 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / September 2008Power and Sail Squadron recreational boater qualifications.
By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to possess suitable qualifications. Been touch with rep. of the Power and Sail Squad. and one of the claims made is that their course, unlike some of the more straightforward 'Boating Safety' courses, is the only one that qualifies for operating a boat in both Canada and USA. While that is unlikely in short term it could be a significant advantage. They also have a 12 week one evening per week course which is more comprehensive which includes the the above qualification. Any advice regarding this would be most appreciated. It is many years since did any actual sailing. Terry Presently refitting our 26 foot Westerly Tiger; saltwater, out of Newfoundland, Canada. > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Presently refitting our 26 foot Westerly Tiger; saltwater, out of > Newfoundland, Canada. Nothing wrong with taking a class. The best thing would be to take the onshore class coupled with an aboard class. As far as I know, there's no US requirement for a class to operate a sailboat unless you have paying guests or it's a commercial situation. There might be insurance issues, and some states may have specific requirements, of course.  Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > possess suitable qualifications. Do you know if there will be any requirements for visiting cruisers such as having an equivelent certificater or training in their home country? -- Roger Long > > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Roger Long http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/obs/quick/quick_visitor.htm -- Tom. http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/obs/quick/quick_visitor.htm According to this, if I want to spent more than 45 days operating in Canada (quite likely if I want to see Newfoundland), I have to have proof of competency in three forms, one of which only appears applicable if I charter a boat up there. So... Take a Canadian boating course. or get (quote): An operator card or equivalent that meets the requirements of their state or country. My state and country do not issue such cards except for USCG licenses. Now what do I do? Interesting aside: It appears that in most of Canada alcohol can only be consumed on boats with permanent sleeping and cooking facilities while they are tied to a dock. That would be the end of life as we know it for most boaters here in the US although it wouldn't change my habits any. -- Roger Long ... > My state and country do not issue such cards except for USCG licenses. Now > what do I do? ... Apparently you can "challenge" the test. You only need to get 75% correct and the book from which they are testing is on the web site I linked. It might be something you could do when you check in. If you've got a current Merchant Marine ticket of some sort or any state recreational boater's cred I suspect that would do. I recall that some states grant licenses over the net. Maybe you could shoot Transport Canada an email or call them: MarineSafety@tc.gc.ca -- Tom. > > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Roger Long Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. I looked it up at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GENERAL/C/CSA/regulations/100/csa108/csa108.html A quote: See 3. (2) (b) below: 3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a pleasure craft unless the person (a) is competent to operate the pleasure craft in accordance with section 4; and (b) has proof of competency on board. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who (a) is operating the pleasure craft under the supervision of an instructor, as part of an accredited course; (b) is not a resident of Canada and whose pleasure craft is in Canada for less than 45 consecutive days; or (c) was born before April 2, 1983, has proof of age on board and operates a pleasure craft of at least 4 m in length before September 15, 2009; or (d) has proof on board that they hold a MED-A4 certificate or any certificate referred to in paragraphs 2(a) to (s), (z.18) or (z.43) of the Marine Certification Regulations. > Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. I definitely plan to so I've got to find out what they will accept from a state that doesn't issue the kind of documentation they describe. -- Roger Long >> Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. > >I definitely plan to so I've got to find out what they will accept from a >state that doesn't issue the kind of documentation they describe. Sounds like this might be your out: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who (c) was born before April 2, 1983, has proof of age on board and operates a pleasure craft of at least 4 m in length before September 15, 2009; or > (c) was born before April 2, 1983, has proof of age on board and > operates a pleasure craft of at least 4 m in length before September > 15, 2009; or I'm OK for next year but it is the year after that I expect to be there more than 45 days. It's a bit ambiguous though. Do you think it means that you just have to have prior operating experience of a boat over 4 M if you were born before 1983? -- Roger Long > > (c) was born before April 2, 1983, has proof of age on board and > > operates a pleasure craft of at least 4 m in length before September [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Roger Long