents for the time being - I am supposed to be serving wine at the Junior Ranks Christmas dinner!!!!


----------



## chrisf (2 Dec 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I cannot say for certain who's training, from a purely trade point of view, is superior as I have never sailled on the civilian side.  We 'train' (and I mean continually) within the trade (stoker) right up to the rank of CPO2 which equates typically to about 20+ years service. I suppose the experience garnered is the kind of stuff that no school could ever teach. We train to the degree that if any piece of equipment were to 'take a bullet', we should be able to make it operational again. Unfortunately, we (figuratively) shoot ourselves in the feet way too often and make the impossible a reality. My personal motto - Everyone in the uniform (Navy) is responsible to ensure those grey things slip quietly in and out of harbour - How we do that is not taught nor is it in any 'rule' book. I might add here-This tends to drive the CM (Configuration Management) and LCMM (Life Cycle Management) people batty! I have been part of many converstions following along something like -...." Q-Why is there a pickle jar being used as a lubricator for the air start on an MWM generator? - A-Because the $1000 part was unavail when we were 300 miles south of Greenland in sea state 6 you f***ing w***!" --- Look....I am getting all 'excited' again!!!
> As for TC not accepting the quals - Yes, it is an insult but so are many other things in life I no longer take personal offence to.



I can't speak for all ships, but I know the few ships I've worked on, the "make it work" mentality is the same... if you're at sea, and somthing breaks, it typically has to be fixed... most departments were parts pack-rats whenever possible, if somthing broke, replace it with a new one if you had it, and strip the old part of anything useful to be stored... if you don't have a new part, build a temporary out of old broken parts... if you don't have old broken parts, build it out of somthing else....

Don't know about the actual training, emergency drills and such but I'm assuming the difference is the upkeep of training, and how seriously you run drills... again, I've never served on a navy ship, but I'm assuming it's leaps and bounds ahead of the few civillian ships I've sailed on...


----------



## Pusser (2 Dec 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I've never served on a navy ship, but based on my experience on civillian ships, I'm guessing any training the navy provides is leaps and bounds ahead of civillian training... both in initial training and ongoing skills maintenance... *the fact that transport canada doesn't recognize quals is an insult*... even basic things, like an MED...



Actually, that's not a fact.  I can't speak specifically to actual qualifications, but TC does recognize time spent at sea in the Navy toward the time requirements for tickets.  The Admin world has certainly spent enough time calculating sea days for this purpose!  As for the training issue, there's a significant difference between not recognizing training and requiring someone to write exams.  Just because someone is "trained," doesn't mean he/she shouldn't have to prove him/herself.  There are many examples where fully trained professionals still have to write exams every time they move in order to become accredited in other locations.  Foreign-trained doctors are a good example.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Dec 2010)

Pusser,

You sound like you might have some insight....how's the sea day counting going???

Mildly curious...

NS


----------



## Stoker (2 Dec 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I've never served on a navy ship, but based on my experience on civillian ships, I'm guessing any training the navy provides is leaps and bounds ahead of civillian training... both in initial training and ongoing skills maintenance... the fact that transport canada doesn't recognize quals is an insult... even basic things, like an MED...



Actually you can get some of the MED wrote off with your navy training.


----------



## FDO (3 Dec 2010)

When I was working at Sea Div in Halifax it did come down that the Sea Div Commander could sign a waiver stating that you were up to date on all your Emergency at sea drills. This was accepted by TC. Mind you that was about 6 years ago.


----------



## Pusser (3 Dec 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Pusser,
> 
> You sound like you might have some insight....how's the sea day counting going???
> 
> ...



The last I heard, it was not going well.  I gather a team is being formed to search ships' logs held in the National Archives.  However, this will only reveal when ships were at sea.  Ships' logs don't record who was onboard at the time.  Thus, anyone posted to a ship at that time could receive credit for sea days they didn't actually do.  Even worse, people who were on board, but for a variety of administrative reasons (and there are several) aren't able to prove it will lose out.  How is this better than using SDA records, which are much more readily available and accurate?


----------



## knuckle dragger (1 Mar 2012)

From the UCTE web site 27 Feb 12 

“What are they thinking?” said President Collins.  “In no way is a Naval Officer Certificate equivalent to the Transport Canada Watchkeeping Mate certificate.  SAR Coordinators are put through a series of rigorous testing that demonstrates an ability that is unparalleled.  Naval Officer Certification is an inappropriate equivalent.  It’s like saying just because I go kayaking, I’m a qualified mariner.”
http://www.ucte.com/index.php?q=en/node/1178

I know unions are trying to keep jobs and will say anything they feel they have to.  I'm fine with that.  I just want my pusser kayak.


