TWIC Final Notice

I think we're all up to date, but the deadline nears....please pass this on to all the hold-outs and doubters out there who still don't think they need a TWIC.
TWIC Information Bulletin Feb 2009

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Government Business & Legal twic

There is still one thing missing from all the notices disseminated by the USCG so far: what is the penalty for non-compliance? I have yet to see a single, definitive answer as to what they will actually do if they discover that you hold a credential and didn't get a TWIC. Will they suspend your license? Will they revoke it for life? Will they just tell you to get a TWIC and don't ever do that again?

Look, if they are going to set a deadline, fine. But shouldn't a deadline include some sort of ultimatum - a consequence for not meeting the deadline? "You do this by this date, or else!" Hello? Would someone at the USCG please tell us the consequence for blowing off the April 15th deadline.

So far, the only thing I've seen in writing is what is actually in the CFRs: (46CFR10.113)

Failure to obtain or hold a valid TWIC may serve as a basis for suspension or revocation of a mariner's license, COR or STCW endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 7702 and 7703.

Failure may serve...or... maybe not? Furthermore, 46USC7702/7703 could be interpreted as only applying if you were acting under the authority of your license. Not a single TWIC bulletin or memo from the USCG ever mentions that loophole when stating the policy of mandatory TWIC by the deadline. They all say holding, not using. Big difference.

Here is what's got my barnacles all bunched up; I think that guys who missed the deadline should suffer some consequences beyond just having to go get a TWIC. I think the USCG should issue a written policy that says so. Something like this: All mariners who failed to meet the TWIC deadline will have their credentails automatically suspended for one year. Is that so hard to say?

Sorry, the Bar is Closed

Today's Federal Register contains this tidbit - perhaps not totally unexpected.
--------------------------------------
ACTION: Notice of proposed
rulemaking.

Regulated Navigation Areas;
Bars Along the Coasts of Oregon and Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish Regulated Navigation Areas (RNA) covering specific bars along the coasts of Oregon and Washington that will include procedures for restricting and/or closing those bars as well as additional safety requirements for recreational and small commercial vessels operating in the RNAs. The RNAs are necessary to help ensure the safety of the persons and vessels operating in those hazardous bar areas. The RNAs will do so by establishing clear procedures for restricting and/or closing the bars and mandating additional safety requirements for recreational and small commercial vessels operating in the RNAs when certain conditions exist.

If you want to read it all, click here.

Comments - Once again, I think the USCG is passing a new regulation as a knee jerk reaction to a single, isolated case; specifically, the case of Captain Oba who defied the Coast Guard's orders and attempted to cross the Umpqua River Bar. [read details here at Professional Mariner]. A snip from the proposed regulation:

 Bar restriction. Passage across the bars located in the
regulated navigation areas established in paragraph
(a) of this section will be restricted for recreational
and uninspected passenger vessels as determined by.... 

So, the new regulation specifically targets uninspected passenger vessels, 6 pack charters, T boats, recreational boats etc. Oba was operating a 6 pac charter on his 38' Bertram. Here is the dumb part: the Coast had closed the Umpqua River Bar before Oba attempted his crossing, and the fool tried it anyway, resulting in the deaths of 3 of his passengers. Accounts of the incident indicate that the USCG contacted Oba numerous times to warn him off, and the offical record does say that the CG had "closed the bar" before the tragedy. [earlier post on this]

So, my question is this: Does this proposed new regulation mean that when the USCG closes the bar, it's really REALLY closed?

Weather, relatively speaking

My post on the sailors who where towed by the USCG after departing into some lousy weather received a number of comments, and I was surprised that most of the comments were to scold me for "being to harsh" in my criticism of the MOONSHINE's crew. (No one challenged the idea that the USCG might charge for services in cases like this.)

Too harsh?!? I should have gone on more about how astounding (arrogant? ignorant?) it was for a sailboat crew with plans to cross from Rhode Island to Puerto Rico to claim that some misfortune of bad weather had abruptly ended their voyage. The weather they encountered was a winter gale, with winds 35-40kts and seas 8-12'. Those conditions are certainly not enough to end the voyage of anyone who's planning includes even the most basic understanding of what one might be expected when, you know, you are planning to cross the ATLANTIC FREAKIN' OCEAN!

To put some perspective on the weather encountered by those sailors, I present the following video, taken by Steve and Linda Dashew [CLICK HERE TO WATCH]. As you listen to Linda's narration, you will hear her say that they have been waiting for gale force conditions, so they could shoot some video and test their boat. Their weather? Steady 35kts, gusting 50, seas averaging 15'-20' with larger swells. Watching this video, you might imagine that a nice hot lunch was about to come up the companionway ; knowing the Dashews, I'll bet it did.

