CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters

Coast Guard Requests Authority to Require 'Proof of Proficiency' By Louis Gerlinger May 3, 2006 If approved, the provision could lead to mandatory licensing for boaters nationwide.

WASHINGTON D.C. (LNS) - The Coast Guard has asked Congress for authority to establish a "proof of proficiency" requirement for recreational boaters - which, officials conceded, could lead to mandatory nationwide licensing for recreational boat operators. A legislative change proposal, which was submitted by the Coast Guard's Office of Boating Safety, would amend Section 4302(a) of Title 46, United States Code, which gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to prescribe regulations, by adding subsection (4) which would read (The Secretary may prescribe regulations) "establishing minimum requirements for recreational vessel operator proficiency." California presently doesn't have a mandatory education or licensing requirement for recreational boat operators

I know from observation that others simply lie, or count every time they move the boat from its slip to the adjacent fuel dock and back as a "day" of experience. One of the red flags that I overheard in the seminar was the assurance that the instructors at the school (with a vested interest in qualifying as many people as possible) would be happy to "help" fill out the sea service form for interested applicants.

Qualification requires 360 days of experience, (90 of those days must be within the last 3 years) with a "day" being defined as no less than a single 4-hour watch underway. Being underway for 8 hours doesn't qualify for "two days" in a single 24-hour period. Swinging around the anchor doesn't count, moored at the resort guest dock for three days doesn't count for "three days", etc. My comment on engine hours is based on the fact that in the extremely unlikely event that a boater always ran for *exactly* four hours after starting the engine, the minimum number of engine hours required to meet the requirement of 360 4-hour days would be 1,440. No way does any boater without previous experience and anything less than 1440 hours on his first ever boat qualify, at all, under even the most liberal interpretation of sea service. Since a lot of boating runs will be less than 4-hours in length and therefore not qualify at all and some will be longer than 4 hours but only count for a single "day", it would probably take most people somewhere close to double that 1440 engine hour number to actually, legitimately, meet the sea service requirement. For a lot of casual boaters, that's almost 30 years of weekend and summer vacation cruising.

The other possibility would ordinarily be the state of the tide, but that can't be a variable in this case based on the wording of the question. Vertical clearances are measured to mean high water, not MLW, so if you're dealing with a charted clearance of 42 feet there should always be at least 42 feet available. Your question becomes tricky when you have a 45 foot bridge clearance dimension for the vessel and a 42-foot charted clearance for the bridge. Definitely time to break out the tide table and calculator before trying to pass under that same bridge.

The other missing dimension is horizontal clearance, not usually an issue for recreational boats, but definitely a consideration for tug and barge combinations.

If one of the detractors were 'the width of the bridge', I'll bet it would get a lot of hits! -- 'Til next time,

John H

***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****

For example: One year not so long ago I was scheduled to give seminars on various topics at a local boat show. I showed up to the seminar room about 15 minutes early, long enough to catch the last portion of the seminar that preceded mine. A representative from one of the license schools was pitching his program and answering questions about qualifying to sit for an OUPV or 100-ton exam. About every third answer was, "As long as you're willing to write it down, it's going to be accepted. Nobody is going to challenge your self certification because they aren't going to be able to prove that you *don't* have the time you claim." He gave some pretty far fetched justifications for "rounding up" if hours on a particualr day didn't actually qualify. To his credit, he did tell one party who admitted that he had only been boating for 90 days and never previously owned a boat of any type that it would probably be "too early" to try to qualify for the exam.

I specifically know of individuals who sat for the exam with between 500-1000 engine hours on their first and only boats and no prior experience. I asked one, how did you get the sea time to qualify? His frank answer, "I lied."

Talk to nearly any one of the Captain's R US license mills about qualification, and you will most likely have an opinion similar to my own.

That's true but it will also make you at least 2,740 years old.

The fact is that many, many people who are serious boaters can accumulate legitimate amounts of sea time without lying about it.

I can handle the boats and know the basic rules, but I still consider myself to be a somewhat "experienced amateur" overall.

RCE

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence? Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.

John H

***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****

John H

***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****

If the Coast Guard would simply require that boaters need to get an attendance certificate for a USCG Aux or Power Squadron course (many of which are one-day events), this is already being handled on the state level in almost every state where there's an appreciable amount of water upon which to boat. I'm surprised that CA is so far behind the trend. The USCG proposal isn't very necesary if it is simply for more education.

However, if the USCG wants to establish some actual standards of "proficiency" to demostrate *capability* as well as basic education, I'd be 100% in favor of that. Some guy who is totally clueless about how to operate his boat is a hazard to everybody around him- regardless whether or not he can parrot "red, right, returning" and make a lucky guess about basic COLREGS.

Another benefit; this program might eventually cut down on the number of those licensed masters who should really have their certificates printed on toilet paper. The vast majority of pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or 100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed. It might be tough to convince the USCG that a boater who just purchased a boat six or eight months ago (and for whom the USCG has the original "proficiency" record) has logged enough sea time to test for a license.