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.