----------



## Strike (1 Mar 2012)

Their comparison chart isn't even accurate.  It's taking the info off the CF recruiting web site as opposed to the more complex actual qualification requirements that the RCN actually institutes, including medicals and minimum qualifications in order to finally be considered a qualified watch officer.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Mar 2012)

The chart they make is as biased as one of ours would be if we compared, on one hand, every P.O. check and specific class taught to a MARS officer before his BWK board to the general Internet description of Coast Guard Fleet Officer training found on the Coast Guard College web site . An example of descriptions found there: 

"Becoming a Fleet Officer requires diligence, intellectual effort, and commitment. The Officer Training Program prepares Officers in both Marine Engineering and Navigation. The 45-month training period involves comprehensive in-class theory, the use of modern marine simulators and practical experience during sea training."

Truth be told, there're differences in the training and coursing. We obviously don't need too much in terms of cargo handling courses - Merchant Seaman (which is what Cost Guard officers are) do. Their stability coursing is of a higher caliber - because it is related to cargo work, where we have engineers onboard to do ours. Etc. On our side, we get more in damage control, communications and high speed high precision navigation, joint and coordinated operations, etc.

What is most disconcerting, however, is that the Coast Guard union seems to think that  all this merchant mariner's training somehow prepares their officers to work in a land based HQ known as Co-ordination Centre. In these centres, it is the co-ordinated use of multiple air and sea assets through communications and the implementation of pre-existing plans, together with all attached considerations, that matter: When they first get there, Coast Guard officers have never done this nor have they ever studied it, where their RCAF and RCN counterparts have received years of training in this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Mar 2012)

A accurate statement by Oldboats. A lot of running a merchant ship deals with cargo, because at the end of the day the ship is purely a device to move cargo to from point A to point B. We were fighting a fire on a fishboat, we were starting to attack it with foam, when the Captain asked us to stop, he said just hold the fire to the forward end of the vessel while we pump the herring roe out. In this case the cargo was worth more than the boat.
Modern Ports can load and unload vessels so quickly that they can break the ships back if the officer responsible is not on top of the ballest plan.


----------



## Snakedoc (21 Jun 2012)

I was looking into information on getting a Pleasure Craft Operator Card (PCOC) and became curious about any types of equivalancies offered by TC for DND/RCN quals.  I found out that there *are* DND equivalencies for the PCOC and I don't think I need to take the exam or hold the PCOC as a MARS officer with a BWK.  I have friends who've taken the PCOC exam and they say it's fairly easy but I just figured if it's not required, might as well save the money.

I found this thread during my search and figured this would be the right place to add the information for anyone interested (though this is only for pleasure craft).  Also, Mods, any chance parts the OP's post can be edited to better reflect this site?  More information available at the link below and here's a list of DND certs that don't require you to carry a PCOC:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-obs-courses-pcoc-list-marine-safety-certif-1323.htm 

*Department of National Defence Certificates Considered Equivalent*

Upper Deck Watchkeeping
Destroyer Navigating Officer
Surface Ship Command
Patrol Vessel Command
*Bridge Watchkeeping*
Deep Draught Officer or Fleet Navigating Officer
Minor War vessel or Surface Ship Command (after 1997)

From the FAQ section:

"Any person who holds a certificate or equivalency on the List of Certificates of Competency, Training Certificates and other Equivalencies is competent to operate a pleasure craft under the Competency of Pleasure Craft Regulations. A person holding such a certificate or equivalency simply needs to carry their certificate or equivalency (or a copy of it) on board their pleasure craft, accompanied by a proof of identification.

*Transport Canada is currently working on a process whereby a person holding certificates or equivalencies from that list can obtain a PCOC from Transport Canada.* 

Once the new card system is in place, a person will have the *option to continue to carry a copy of their certificate on board or obtain a PCOC from one of the Marine Safety Transport Canada Centers*."


----------



## Snakedoc (21 Jun 2012)

I have to say that it is surprising that there isn't anything on the list for a RHIB Coxn qual or anything like that though.  The current DND quals listed are clearly going to consist of people who are, if anything, over-qualified rather than 'equivalent' to a PCOC haha.  I would hope a person who's had surface command can operate a pleasure craft!