No, this means up to September 15, 2009 a card is not required if you are more than 16 years old (by April 2, 2009) and your boat is 4 or more metres long. After September 15, 2009 everyone has to have the card if the boat has a motor (rental checklists, etc. excepted). >> Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. > >I definitely plan to so I've got to find out what they will accept from a >state that doesn't issue the kind of documentation they describe. I could put in a good word for you, and also mention that your knees and back were transplanted from a thirty year old. > I could put in a good word for you, and also mention that your knees > and back were transplanted from a thirty year old. Please do although I wouldn't fudge the truth with the transplant bit. Actually though, in a summer of some of some ambitious coastal cruising (by Maine standards anyway) http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/GEfiles/Strider08Cruise.kml the full extent of what are considered normal cruising grounds in this part of the world including the wilder portions thereof, my back and knees have felt far better than in my previous three years of sailing. I feel younger than when I first bought the boat. The enforced rest and therapy, together with three seasons of nearly daily sailing and two off seasons of extensive work on the boat, have definitely turned the clock back a bit. Some of it though is being aware and smarter. When the anchor is really dug in, I don't just grab on and heave while still stiff in the morning. First trick is to take the rode back to the midships cleat and get as much tension on it as possible. I then can put a powerful swig on it by pulling up in the middle. If the water is shallow and it's mostly chain aboard, I've made up a tackle with a chain hook. The other end has a loop that I throw around a winch on the mast. Swigging the fall from a bow cleat creates a pretty good lift. If I'm motoring off the hook, I can just go ahead on the up and down rode but I often like to sail away without using the engine. -- Roger Long > > Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Roger Long Hello again Roger, it appears to me theat you can get yourself a Canadian-issued pleasure craft operator card: http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/obs/quick/quick_visitor.htm#g "Acceptable Proof of Competency for Non-Residents For non-residents, proof of competency can take one of three forms: A Canadian-issued pleasure craft operator card. A completed boat rental safety check-list (for power-driven rental boats). An operator card or equivalent that meets the requirements of their state or country. For more information, consult the Competency of Operators of Pleasure Craft Regulations." This wording suggest to me a non resident can have a Canadian issued card. The pleasure craft operator cards are easy enough to get online as the course is available through several vendors such as: http://www.boaterexam.com/canada/?gclid=CNX92-DKtpUCFRhhnAodfUctQQ http://www.theoperatorcard.ca/ http://www.boaterlicences.com/?gclid=CJrK4JbMtpUCFQsiIgodSFYRQw >> Hi Roger, no requirement unless you stay 45 or more consecutive days. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Roger Long Roger... do you have a local Power Squadron in your area? What a great way to pass the dreary winters in your area(and mine). You'll probably even meet some new long term friends. I've just run into a lady i took the Piloting course with. We both walk our dogs in the same part. She's still sailing (trying to sell her J-24 to buy a Viking 28 while I'm reduced to operating an open 15' aluminum boat these days) > Roger... do you have a local Power Squadron in your area? I don't think a Power Squadron certificate counts as state or federally issued. -- Roger Long >> Roger... do you have a local Power Squadron in your area? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Roger Long Up here the CPS group has been appointed by the gov't to run the course and examine applicants for the Pleasure Craft Operator Card. Way back in 2000 we wrote two exams on the same night after completing 'The Boating Course'. The first, shorter test was for the Operator Card, and the longer test was to receive our diploma for the Boating Course and an invitation to join the CPS. http://www.cps-ecp.ca/public.asp?WCE=A=Body|C=11|RefreshS=Container|RefreshT=224 455|K=224455 Do you know of the CPS will issue cards to US citizens or if the USPS certificate is considered equivelent and acceptable? Just curious at this point. I'm certainly going to have something in writing before I show up to clear customs with 90 days of cruising planned. -- Roger Long >> > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to >> > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >certificate referred to in paragraphs 2(a) to (s), (z.18) or (z.43) of >the Marine Certification Regulations. I'm assuming that a USCG Master's ticket would be sufficient proof ? >>> > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to >>> > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >I'm assuming that a USCG Master's ticket would be sufficient proof ? I think that in CT, at least, someone with a USCG Master's ticket would still have to obtain a CT safe boating certificate to operate recreational craft or PWC's. You can skip the 8 hour class and just take the test (and pay the fees) Actually, anyone can do it that way if they feel confident that they can pass the