Please don't bother to point out the differences between the WINDHORSE at 83' and the MOONSHINE, at 45' -- both boats are ocean capable -- the difference that separates the two stories is the crew. I don't think the crew of the MOONSHINE would even have been able to get the WINDHORSE to Puerto Rico. Had video of a Nor'east snow storm been their objective, I dare say the Dashews would have no problem sailing the MOONSHINE south on the very same day that caused the MOONSHINE's actual crew to call the USCG.

In some respects, bad weather is relative. Once you've sailed in 45kts of wind, 25kts is just another day sail; once you've been in 60kts, 45kts is just another gale. Weather that caused one crew to activate their EPIRB is an just an opportunity to shoot some good footage to a different crew. It is their experience that allows the Dashews to confidently wait for a good gale before heading into the Tasman Sea to take some video of gale force conditions. The MOONSHINE crew were completely out of their league and had to call for rescue just 25 miles into their 1600 miles voyage. It wasn't a "bad storm" that caused the problems for MOONSHINE, it was that relative to their experience, the conditions seemed like a bad storm to them.

The apologists point out that the MOONSHINE's engine failed and the sails were ripped. I believe that those issues are a matter of poor maintenance and lack of seamanship rather than a direct result of a fresh gale. A photo of the boat after she was towed clearly shows the mainsail furled on the boom, and it doesn't appear to be damaged.

Look, we all know what happened: this skipper's bad weather strategy was to lower the sails and motor. We see this all the time from inexperienced coastal cruisers. They either don't understand how to or are not equipped to reef, and can't control the boat under full sail, so they motor. Well, with 10' seas, its likely that the fuel was stirred up, fouled the filters with sludge and that was all she wrote. Remember, this boat was heading south with NE winds. You are telling me that he couldn't make way with a reefed main?

Here is where my ire surfaces: the fact that the captain of the MOONSHINE didn't have enough experience to understand what he was in for does not give him a pass. To say "Aw, shucks Doug, give the guy a break" implies that what happened was somehow beyond the control of the captain. To cut this guy any slack is to ignore the facts; that captain chose to leave a safe port, so he placed himself in circumstances that were completely within his control. He flagrantly ignored or disobeyed every tenet of prudent seamanship and to excuse his behavior as a landlubber is to insult the truly lubberly.

My brother has done a fair bit of ocean sailing, and when the subject of getting caught in bad weather comes up, he says "You can only pick your weather on the first day of any crossing."

What WOULD the Coast Guard charge?

Yesterday, we wondered aloud about the question of whether the USCG would ever actually charge for a non-emergency response to rescue foolish, or reckless boaters. I ended that post with "I wonder what the hourly costs for running a 47' MLB are?" The question somewhat rhetorical in nature, as I figured that the answer was buried someplace deep in a CG spreadsheet.

I forgot about the new, digital age where so much information is readily available. Even better is the participating in the new age of blogging, where sometimes information comes to you.

Charlie Meyer over at TowBOAT/US Lake Ozark sent me the link to this very interesting document. It seems that the USCG has published the hourly rates they would charge for all their assets like boats, ships, aircraft and personnel. Enclosure 1 (pasted here, click on it to see a bigger version) is titled "Hourly Standard Rates for Cutters, Boats & Aircraft" - how handy is that?

So, not only did my rehtorical question get anwered, but an even better number is presented here: how much would the USCG actually charge a non-government customer (like an insurance agency) for providing service. These are hourly rates, and they include the costs of paying the "normal" crew.

According to the chart, a 47' MLB is charged out at the non government rate of $4189/hour. The sailboat that was towed in from south of Block Island on Dec 19th was towed for 7 hours. Lets say 2 hours to get on scene, plus 2 hours to get back to base from Montauk (where they towed the boat); a total of 11 hours of service. That's $46,079! We are not even close to the total yet. The official report states that the CG also launched a helicopter from Sta Cape Cod. Figure another 4 hours for a HH65A at $9855/hr = $39,420 for the aircraft. So far, I'm up to $85,499 to find and tow a sailboat about 20 miles. That doesn't include any costs for the SAR center costs.

The sailboat from the story, the MOONSHINE, was a 45' Starratt sloop. Here is one for sale in FLA asking $39,000. Why is the USCG spending $85,000 to tow a $40,000 boat? Because they don't put a price on saving lives, and the act of towing this boat was their way to get these seasick sailors home. Okay, I get that.

