Paul,
Well that's interesting! I was under the impression that if I was
getting paid to drive a boat I'd need the license. Thanks for that
information. I figured correctly on the other part and as Peggie pointed
out the insurance would be the show stopper, at least for a prudent
person. If someone was rich enough and stupid enough I guess they don't
have to get insurance. I don't think insurance is required as it is on a
car as far as I know. But thanks for making that clarification.
Paul


renewontime dot com wrote:
I have been told that a person could captain any size boat he'd want to
provided there is no commercial interest. In other words if a person could
afford a 150' boat he wouldn't be required to have a Captains license or
hire a Captain to pilot the vessel. Is this correct?
Paul


Ok, we're talking "in the US" here, as every country is different:

There's a bit more to it than that. Vessels are categorized by their
intended purpose, tonnage, waters to be operated, etc. and certain vessels
will require a licensed master no matter their size. But, as far as I know,
you are essentially right: if you wanted to purchase a 150 foot private
yacht and drive it yourself, there are no laws or regulations requiring that
you carry a license or a licensed master, so long as the vessel is only used
as a private yacht. In fact, there are alot of private yachts over 100' out
there, and if an owner wanted to hire you to drive it, you wouldn't need a
license to do so. Likewise, a license is not required (by law at least) to
deliver yachts.

I think this is where a lot of people get confused: It's not necessarilly
whether you are paid to drive the boat, it's if you have passengers aboard
who have paid to ride, thus the common expression "Passengers for Hire".

The reality is this, even though the law may not require a delivery captain
to have a license, if you don't have a license, you'll have a darn hard time
getting work as a delivery captain. Likewise, although you may be able to
afford to buy a 150' yacht, if you don't have a licensed captain aboard, you
may have a very hard time insuring it.

Let me just conclude by adding this: I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert
on Federal law. I'm just a licensed mariner that is doing his best to stay
within the law and protect myself and familly from "unreasonable risk".
There are lots of grey areas in this business, and I've always tried to
steer clear of anything that might later bite me, and I've always
recommended that others do the same.

All the best,

Paul Schilter wrote:


Paul,
I have been told that a person could captain any size boat he'd want to
provided there is no commercial interest. In other words if a person
could afford a 150' boat he wouldn't be required to have a Captains
license or hire a Captain to pilot the vessel. Is this correct?
Paul

In .uk at least, and probably in most of the civilised world, you
need a qualified master on anything over 23 metres long.
The manning and qualifications required increase with length and weight.

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Paul Schilter wrote:
Paul,
Well that's interesting! I was under the impression that if I was
getting paid to drive a boat I'd need the license. Thanks for that
information. I figured correctly on the other part and as Peggie pointed
out the insurance would be the show stopper, at least for a prudent
person. If someone was rich enough and stupid enough I guess they don't
have to get insurance. I don't think insurance is required as it is on a
car as far as I know. But thanks for making that clarification.
Paul

Its not at all unusual for people with significant net worth to "self-insure".
A lot of companies do that as well.

Insurance companies are primarily for people who can't afford to take the loss
should it happen. If you are willing to lose the boat without crying over it, and
are financially able to take care of any damage you might cause to others property, you
don't need insurance.

YMMV,

Don W.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:34:22 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:16:49 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:47:46 -0600, Tamaroak
wrote:

Let's say a licensed master decides to offer to donate a boat ride to a
charitable organization's service auction. This group gets the money
when someone pays for the ride, the buyer gets the boat ride, the
captain gets nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for contributing to the
charity. This is clearly not a part of any business, and the captain is
not in this business anyway.

Has the captain received compensation for this according to USCG
regulations? Does this mean s/he needs chartering insurance, has to be
documented, etc. to do this annually?

Capt. Jeff

I would expect that if there is no valuable consideration to the
master, he is not chartered.
I know the situations are not identical, but in light aircraft, I and
many other private pilots have provided rides for boy scouts and other
youth organizations. One expects to be persued regardless, if one
commits some breach of reasonable care in the circumstance, all the
same.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian, USCG Captains do not, to my knowledge, have the documented
protection afforded to them as Private Pilots do via FAR 61.113.....

without clear regulatory guidance, the safest course would be to pose
this to the local MSO (perhaps in writing) and act accordingly....