test without the class. Not recommended, though, as the test is geared to topics covered in the class, and if you don't pass, you have a waiting period before you can pay again and take the test again. Just because you can operate a large tug boat, does not mean you know how to operate a PWC, any more than it means you know how to drive a tractor trailer, fly an airplane. or ski down Mt. Everest. On Aug 31, 2:41 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: ... > I think that in CT, at least, someone with a USCG Master's ticket > would still have to obtain a CT safe boating certificate to operate > recreational craft or PWC's. ... That's an interesting thought. It would mean, I presume, that a person with a master's license could take up to 6 people out on his own boat for hire but would not be able to cruise it for pleasure... Wouldn't that be odd. I'm no lawyer and I'm sure one of the local law critters will point out my errors but I think a federal license that gives you the right to operate a boat must be recognized by a state. No? > Just because you can operate a large tug boat, does not mean you know > how to operate a PWC, any more than it means you know how to drive a > tractor trailer, fly an airplane. or ski down Mt. Everest. Are you joking? A person with a master's license will have a very good handle on COLREGS and some familiarity with the applicable CFR chapters and a lot more to loose if he gets busted breaking the law than a person with just an operators license. There are a few laws that vary from state to state but I strongly suspect that most pros could pick them up with a quick glance at the state's boating handbook. Otherwise, they're likely to have mastered much more material than will be presented in a state licensing course. YMMV but I've spent time in small boats with professional mariners and they were very fine boat operators. And, of course, if you can operate a tug you can almost certainly operate a PWC (at least a sit down one). -- Tom. >On Aug 31, 2:41 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >gives you the right to operate a boat must be recognized by a state. >No? No. >> Just because you can operate a large tug boat, does not mean you know >> how to operate a PWC, any more than it means you know how to drive a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >chapters and a lot more to loose if he gets busted breaking the law >than a person with just an operators license. The test covers a lot of things that are not simply laws or COLREGS. They even have a separate test for PWC's. A regular boating license doesn't cover those, because they feel you should know things like how to maintain steerage in an emergency. If you are about to hit something while on a Jet Ski, instinctively closing the throttle is the worst thing you could do. They don't have rudders. The jet blast is how you steer. To avoid collision, you often ACCELERATE to be able to turn sharper. A person with a master's license may not know that. It wasn't in any of the tests or classes he took to get that ticket. That's just ONE example. So far, it looks like you couldn't pass the test. You don't even know what questions to ask. >There are a few laws >that vary from state to state but I strongly suspect that most pros >could pick them up with a quick glance at the state's boating >handbook. Otherwise, they're likely to have mastered much more >material than will be presented in a state licensing course. More, perhaps, but not the same, and not a complete overlapping. How much does a "pro" know about launching a boat at a boat ramp? Did you know that you are not supposed to "power on" and "power off" a trailer on a public boat ramp, using the boats motor to force a stuck boat on or off the trailer? Do you know why? It's on the test. >YMMV but >I've spent time in small boats with professional mariners and they >were very fine boat operators. And, of course, if you can operate a >tug you can almost certainly operate a PWC (at least a sit down >one). See, that's where you are wrong. Very wrong. It's a different skill set. On Aug 31, 5:03 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >... I think a federal license that > >gives you the right to operate a boat must be recognized by a state. > >No? > > No. Really? What about the supremacy clause of the Constitution? You're saying that if the feds grant a license that allows one to be master of a motor vessel that Connecticut can make a law that voids the federal license in CT? As I say I'm no expert but that seems so wrong that I wonder if you could explain how it would work. Except to say that PWCs aren't the only thrust vectored vessels and that they and z-drives, outboards, i/o's, other jet craft, etc are pretty well understood by professionals I'm not going to bother with your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are experienced, knowledgeable and careful. As a class I think that they are better qualified to operate vessels than recreational boaters who's only cert is a safe boating course. -- Tom. >... I'm not going to bother with >your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are >experienced, knowledgeable and careful. ... >-- Tom. Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single alone until he obtains that class Brian W >>... I'm not going to bother with >>your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brian W That's just plain not true. try again SignatureRichard (remove the X to email) >> Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps >> backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >try again Ha! I thought you were a pilot. But now I see you are not. Brian W >>>... I'm not going to bother with >>>your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >try again There have been cases where a non pilot buys a twin, and learns to fly in it. Those guys are not licensed for singles. No training in off airport power off landings, for one important thing. Casady >>>>... I'm not going to bother with >>>>your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Casady Few and far between. And an ATR rating is just that - a rating. Not a license. SignatureRichard (remove the X to email) >>>>>... I'm not going to bother with >>>>>your straw man arguments. Generally professional mariners are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And an ATR rating is just that - a rating. >Not a license. Don't leave home without it! >>>>Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps >>>>backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >And an ATR rating is just that - a rating. >Not a license. Ho hum - when you're in a hole - it's best to stop digging. If the folks who actually have a pilot ticket take it out they will probably see under Para II "Ratings & Limitations:" airplane single engine land. If they DON't see that, the FAA might be interested if they hear about single engine flight that is not in the light sport or ultralight brackets. And that applies to pilots with an atr (a.k.a an ATPL or ATP depending on who issued it....) Brian W >>>>>Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps >>>>>backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Brian W Mine says single engine land. But I personally don't know, nor have I heard of any, who have a multi-engine rating and don't have the single engine rating as well. Do you? SignatureRichard (remove the X to email) >> If the folks who actually have a pilot ticket take it out they will >> probably see under Para II "Ratings & Limitations:" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Do you? Yes. But then I am aware of the prime recruitment avenue for airline pilots - the military. USAF pilots of large passenger/cargo/refuel aircraft are the major airline choices in this country. These are the folks with whom I work. Their training is more extensive, intensive and expensive than any pilot that starts out with a CPL/IR. And they don't attract a S.E.L when they leave the service. Brian W >>>>>>Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps >>>>>>backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Do you? You mean like most USAF pilots? Last I heard, the USAF was teaching pilots from scratch in twin engine planes, and they automatically got commercial, including instrument, licenses limited to CLT twins. In piston planes, this would by the Cessna Skymaster, and nothing else. My commercial license is for single engine land, if it matters. My instructor told about one guy who did have a single engine ATR, not multi. He said the usual ATR didn't cover singles unless you took an ATR checkride in one. The simulated emergencies are different, for one thing. In the case in question, the inspector gradually reduced the power to simulate accumulating ice. At one inch MP per minute, he wouldn't have had time to dick around. Casady >On Aug 31, 5:03 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >>... I think a federal license that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >federal license in CT? As I say I'm no expert but that seems so wrong >that I wonder if you could explain how it would work. I already explained it, and quite clearly, but you are apparently in the throes of a thickness attack. An expert on oranges is not an expert on apples, although there is some overlapping knowledge. CT does not require a liscence. They require a "Safe Boating Certificate". It has requirements that are not covered by any USCG license. >Except to say that PWCs aren't the only thrust vectored vessels and >that they and z-drives, outboards, i/o's, other jet craft, etc are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >-- Tom. None of which matters one bit. You need a Safe Boating Certificate in CT. A Master Mariner's ticket doesn't cut it, because it is for something else, with different requirements. On Sep 1, 4:18 am, sa...@dog.com wrote: ... > None of which matters one bit. You need a Safe Boating Certificate in > CT. A Master Mariner's ticket doesn't cut it, because it is for > something else, with different requirements. To quote from the Connecticut Boater's Guide: http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/boating/boating_guide/part1_08.pdf A person who has a valid vessel operator license by the United States Coast Guard does not require a Safe Boating Certificate. They must have a copy of the license on board the recreational vessel on which they are operating. -- Tom. >On Sep 1, 4:18 am, sa...@dog.com wrote: >... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >-- Tom. Does NOT cover PWC's! Read it again, but more slowly this time. >>To quote from the Connecticut Boater's Guide: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Does NOT cover PWC's! Read it again, but more slowly this time. My PWC is 49 ft long, 32 net tons. >>>To quote from the Connecticut Boater's Guide: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >My PWC is 49 ft long, 32 net tons. If you say so, Wayne! Do you buzz around in circles near the beach with it? LOL On Sep 1, 10:56 am, sa...