Suppose, however, that the CG policy was to send a bill if it turns out that the rescue operation was necessary because the boater was reckless or negligent in his duty to conduct a safe voyage? Unforeseen circumstances are one thing, but leaving a safe harbor to begin an ocean crossing when a winter Nor'easter is bearing down on New England is acting with reckless disregard for the lives of everyone involved.

If the USCG started charging for services that were deemed 'non-emergency', what would that achieve? First, it would lower the burden on taxpayers (I admit, not much, but it's the principal of the thing) and shift the costs of non-emergency rescues to the boat owners and their insurance companies, where it belongs; 2) it would punish reckless behavior with a financial dis-incentive, and; 3) it would drive more boaters to use private sector solutions like our industry. The owner of the MOONSHINE could have hired an ocean tug out of Providence RI for $10,000/day

This marks the 100th blog post for 2008. 100 is a nice round number, so I'll make this my last post of this year. See you next year!

Area Maritime Security Committees

Found this item in today's Federal Register:

This notice requests individuals interested in serving on an Area Maritime Security Committee in any Captain of the Port Zone, nationwide, to submit their applications for membership to their local Captain of the Port. These committees advise the Secretary of DHS, through the Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime security in their geographic area. The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the development, review, update, and exercising of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan for their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not limited to: Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations; identifying risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences); determining mitigation strategies and implementation methods; developing strategies to facilitate the recovery of the marine transportation system after a transportation security incident; developing and describing the process to continually evaluate overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be applied; and providing advice to, and assisting the COTP in developing and maintaining the AMS Plan.

Joining the local AMSC could lead to local security opportunities for your company. Even if your not interested in that aspect, being on the committee would provide a great way to meet and network with your Sector's senior staff on a regular basis. Instructions for applying are found on the second page of this PDF.

Sunk Costs - by David Axe

Here a rather lengthy but well reasoned summary of the overall state of the USCG, and particularly the Deepwater Program: click here for Sunk Costs - David Axe (one quick quote)

The ultimate result of Deepwater’s travails is that a well-respected agency—the only one, in fact, to perform admirably during Hurricane Katrina—is now finding it increasingly difficult to carry out its core mission. Even before Deepwater sprung leaks, the Coast Guard was struggling to be both an overseas counterterror force and a domestic safety and law enforcement agency.

This is a pretty long article, but definitely worth the time.

Are You Fit for Service?

Checklist for license renewal:

• Sea time letter(s): check
• Application completed: check
• Current form of identification: check
• Valid TWIC card: check
• Proof of drug testing: check
• Physical exam completed by doctor: check
• Checkbook to pay fees: check
• BMI under 40: HUH?

Last week, the USCG issued NVIC 04-08, which actually references about 80 pages of new regulations concerning the medical requirements to obtain or renew a USCG credential (i.e. license). The 80 or so pages are spread out in eight enclosures, numbered 1 through 6, but including 3a and 3b (hence the total of 8. Confused yet? Me too...)

So, what's the beef? Actually, the question is Where's the fat? Thats right, fat, as in body fat, sometimes measured as Body Mass Index, aka BMI. Lets cut right to the chase. Enclosure #2 lays out the Physical Ability Guidelines. Paragraph 2 states in part:

If the medical practitioner doubts the applicants ability to meet the guidelines....and for all applicants with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 40.0 or higher, the practitioner shall require that the applicant demonstrate the ability to meet the guidelines.

Just down the page a bit, they provide a weblink to find out more about BMI. Well, I've done all the work for you. Just click here, enter your height and weight, and you can find out if your BMI is over 40.

Now, based on how many XXL and even XXXL shirts I helped Fiona sell at this year's C-PORT convention, I'm guessing there is a percentage of RedRightReturning readers who may tilt the BMI index a tad over that 40.0 benchmark. My personal BMI is about 34.

A BMI over 40 will not automatically disqualify you for service, but it will require your doctor to attest that you can climb ladders, crawl into small spaces, carry heavy fire hoses, that sort of thing. And, it will probably raise some flags when your application is reviewed by the examiner. A few too many doughnuts and next thing you know, they're checking for a history of dermatomyositis.

The list of ailments and medical conditions that could be an issue is so extensive, there is a 9 page alphabetical index [enclosure 3a] just to help you quickly figure out if your nerphrois is on the list (it is, condition #105). Ever had prostate cancer? That's condition #108. Ever had headaches? #162.

If you're really interested, see enclosure #3, which is only 32 pages long, and details 201 medical conditions (referenced in the index mentioned above), and the recommended steps for medical evaluation. If you had your cancerous prostate removed, is your bladder "competent"? There is enough stuff on this list, your entire family can play!