I hear you

Brian W

Capt. Jeff wrote:
Let's say a licensed master decides to offer to donate a boat ride to a
charitable organization's service auction. This group gets the money
when someone pays for the ride, the buyer gets the boat ride, the
captain gets nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for contributing to the
charity. This is clearly not a part of any business, and the captain is
not in this business anyway.
Has the captain received compensation for this according to USCG
regulations? Does this mean s/he needs chartering insurance, has to be
documented, etc. to do this annually?
Capt. Jeff
=================================
This is interesting. A few years ago, I did pretty much exactly what
you are describing here. My wife was involved in a charity auction and
had nothing to donate, so I suggested that I take a couple guys out for
a day of fishing on my boat. She made up a picnic lunch for everyone on
board. Since the money was paid directly to the charity, I never gave
any thought to the fact that I may be considered a "charter boat
skipper". We had a nice day and no problems and I forgot all about it.
But, this info makes me wonder if I was putting myself at risk...

Happy boatshows, Norm

In article ,
Paul Schilter wrote:

Paul,
I have been told that a person could captain any size boat he'd want to
provided there is no commercial interest. In other words if a person
could afford a 150' boat he wouldn't be required to have a Captains
license or hire a Captain to pilot the vessel. Is this correct?
Paul

renewontime dot com wrote:
snipped

I an not absolutly sure, but I believe in the US the Maximum Gross
Weight for unlicensed Operators is 200 Tons. Anything over that
requires both a Licensed Master and Chief Engineer, minimum and that
changes as the Tonnage increases. I know that these mminimums are
true for commercial vessels, but I am not sure for non-commercial
vessels.


Me

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:52:28 -0500, (N.L. Eckert)
wrote:

Capt. Jeff wrote:
Let's say a licensed master decides to offer to donate a boat ride to a
charitable organization's service auction. This group gets the money
when someone pays for the ride, the buyer gets the boat ride, the
captain gets nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for contributing to the
charity. This is clearly not a part of any business, and the captain is
not in this business anyway.
Has the captain received compensation for this according to USCG
regulations? Does this mean s/he needs chartering insurance, has to be
documented, etc. to do this annually?
Capt. Jeff
=================================
This is interesting. A few years ago, I did pretty much exactly what
you are describing here. My wife was involved in a charity auction and
had nothing to donate, so I suggested that I take a couple guys out for
a day of fishing on my boat. She made up a picnic lunch for everyone on
board. Since the money was paid directly to the charity, I never gave
any thought to the fact that I may be considered a "charter boat
skipper". We had a nice day and no problems and I forgot all about it.
But, this info makes me wonder if I was putting myself at risk...

To put it simply, if something had happened, you might have had a
problem. Since Jeff first posted this, I looked into it a little
more. This might get a little hinky but bear with it.

If the donated offer is for a "Day of sportfishing with Capt. Tom
Francis of Short Wave Sportfishing", for example, then your donation
can be deemed as part of your business affairs (promotion of same) and
thus, you are culpable, liable and every other ble you can think of.
You will be acting in your professional capacity. You would also be
acting as a agent of the charity which presents a whole different set
of problems. Additionally, if you take the donation as a business
expense, more evidence against you.

If it is a private offer "Day of sportfishing on Narragansett Bay"
with no reference to your qualifications or business then there isn't
any reasonable direct compensation (for pay). You are not acting as a
professional. Oddly, you can take this as a personal donation dollar
amount - my accountant was very sure the standard charity deduction
would be allowable, but only to the amount of expenses occurred on the
trip. The only hinky part is that you could not take any money for
"shared expenses" which is allowed - it all has to be on your dime.

There are always caveats, but on it's face, that would seem to be what
happens from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, if you
keep your business affairs separate from your personal affairs, then
you should be fine.

Please note, I am not an attorney nor am I legally qualified to give
legal advice. I am simply reporting what I researched and gave a
personal opinion.

How's that for a qualifier? :)

Later,

Tom

Don W wrote:

Its not at all unusual for people with significant net worth to
"self-insure".
A lot of companies do that as well.

It's not unusual for them to "self-drive" onto the rocks, either! I see or hear
of such an incident with a multi-million dollar boat every summer.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one...

Insurance companies are primarily for people who can't afford to take
the loss
should it happen. If you are willing to lose the boat without crying
over it, and
are financially able to take care of any damage you might cause to
others property, you don't need insurance.

In principle this is true, but the fact is there are not many people financially
prepared for such incidents. Besides property damage, you have to consider
personal injury, legal bills, environmental cleanup costs, etc. Even with all
the $0.5-2M boats out there, which seem mainstream nowadays, the people willing
and able to expose themselves to this kind of liability are vanishingly few.
People with that kind of money have a lot more to lose, too, and/or a lot more
to sue for.

Matt O.