@dog.com wrote: ... > Does NOT cover PWC's! Read it again, but more slowly this time. Man, why the vitriol? I've been impressed with your knowledgeable, helpful and well presented cruising tips in another thread. I'd welcome the same kind of conversation here. It seems to me that you're shifting ground and I hate to get drawn into it but just for clarity. You said that: "You need a Safe Boating Certificate in CT. A Master Mariner's ticket doesn't cut it." The citation I linked to states that a person who has a US CG license does not require a "Safe Boating Certificate". The SBC covers all cruising boats and their support craft except for PWCs, so for r.b.c readers it is likely the pertinent cert. It is true that CT also grants a Certificate of Personal Watercraft Operation. The CPWO allows users to operate PWCs as well as vessels covered by the SBC. The CPWO is not the SBC which is the ticket I thought we were talking about since it covers virtually all cruising vessels and since you used that specific term. It does appear from the wording in the CT book that CT doesn't accept a CG lic. in place of a CPWO. While I suspect that CT does not have the authority to require federally licensed mariners to get a CPWO I don't actually care very much. The only thing you need a CPWO for in CT is PWCs and I don't have any desire to PWC in CT and doubt that many other cruisers do either. -- Tom. >On Sep 1, 10:56 am, sa...@dog.com wrote: >... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >helpful and well presented cruising tips in another thread. I'd >welcome the same kind of conversation here. Sorry, your first response inthis thtread came across as a very smug, "USCG cert means I know everything attitude. It was all downhiill from there. >It seems to me that you're shifting ground and I hate to get drawn >into it but just for clarity. You said that: "You need a Safe Boating [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I don't have any desire to PWC in CT and doubt that many other >cruisers do either. I sense a post from PWC Cruiser, Rich Forman, coming along shortly! On Sep 1, 1:35 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" ... > Sorry, your first response inthis thtread came across as a very smug, > "USCG cert means I know everything attitude. It was all downhiill from > there. Oh. I didn't intent to suggest that at all. It is certainly not true. My writing skills are pretty grim and I have got a particularly poor handle on inflection. It doesn't surprise me that screwed it up but the smugness wasn't intentional. Thanks for pointing it out and I'm sorry for the mistake. ... > >I don't have any desire to PWC in CT and doubt that many other > >cruisers do either. > > I sense a post from PWC Cruiser, Rich Forman, coming along shortly! My bad. I look forward the post though. Actually, now that I think of it, a PWC camping cruise along the inside passage might be a hoot but CT still doesn't draw me for PWCing. Are there any places you can get ashore for camping in Connecticut during the summer? -- Tom. >On Sep 1, 1:35 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >but the smugness wasn't intentional. Thanks for pointing it out and >I'm sorry for the mistake. Glad we got things back on track. This is much better. >... >> >I don't have any desire to PWC in CT and doubt that many other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >CT still doesn't draw me for PWCing. Are there any places you can get >ashore for camping in Connecticut during the summer? Anywhere you don't get caught! My first cruising experiences were as a teenager in the 1960's in various small, often wooden, and always decrepit, sailboats. I would sail to "somewhere" and camp on shore. Usually sans tent. If the weather was especially bad, I would unstep the mast and turn the boat over for shelter. I really miss those days. I was the only sailor and camper in my immediate family. Even today, I sometimes leave everyone behind, and go away by myself for a few days of solitude on the water. Nicer boat, now... On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" >... Are there any places you can get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Usually sans tent. If the weather was especially bad, I would unstep > the mast and turn the boat over for shelter. ... Very cool. I grew up reading the Ransome books and Capt. Voss and so on and have always had a romantic vision of small boat camping. -- Tom. >On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >-- Tom. If I was going to try it now, I think I would find myself a Dovekie. They seem ideal for that style of cruising. A little too big to drag up into the bushes to hide it, though! >>On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >They seem ideal for that style of cruising. A little too big to drag >up into the bushes to hide it, though! We used to know a couple from Manhasset Bay who were well known for their "stealth camping" exploits in and around Long Island Sound. They'd land somewhere with their back packing gear and just hide out for a few days. >>>On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >They'd land somewhere with their back packing gear and just hide out >for a few days. It's a lot of fun - or it was back when I was doing it. Things are a lot more crowded now. I used to do something similar when riding motorcycles. I would simply pull off the road behind available cover at night. Nowdays, that might be kind of dangerous. When I was a teenager, we would sail a small 16 ft skiff across Buzzards Bay and camp on the sw shore of Weepecket Island. Nice beach there and we would be, or thought we were just outside the circle for the restricted area. It was a great camping on the beach. One year it was over the 4th of July weekend, we had our own fireworks with a bonfire of drift wood near the high tide mark. Sometimes we had as many of 6 boats of teens camping. Now the mentality is do not pass Go and it is directly to jail. Fond memories as we sit there with Edith and Archie and sing, "Those Were the Days." Leanne On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT), "tsmw...