On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:09:18 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
...

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.

I don't know about the legalities of this situation (seems OK but
sleazy), but it is quite different from the OP since the captain
actually has a license. The whole point of the original post is that
the *unlicensed* owner can make money as a captain by creating a
"legal fiction" which I believe is completely illegal.

A long long time ago I was part of a charter group where the owner
insisted that his friend be aboard as the "first mate." I've been
told recently that changes the charter from a bare boat to passengers
for hire, and thus he should have had a license. I don't know if this
true but it sounds like it is.


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.

OUPV is 6 passengers.


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.


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.

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.

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"



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.


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.

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".




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.




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?

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

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

"Capt. Bill" wrote in message
...
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".




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.




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?

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

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

Foreign flagged, charging people to ride in US waters? Umm... Jones Act
applies. I believe the fine is $200 per paying passenger. Now, there is a
way around *that*.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"Capt. Bill" wrote in message
.. .
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".




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.




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?

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

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

Foreign flagged, charging people to ride in US waters? Umm... Jones Act
applies. I believe the fine is $200 per paying passenger. Now, there is a
way around *that*.

Technically (just picking nits) it isn't the Jones Act which applies
mostly to cargo, but the Passengers Services Act. And foreign flagged
vessels such as the big cruise ships take passengers in US waters all
the time. What they can't do is have the pax get off the boat IN the
US before it goes to a distant foreign port like Aruba or Curacao.
All the ports in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Mexico and most of the
Caribbean are considered near foreign ports BTW - has to be a distant
foreign port or it doesn't count.

So the RCCL ship Grandeur of the Seas has an itinerary which goes from
Baltimore to Miami, Key West, Cozumel, Costa Maya and Port
Canaveral before returning to Baltimore and that's perfectly legal
because they start and end in the same port. And I was on the NCL
Crown which went Philadelphia, Bahamas, San Juan, St. Thomas, St
Maarten, Curacao and Aruba, and ending in Miami and that's legal too
because they went to Curacao and Aruba which are distant foreign
ports.

Yes it is a $200 per pax fine, but the cruise ship pays it.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote:

"Capt. Bill" wrote in message
. ..
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".




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.




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?

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

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

Foreign flagged, charging people to ride in US waters? Umm... Jones Act
applies. I believe the fine is $200 per paying passenger. Now, there is a
way around *that*.

Technically (just picking nits) it isn't the Jones Act which applies
mostly to cargo, but the Passengers Services Act. And foreign flagged
vessels such as the big cruise ships take passengers in US waters all
the time. What they can't do is have the pax get off the boat IN the
US before it goes to a distant foreign port like Aruba or Curacao.
All the ports in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Mexico and most of the
Caribbean are considered near foreign ports BTW - has to be a distant
foreign port or it doesn't count.

So the RCCL ship Grandeur of the Seas has an itinerary which goes from
Baltimore to Miami, Key West, Cozumel, Costa Maya and Port
Canaveral before returning to Baltimore and that's perfectly legal
because they start and end in the same port. And I was on the NCL
Crown which went Philadelphia, Bahamas, San Juan, St. Thomas, St
Maarten, Curacao and Aruba, and ending in Miami and that's legal too
because they went to Curacao and Aruba which are distant foreign
ports.

Yes it is a $200 per pax fine, but the cruise ship pays it.

You're right... Interesting additional info.. thanks!

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

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:40:31 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Capt. Bill" wrote in message
.. .
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".




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.




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?

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

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

Foreign flagged, charging people to ride in US waters? Umm... Jones Act
applies. I believe the fine is $200 per paying passenger. Now, there is a
way around *that*.


One more time, I said foreign BUILT not foreign flagged.

And foreign flagged vessels charge to take people out all the time.
Just take a look at the criusie ship industry.

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.




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.


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.

Jeff wrote:
Capt. Bill wrote:
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.




Hi
I would also like to add while surfing (net) around one evening I found
a uscg.mil site that listed case "decisions" on foreign built vessels
that wanted some sort of uscg variance to give sailing lessons" in the
US Near Coast waters.

Once everyone on a boat is "actively engaged" in learning they are no
longer "passengers for hire" they become "students" and sailing lessons
can be conducted on foreign built boats. Uhh, can you read between the
lines on that one?????

Another interesting thing, outside the boundary line a sailing school
must have a licensed master. 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

Sole Proprietor, Schedule C
Bob

Jeff wrote:
Capt. Bill wrote:
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.




Hi
I would also like to add while surfing (net) around one evening I found
a uscg.mil site that listed case "decisions" on foreign built vessels
that wanted some sort of uscg variance to give sailing lessons" in the
US Near Coast waters.

Once everyone on a boat is "actively engaged" in learning they are no
longer "passengers for hire" they become "students" and sailing lessons
can be conducted on foreign built boats. Uhh, can you read between the
lines on that one?????

Another interesting thing, outside the boundary line a sailing school
must have a licensed master. 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

Sole Proprietor, Schedule C
Bob