"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.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:06:59 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Capt. Bill wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:02:21 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Capt. Bill wrote:

What you seem to be missing here, is the fact that the legal loop hole
in this deal is, as I recall, that due to the fact that the boat is
first chartered bareboat then that charterer hires a captain to only
run the boat, there are no paying passengers. There for you can put
on board as many people as the boat can handle based on it's size.
Oh, I understand exactly what you're claiming. You're say that you
can put a piece of paper in your pocket that says: "I'm the owner and
I'm not licensed but that's OK because I've only been hired to drive
the boat" and then you become exempt from all of the rules concerning
passengers for hire.

If you think this really works, then you should print it up and sell
in on EBAY as a "Master's License Substitute - Approved by the CG"

Note I said "hires a captain".

The discussion was specifically about the owner of the boat being
hired as the captain.

Discussions tend to broaden as the flow.




It's just like if you hired a captain to run your own private boat for
a day. There are no paying guests, so there for the "captain" would
not have to have a license according to the USCG. And yes, I have
asked them about this. But in most cases your insurance would require
it.
No, its really not the same if guests are not paying anything. In
fact, that is exactly the distinction. Your situation may work if
bare boat customers hire a deck hand to help, but it certainly doesn't
work if they hire the owner or his representative.

No, you're right. They could not use the owner. But I believe that has
more to due with insurance than the CG.

So you're claiming that all those regulations about licenses and
passengers for hire really don't count?

The US Code (otherwise known as "The Law") is rather specific:
Title 46 section 2101:
(42) ``uninspected passenger vessel'' means an uninspected
vessel--
...
(B) of less than 100 gross tons as measured under section
14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured under
section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary under
section 14104 of this title--
(i) carrying not more than 6 passengers, including at
least one passenger for hire; or
(ii) that is chartered with the crew provided or
specified by the owner or the owner's representative and
carrying not more than 6 passengers.

and then Sec. 8903:
A self-propelled, uninspected passenger vessel shall be operated
by an individual licensed by the Secretary to operate that type of
vessel, under prescribed regulations.

Seems pretty clear: if the owner or his rep is on board, then there
must be a license.

You may be right that this is really an insurance issue, since
violating the law probably voids your insurance.




I've been doing this for decades. And I even know of a large, 90" +,
foregn charter boat in this area that got stopped by the CG on just
this issuse. He had all is ducks in a row as far as the contract paper
trail goes, and nothing came of it.
Hmmm. Do you think that foreign flagged vessels might be covered
under different rules? Or for that matter, owners of 90' boats get to
operate under different rules.


Hmmm. Can you learn to read for content?

So far everything you've written has been content-free.


The boat wasn't "foreign flagged" at the time. As I said, it was
foreign built.

If the vessel was US flagged then the only significance of being
foreign built is that it would not be eligible to carry passengers for
hire at all. In this case, it would be very important for the owners
to make sure nobody was actually paying, or if they were, it was
strictly "bare boat." If it did have the Jones Act exemption
(intended for "small vessels," but your 90 footer might qualify), then
your "foreign" comment was totally gratuitous.

Not in the contexted of which I was speaking.

See, there's that content thing again.



And owners of a 90' boat don't get to operate under a different set of
rules, believe me.

Whatever you say. Everyone, rich and poor, gets treated exactly the
same in our world.

They seem to by the USCG. Ask Tiger Woods.

Capt. Bill wrote:


The discussion was specifically about the owner of the boat being
hired as the captain.

Discussions tend to broaden as the flow.

In other words, you can't read for content.

....

The boat wasn't "foreign flagged" at the time. As I said, it was
foreign built.
If the vessel was US flagged then the only significance of being
foreign built is that it would not be eligible to carry passengers for
hire at all. In this case, it would be very important for the owners
to make sure nobody was actually paying, or if they were, it was
strictly "bare boat." If it did have the Jones Act exemption
(intended for "small vessels," but your 90 footer might qualify), then
your "foreign" comment was totally gratuitous.