This whole thing is becoming more like the physical requirements that commercial jet pilots have to sustain to keep flying. My flight instructor now flys big jets for UPS, and you bet he has to keep in shape. Of course, he's making about one hundred Gs per year, so he can afford the Gold's Gym membership dues....whats in your wallet?

All TWIC Enrollment Sites Are Now Open and Ready for Business

Press release:

Sept. 17, 2008
TSA Public Affairs: (571) 227-2829
WASHINGTON – The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) today announced that all Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) fixed enrollment sites are open and ready for worker registration. Port and longshore workers, truckers and others nationwide are now able to enroll in the Department of Homeland Security's TWIC program at any one of the nearly 150 sites.

[click here to go to the TSA announcment]

In case any captains out there still operate under the misunderstanding that they will not need a TWIC, here is a snippet from the official USCG
NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 03-07. (from page 7 of that document):

Also by (the deadline), all mariners will be required to hold a TWIC in order for their license, MMD, COR, or STCW endorsement to remain valid.

Without a TWIC, your license is invalid. Don't think you can wait. This whole program has been plagued by confusion, delays, and poor communications, especially on the part of the USCG, who at the local level are barely up to speed on this issue. I still see Internet forums with captains quoting local CG personel that they won't need a TWIC. Do not make the mistake of going to the USCG for advice about the TWIC. The USCG has made their official position very clear with the NVIC quoted above.

USCG Commander keeps his job after collision with BI Ferry

Text of official USCG press release today:

BOSTON - The commanding officer of Coast Guard Cutter Morro Bay will remain in command today following the review of an administrative investigation regarding the collision between the Morro Bay and a Block Island ferry July 2, 2008.
Admiral Dale Gabel, the commander of the First Coast Guard District, presided over an Admiral’s Mast in which he determined that Lt. Douglas Wyatt will remain in command.
“After reviewing all of the facts of this case, I have confidence in Lt. Wyatt’s ability to command the Morro Bay and carry out the Coast Guard’s missions,” said Gabel.


http://coastguardnews.com/morro-bay-commanding-officer-to-remain-in-command-after-investigation/2008/09/05/

....hmm, I wonder if they exonerated the captain of the ferry?

Rescue 21 works when needed

Saw this item today from New Jersey:

LITTLE EGG HARBOR — A husband and wife who had fallen overboard and left behind four children in a boat in the bay Thursday afternoon were rescued by a passing salvage crew working for Towboat US.
The Coast Guard received a phone call from 16-year-old Cary Skrzat at 2:11 p.m. reporting that her parents,Phillip, 45, and Stacy Skrzat, 42, of Telford, Pa., had fallen off the family's 25-foot boat and drifted out of sight. The daughter and three other siblings remained on the boat but did not know where they were, said Petty Officer Nyxolyno A. Cangemi, a Coast Guard spokesman.
The Coast Guard then initiated a direction-finding system known as Rescue 21 to identify the boat's position through its radio signal.
As a rescue helicopter from the Coast Guard's Atlantic City station and a boat crew from the Barnegat Light station launched a search for the missing couple, a nearby commercial salvage crew from Towboat US overheard the call, found the couple and pulled them to safety.
The salvage crew then towed the family's boat to nearby Cedar Cove Marina in Tuckerton.
It remains unclear how or why the couple went overboard, Cangemi said, though they reported their boat's engine was disabled at the time.
The Rescue 21 system is a newly-established search command procedure that aims to reduce coverage gaps along the coastline and allow the Coast Guard to better monitor and track boats.
"Rescue 21 saved some lives today," said Petty Officer 1st Class Kyle Gerkens, who coordinated the search.

The final quote has me thinking we need a better public relations strategy. Rescue 21 certainly deserves the credit for finding the location of the signal from the boat with the kids on it, but it was the actions of the TowBoat/US crew that "found the couple" and therefore saved their lives.

Its great that Rescue 21 is up and operational, and it appears to function as designed - allowing the USCG to pinpoint an incoming radio signal. But I think a more accurate quote would have been "With the help of equipment like Rescue 21, a commercial salvor saved some lives today..."

Ok, I'm over it.

Ferry Collision Update

Damage to the passenger ferry BLOCK ISLAND can be seen in this picture. That looks like a pretty good whack.

Plus, I found this detail over at Coast Guard News:

The commanding officer of the Morro Bay, Lt. Douglas Wyatt, took command of the Morro Bay in a change of command ceremony in Newport, R.I., Tuesday. The Morro Bay was headed back to its homeport in New London, Conn., following the ceremony when the collision occurred.

....thats gotta be the shortest command duty in history, don't you think?