----------



## quadrapiper (21 Jun 2012)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I have to say that it is surprising that there isn't anything on the list for a RHIB Coxn qual or anything like that though.


Or the various iterations of Tender Charge.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jun 2012)

Well, when one puts aside the OP's derogatory insults of TC personnel in the first post, is the issue that there are not a set of TC marine exams that can be written by appropriately qualified personnel that can be written to secure the qualification?

It seems that expecting blanket equivalencies without validation of qualifications or at least understanding, is perhaps not realistic.

On the aviation side of things, while providing a copy of my logbook sufficed to confirm prerequisite flight hours, I still had to write a number of TC qualifying exams as would any other applicant, civilian or military.  End result, $75 later and a CPL-H with type ratings for all the aircraft I had flown as PIC in the legislated preceding 12 months.  TC even supplied preparatory guides for the qualifying exams that allowed me and my friends to prepare quite reasonably for the test.

Is the issue that RCN pers do not qualify to write qualifying/licensing exams based on their mariner experience?


Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jun 2012)

The advice I received about my ticket was to carry a copy of such and copy of the webpage pointing to the validity of such. Keep in mind the police officer examining your documents has had very little training in enforcing the law and may not be aware of such exemptions.

The Office of Boating Safety is being gutted yet again and will focus on regulatory stuff and very little public education. Expect a lot of unsure answers to your questions for a bit.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2012)

Just jumping in to point out that there are a lot of trade qualifications out in the CF that are not recognized as equivalent to civilian trades, not just Naval trades; some are not recognized for valid reasons, some for insignificant reasons, but either way you have to adapt to the system, not expect them to adapt to you.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2019)

Finding a way to get from USS to USNS or the types of sailors needed for Asterix, Ocean Trader and the UK's Prevail ships.



> WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday easing the process for veterans to transition into the Merchant Marine.
> 
> The order will clear the way for the Merchant Marine to waive licensing fees for sea-service veterans and count their military training toward its credentialing system, said Peter Navarro, a White House trade policy adviser.
> 
> ...



https://www.stripes.com/trump-executive-order-eases-veteran-transition-into-merchant-marine-1.571328

Thoughts on a Canadian equivalent?  My understanding is that RCN quals aren't recognized by civilian boards.


----------



## mariomike (5 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thoughts on a Canadian equivalent?  My understanding is that RCN quals aren't recognized by civilian boards.



See also,

Transport Canada wont recognize any Naval training to get a civilian BWK ticket  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/97148.25
2 pages.


----------



## chrisf (5 Mar 2019)

If I've learned one thing from of dealing with Transport Canada...

Its that they almost never have any idea what they're doing.

If you don't like the answer you get, don't get frustrated and give up, come back another day and talk to someone else, or call another office and ask the same question.

Answers provided may seem completely random, keep asking until you get the one you want.

Transport Canada will absolutely recognize some naval training and sea time.


----------



## mariomike (5 Mar 2019)

> I have marine experience with the Navy/DND and would like to work on Canadian vessels, what do I need to do?
> 
> 
> Answer:
> ...



Edit to remove dead link.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Mar 2019)

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Its that they almost never have any idea what they're doing.
> 
> If you don't like the answer you get, don't get frustrated and give up, come back another day and talk to someone else, or call another office and ask the same question.
> 
> ...



TC must be staffed by a combination of former VAC employees and retired RMS clerks.


----------



## chrisf (6 Mar 2019)

standingdown said:
			
		

> TC must be staffed by a combination of former VAC employees and retired RMS clerks.



TC is what happen when you expect people to have industry experience, but only pay 1/2 to 1/3 of what industry does.

You get want you pay for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2019)

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If I've learned one thing from of dealing with Transport Canada...
> 
> Its that they almost never have any idea what they're doing.
> 
> ...



It was so bad in Vancouver that everyone was going to the Nanaimo office for exams, till they forbade it. It took TC 25 years to figure out seatime on hovercraft, despite being the biggest user of them.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2019)

Imagine a guy with a 350 ton ticket that goes into a job where he can't keep his competence requirement up, the ticket expires. A few years later, his department gets a 17' rubber boat, now said individual must get his SVOP to run a commercial/government vessel. Does his 350 ton ticket count?, nope, he must take the 4-5 day course, where they assist the instructor in teaching the course.... 

Welcome to TC


----------