@gmail.com" >... Are there any places you can get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Usually sans tent. If the weather was especially bad, I would unstep > the mast and turn the boat over for shelter. ... Very cool. I grew up reading the Ransome books and Capt. Voss and so on and have always had a romantic vision of small boat camping. -- Tom. >On Aug 31, 5:03 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >>... I think a federal license that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >are better qualified to operate vessels than recreational boaters >who's only cert is a safe boating course. Queen Mary II is the biggest passenger ship ever, more than 1100 feet long, and has Z drives. Biggest ship, and it was only sixty paces from the room to the elevator to the barstool. Casady >>On Aug 31, 2:41 pm, sa...@dog.com wrote: >>... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >See, that's where you are wrong. Very wrong. It's a different skill >set. I have been driving the same jet boat for fifty years. Never been on a PWC, however.\ Casady >I think that in CT, at least, someone with a USCG Master's ticket >would still have to obtain a CT safe boating certificate to operate >recreational craft or PWC's. I've been operating pleasure boats in CT on and off for over 30 years, first as a NY resident, now FL. As far as I'm concerned I am grandfathered but who knows. Let's set up a test case, might be fun. You can turn me in next summer for failure to have a certificate. >>I think that in CT, at least, someone with a USCG Master's ticket >>would still have to obtain a CT safe boating certificate to operate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >grandfathered but who knows. Let's set up a test case, might be fun. >You can turn me in next summer for failure to have a certificate. Sure. Sounds like fun. Let me know when you have exceeded the time limit, and where they can find you. The Courant will want to do a four part series on your trial, I'm sure! For the record, you are not grandfathered in. I was when they first instituted the Safe Boatuing Certificate, but they phased that out early on. If you read the CT Safe Boating Guide booklet as prep, you could probably just take the test at DEP headquarters and skip the classroom time. Mostly enforcenment happens when you are busted for something else and they discover you don't have the cert. I don't think the CG will even write you up for it. You have to get popped by local law enforcement, or DEP. > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Presently refitting our 26 foot Westerly Tiger; saltwater, out of > Newfoundland, Canada. Great way to spend our cold damp winters. Way back in 2000 I started with the Boating Course at the Halifax Squadron, took the Piloting, and Advanced Piloting courses and fit in the VHF and GPS seminars in between. I've been lazy since 2002.... but have kept my dues up and plan on getting back in the saddle one of these days. > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Presently refitting our 26 foot Westerly Tiger; saltwater, out of > Newfoundland, Canada. =========================================== I did the power squadron course a couple years back.. and I remembered how much I had forgot.. It was a great course. Very informative. I'm glad I took it. On Aug 31, 6:58 pm, Brian Whatcott <betw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: ... > Not necessarily straw-men. As presented they were straw men. He set them and knocked them down and then came to the unsubstantiated conclusion: "it looks like you couldn't pass the test." It's a dishonest form of argument. I take your point that type certification may be useful (and indeed Merchant Marine creds are typed) but I found the presentation of the argument so offensive that I didn't see any reason to dignify it with much of a response. -- Tom. > By end 2009 Canadian all recreational boaters will be required to > possess suitable qualifications. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > qualifies for operating a boat in both Canada and USA. While that is > unlikely in short term it could be a significant advantage. Don't bother taking the courses if you have any real experience. Take the on-line test and be done with it. I often challenge some on this list about their lack of experience, but almost all of those I challenge could pass those candy-assed tests without breathing hard. The tests in no way demonstrate you have capability, only that you can answer the majority of the questions the way they want them to be answered. If you can't pass the tests easily, get out there and learn. That's more important than passing some silly-assed test. SignatureJere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.