On 14 Jul 2006 13:35:09 -0700, "beaufortnc"
wrote:

Hi,

I have a charter captain friend who told me once that there is a
loophole around the conventional "6-pack" CG License chartering
regulations.

He said something to the effect that if you have a contract that
specifies that the boat is being rented as a whole to the "guests",
that they are able to pick whoever they'd like to be the captain of
their "rented" vessel, whether that person is licensed or not.

So, in essence, the boat "rental" provides the income, and the
"captain" performs duties for free.

With this method, he was able to charter his boat with more than 6
guests, and without a captain's license.

Does anyone know the real story on this? Was he f.o.s.?

Thanks,

Mike.


Close, the boat can be rented "bareboat" and then they hire the
captain of their choice. The captain would have to be licensed.
It's also used to get around the foreign built rule.

There is a term for this kind of charter, but for the life of me I
can't recall what it is.

I've often wondered about this. Of course, technically, if anybody
pays you anything to take them out on your boat, you need to have the
6-pack license, at least. But in many cases, it's like driving 31 in a
30, or not reporting that 50 bucks you won on your tax return; just
don't say anything and don't worry about it.

Say, for example, I'm down at the coast getting ready to take my center
console out a few miles to some oil rigs for some fishing. A couple in
the hotel room next door is having a dull trip and wonders if they
could run out there with me. They say, "hey, we'll throw in a hundred
bucks to help cover gas and bait; we don't want to leech."

What if it's not even that obscure? Suppose a couple of guys in my
office want to come down to the coast with me to go out in my boat, and
they all pitch in on the cost? Jack says he'll split the cost of the
gas. Robert says he'll buy the bait. Does that warrant a license? I'm
sure that if it ever came up for question, we'd just play it cool and
deny everything.

It seems to me that if taken to its literal extreme, the license
requirement states that whoever is piloting the boat MUST pay for
EVERYTHING, which isn't very realistic.

Ron M.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I've often wondered about this. Of course, technically, if anybody
pays you anything to take them out on your boat, you need to have the
6-pack license, at least. But in many cases, it's like driving 31 in a
30, or not reporting that 50 bucks you won on your tax return; just
don't say anything and don't worry about it.

Say, for example, I'm down at the coast getting ready to take my center
console out a few miles to some oil rigs for some fishing. A couple in
the hotel room next door is having a dull trip and wonders if they
could run out there with me. They say, "hey, we'll throw in a hundred
bucks to help cover gas and bait; we don't want to leech."

What if it's not even that obscure? Suppose a couple of guys in my
office want to come down to the coast with me to go out in my boat, and
they all pitch in on the cost? Jack says he'll split the cost of the
gas. Robert says he'll buy the bait. Does that warrant a license? I'm
sure that if it ever came up for question, we'd just play it cool and
deny everything.

It seems to me that if taken to its literal extreme, the license
requirement states that whoever is piloting the boat MUST pay for
EVERYTHING, which isn't very realistic.

Ron M.

Sure.. you're right, but that's not really the point. It's easy to get
around rules, but they're there for a reason. And, if there is some tragedy
involving the couple or Jack or whomever, you better have the right license.
The question is, is it worth it?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote:
I've often wondered about this. Of course, technically, if anybody
pays you anything to take them out on your boat, you need to have the
6-pack license, at least. But in many cases, it's like driving 31 in a
30, or not reporting that 50 bucks you won on your tax return; just
don't say anything and don't worry about it.

Say, for example, I'm down at the coast getting ready to take my center
console out a few miles to some oil rigs for some fishing. A couple in
the hotel room next door is having a dull trip and wonders if they
could run out there with me. They say, "hey, we'll throw in a hundred
bucks to help cover gas and bait; we don't want to leech."

What if it's not even that obscure? Suppose a couple of guys in my
office want to come down to the coast with me to go out in my boat, and
they all pitch in on the cost? Jack says he'll split the cost of the
gas. Robert says he'll buy the bait. Does that warrant a license? I'm
sure that if it ever came up for question, we'd just play it cool and
deny everything.

It seems to me that if taken to its literal extreme, the license
requirement states that whoever is piloting the boat MUST pay for
EVERYTHING, which isn't very realistic.

Ron M.

If you look back to my first post in the thread, you'll see I posted
the the formal CG memo on the update rules from 1994. In particular,
a person is a passenger for hire if they are required to pay "but not
including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of the voyage, by
monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage, or other
supplies." In other words, if you would take them out even if they
didn't share the fuel cost, then its not a license requiring situation
if you do accept the offer. The previous rules were actually so
strict that allowing a friend to "bring the beer" could be considered
a charter.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

If you look back to my first post in the thread, you'll
see I posted
the the formal CG memo on the update rules from 1994. In
particular,
a person is a passenger for hire if they are required to
pay "but not
including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of
the voyage, by
monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage,
or other
supplies." In other words, if you would take them out
even if they
didn't share the fuel cost, then its not a license
requiring situation
if you do accept the offer. The previous rules were
actually so
strict that allowing a friend to "bring the beer" could be
considered
a charter.


What if I receive ''sexual favors'' for a moonlight sail?


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

If you look back to my first post in the thread, you'll
see I posted
the the formal CG memo on the update rules from 1994. In
particular,
a person is a passenger for hire if they are required to
pay "but not
including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of
the voyage, by
monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage,
or other
supplies." In other words, if you would take them out
even if they
didn't share the fuel cost, then its not a license
requiring situation
if you do accept the offer. The previous rules were
actually so
strict that allowing a friend to "bring the beer" could be
considered
a charter.


What if I receive ''sexual favors'' for a moonlight sail?


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

You might get caught with your pants down?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Scotty wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
If you look back to my first post in the thread, you'll
see I posted
the the formal CG memo on the update rules from 1994. In
particular,
a person is a passenger for hire if they are required to
pay "but not
including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of
the voyage, by
monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage,
or other
supplies." In other words, if you would take them out
even if they
didn't share the fuel cost, then its not a license
requiring situation
if you do accept the offer. The previous rules were
actually so
strict that allowing a friend to "bring the beer" could be
considered
a charter.


What if I receive ''sexual favors'' for a moonlight sail?

That depends on whether the favors are voluntary and whether the value
exceeds the cost of fuel. In your case, both are doubtful.