Not in the contexted of which I was speaking.

See, there's that content thing again.

Where? I seem to have missed it again. Was there any significance to
the fact that you said the vessel was "foreign"?



And owners of a 90' boat don't get to operate under a different set of
rules, believe me.
Whatever you say. Everyone, rich and poor, gets treated exactly the
same in our world.

They seem to by the USCG. Ask Tiger Woods.

Large vessels get boarded nowadays - I was anchored last week in a
cove where a new large SeaRay got boarded at 10PM by the CG. I heard
the next morning it was just a "routine" inspection and that all new
"drug running capable" boats in the area will get boarded. However,
rich people have much better lawyers and will have the proper advice
and paperwork. And, if the glove won't fit, you must acquit!

Jeff wrote:
Bob wrote:

However, on inland waters....get
this........ there are a few states that all you need is the state's
"Guides & Packers" license. No uscg master or oupv needed on inland
waters for sailing lessons. Just think YMCA summer sailing lessons...
as an example


I'm guessing these "inland waters" are actually State regulated bodies
of water that are not covers by the US Inland rules. This would
include most of the lakes in New England, for example, where the camps
are.

Yes, I thought the same thing.. however when I contacted both Oregon
and Washington states seems it is any waters inside the Boundry Line;
Columbia River, Puget Sound etc. Just and interesting side note.
Personnaly I strongle disagree trying to find a loop holes in uscg
licensing CFRs. There are a few out there for those who want to abuse
the spirit of a CFR. Here is another hole.

Using your boat as a bare boat charter operation and then claiming 100%
of all expences as a loss and therefor able to deduct that loss from
your other income. A couple years ago lots of people got a surprise by
the IRS.

There are holes but I wold not want to be the person who was the poster
boy for increased government oversight.

Sub Chapter T, K and H require a CG COI (certifact of
Inspection)(required to be posterd in the wheel house)
listing the requires safety gear and area of operation
and crew requirements and passanger amounts. The more
pax the more requirements including water tight
bulkheads, etc.

As was explained toi me, and I'm retired CG....It's all
to protect the paying public!! Thisnk of it this
way...the bigger the plane, the more regulations.

Bill D
Pensacola

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:43:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 Jul 2006 13:35:09 -0700, "beaufortnc"
wrote:

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

Partly f.o.s.

It's called demarage or something like that (can't remember the exact
term) but the way it works is you rent the boat sans captain, then
provide a list of captains who are acceptable to you allowing the
charterer to obtain his own captain.

The way it works is you provide the list to the charterer, say three
captains, and oddly, only one is available to do the charter. Assuming
that your boat can handle the capacity, you can have up to twelve
people aboard with a Captain who has an OUPV - that Captain can be you
assuming you have the proper license.

The captain is still required to have a license and has to stay within
the tonnage and/or limitations of the license, but that's the way it
is done.

OUPV = 6 people max. If you can find the reference that says differently,
please post it.

As I said, I don't know the exact name of the term, but that's the way
it works - I know guys who do it occasionally - perfectly legal
because you are being hired to operate a boat- even if it's your own
boat - you are just an employee of the charterer. As the original
poster asked, it is a loophole in the laws/rules/regulations -
whatever.

What you cannot do is exceed the 12 person max - that's the key. And
you have to stay within the tonnage and distance limitations of your
license - so, for instance, if you have an OUPV Near Shore out to one
hundred miles and your boat can handle the capacity safely, that's the
limitation. And you have to be hired to operate the boat - even if
it's your own boat.

I'm not going to argue about it because I honestly don't care if you
believe it or not and I don't have the time to look it up. If you
really honestly doubt it and want to prove me wrong, then by all
means, call your local USCG MSO or one of those "captains" schools
and ask them about it - I suspect the "captains" school might be a
better source because that's how they sell their "stuff". :)