I did not intend my reply to be this long, however, I thought what needed to be conveyed was warranted.
Capta, Your description was well put. I hope this clarifies some of the discrepancies in the thinking of some.
For the official record, My license says this:
=============================
U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
Master of Steam, Motor or Auxiliary Sail Vessels not to exceed 100 Gross Tons. Also authorized to Engage in Commercial Assistance Towing.
=============================
I remember when taking the USCG course, halfway thru, one female student asked the instructor, "I keep hearing you use the term "Beam of the Boat", what does that mean"?
Are you kidding me?
The base requirement for this course was a 720 days sea time requisite. In all of that req'd. sea time, she had never heard this term used once before.........Again, really?
The fallacy in all of this, was although she tested well & passed why, from lying & cheating the requirements, she passed the course. Why? Because the course was designed to let cheaters pass. The impetus was to collect the course fees & allow the payees to cheat & pass the test. The objective was on, "How to pass the test rather than are you experienced enough to REALLY be qualified to pass the test."
How can this happen you ask yourself? Many courses are designed to insure that you pass the test based on answering the known questions. These are based on the previous USCG 5 or 6 passed tests. The USCG is very anal-retentive department & they barely venture anew, so the same questions show up in multiple tests. This equates to Course businesses knowing what automatic answers to teach thus, enabling a student to pass by teaching you what multiple choices you have to pen. The way the test is designed, it's knowing what the correct answers are before you start the test and not, experience of actual sea time & gained knowledge that should be the core requirement needed to take the course in the first place.
So I ask you all, do you think she is a REAL captain under the COLREG definitions, or a SEARS Captain (aka Frank Zappa? You need to decide). Knowing this, would you trust her to "CAPTAIN/SKIPPER" your boat in all conditions, not I.
Knowing all of this, how do you equate this to someone that does not own a boat, has not the required years of occupational experience yet, she sits now thinking she is the real deal.
So, after relating this to you all, are we now on the same track in thought? I just don't understand the vessel-owning folks feeling they cannot be called a captain or skipper yet, having given their time & sweat to perfect their craft, why must it be a feeling of unworthiness for the sake of someone in passing a salutation-type title maybe called out to you on the dock? If not feeling worthy, how about something like, "Hey pal," is that more appropriate?
As Shakespeare once penned, "Tis much ado about nothing." If you own & operate a vessel you are that vessel's Master and/or Skipper & or captain & or pal. If you feel you're a good skipper, licensed or not, why fret over the un-sequential semantics.
Look at the USCG final report on the sinking of the Bounty that came out today. The "Licensed Captain Walbridge", was a seasoned captain of some fifteen years on the Bounty. A Master/Captain who obviously thought he was bigger & smarter than Mother Nature & the massive hurricane bearing down on him & his crew. This ended up costing two souls, all because of his ignorance, arrogance & diluted pride. I wonder how Claudene Christian would respond, had she survived.
As I had asked in an earlier post, have you as a captain/master/skipper or operator killed anyone in your years of operating your vessel? If not, the term Skipper is more than adequate. Embrace this term of endearment, for you have earned it.
Why muddle ourselves in petty semantics?
CR
