Coastal Passage Experience & Training

Hmmmm, so this is an uninspected passenger vessel with a recreational document carrying paying passengers on an overnight offshore voyage with one licensed crewmember?

Interesting.

Thread deletion in 3, 2, ......

Maybe I need to drop another hint or two.

So you are advertising to sell space on a foreign built, recreational documented pleasure vessel carrying paying passengers offshore between US ports on an overnight voyage with one licensed crewmember.

Do you really hate your owner that much?

First off, Son of Magellan, it isn't CFR33. So far the quality of instruction seems to be less than enlightened in several areas.

"Passenger for hire means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator, agent or any other person having an interest in the vessel (46 U.S.C. 2101(21a))."

"Uninspected Passenger Vessel means an uninspected vessel:
a. Of less than 100 gross tons:
(1) Carrying not more than 6 passengers, including at least one passenger for hire; or
(2) That is chartered with the crew provided or specified by the owner or the owner's representative and carrying not more than 6 passengers (46 U.S.C. 2101(42) (B))."

"Personnel Watchstanding (46 U.S.C. 8104(b))
For an UPV operating on ocean and coastwise waters; a licensed individual may not be required to work more than 9 of 24 hours when in port, including the date of arrival, or more than 12 of 24 hours at sea, except in an emergency when life or property are endangered."

"Certificate of Documentation (46 CFR 67.7)
A UPV of at least five net tons that engages domestic or coastwise trade must have a Certificate of Documentation (COD) on board bearing a valid endorsement for the activity in which it is engaged."

And just in case you want to call your customers "crew" read the following:

"Pre-Employment Testing (46 CFR 16.210 and 49 CFR 40.25)
No marine employer shall engage or employ any individual to serve as a crewmember unless the individual passes a chemical test for dangerous drugs for that employer. An employer may waive a pre-employment test required for a job applicant if the individual provides satisfactory evidence that he or she has:
a. Passed a chemical test for dangerous drugs, within the previous six months with no subsequent positive tests during the remainder of the six month period, or;
b. During the previous 185 days been subject to a random testing program for at least 60 days and did not fail or refuse to participate in a chemical test for dangerous drugs required by this part."

"In accordance with 46 U.S.C. 4106, if an uninspected passenger vessel is operated in violation of the applicable laws or regulations, the owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master and individual in charge are each liable to the United States Government for civil penalties. The vessel is also subject to civil forfeiture."

But since I am in a good mood tonight, I will give you a link to the page that details the MARAD exemption to use your bosses boat for coastwise trade ...

Small Vessel Waiver Program

Oh, sorry, according to the boat's documentation it doesn't seem to meet the requirements. Boss needs a new captain.

Henning,

Your signature has been removed. It appears your return to YF is to promote your website, Facebook page and business. This is strictly against our rules. This "sandbox" you refer to is highly optimized for search engines, therefore anyone researching you for possible employment will quickly learn of your short temperament and frankly, unbelievably diverse claims of experience.

There are certain individuals on YF that maintain anonymity for security reasons. They are smart to cloak their online identities because sometimes the things we say can come back to haunt us (a little Halloween humor). You may wish to keep this in mind when posting to public forums.

Not for nothing here, and I might get some heat for saying this. But, it sounds like Henning is just attempting to help a friend/customer out and have people chip in on expenses to bring the boat down here, while giving an individual an opportunity to do a trip of a lifetime (possibly in more ways than one. LOL). It sounds like he has the link to his website posted, so people could see the boat, feel comfortable that he's not in Nigeria and trying to take their money, and that they feel comfortable paypal'ing it. I see tons of people, mostly sailboaters, looking for free crew and the like with ads all over the internet. Aside from it being a foriegn built yacht, it sounds like any other un-inspected charter boat you see advertised in various places on the internet.

Just curious, in my limited experience i get the impression most yacht insurance policies written for pleasure vessels preclude chartering or carrying passengers for hire.
This vessel has an insurance policy in place that has clauses allowing chartering or carrying passengers for hire?

Henning is advertising a charter at best, an employment scam at least, and an illegal charter in any event.

The advertisement is not for a chance to take a free trip, it is a public advertisement for transportation with a smokescreen of "training" in how to operate illegally.

Any other uninspected charter boat over 5 tons has a coastwise endorsement on its document and does not call paying passengers crew or students. The list of violations is clear and long. You don't have to take my word for it, ask your friendly local CG rep at the boat show later today.

If the Capt preceding the J means captain you need to review the regs that are intended to protect the public from illegal and potentially unsafe operations such as one that makes an overnight voyage with only one licensed crewmember, and protects legitimate charter operators and innocent passengers from fly-by-night scam operators preying on the gullible and uninformed.

There is no federal requirement to be insured so if the owner is OK with the liability then that is his right. He may not like the idea that his captain is subjecting the boat to being forfeited (seized, confiscated, sold by the government at auction) for violating the trade laws and a big chunk of 46CFR but again I guess if he loves his captain and trusts him that much I guess that is his choice as well.

But somehow I just can't imagine the owner has given "informed consent" to this comic venture.

I believe that Henning's heart is in the right place a) he's trying to make it so his boss can get his boat south without the huge expense and b) he wants to give people the opportunity for what could be the cruise of their lifetime and a great education. However, although Marmot sometimes has a way with words, his advice is good. 1) There are so many ways to run afoul of both the law and prudence involved here that the venture would be a mistake. The first thing that was alluded to, but got burried, is that this is a foreign built boat. The fact that it's built for a U.S. company and much of the work is completed here may make that area of the Jones Act a little gray, but I sure wouldn't want my boat to be a test case. Especially with the odds in favor of losing. 2) Moving away from the legal side (Marmot is way better there than I could ever be), his timing is questionable. I've done this run 27 times. It's taken me from 5 days to 13 days. These days more times than not around 10 days. If only we could be guaranteed seas that would allow us to run outside almost the whole way without the guests crying for their mommies. 3) This is no pleasure trip if done as a delivery, where you have to push. Many caps I know won't even do it with an owner on board much less a group of paying passengers who expect to be pampered. Out of my 27 trips I've had 3 owners who have made the trip a living hell. Once I had to quit the boat half way up the coast because the owners, aside from being miserable people, insisted on making the trip a danger. The owner on a run I made a couple of years ago left me wanting to quit the business all together. 4) Someone mentioned insurance. I doubt very much that you can find an insurance company willing to cover this venture.

That's incorrect. I run an American built pleassure boat on which we intend to do limited (day) charters. We carry a rider permiting us to charter 26 days per year.

What's incorrect? My impression that most private vessel insurance policies preclude chartering or carrying passengers for hire?
The fact that you have a "rider" on the policy would make me think this coverage is the exception rather than the rule?

Rider or not, what do you think the underwriters would say about covering an illegal operation?