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.

"beaufortnc" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

I haven't heard of anything like this. I think that if you're boarded and
the CG asks if anyone has paid to be on the boat, you better have the right
license. Of course, you can contest anything in court. Doesn't mean you'll
win, however, and what a huge hassle. If you're being boarded for cause,
they might impound the boat.

A fast way of finding out would be to call the local CG office, speak to a
chief and see what he or she says.

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

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

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.?

What about your insurance company, what do THEY think? That's where
you are most likely to get in trouble first. Your co called friends
will be calling lawyers very quickly if there is any kind of mishap
onboard. It is unlikely in my opinion, that your insurance company
will provide charter coverage without a licensed captain.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
On 14 Jul 2006 13:35:09 -0700, "beaufortnc"
wrote:

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.?

What about your insurance company, what do THEY think? That's where
you are most likely to get in trouble first. Your co called friends
will be calling lawyers very quickly if there is any kind of mishap
onboard. It is unlikely in my opinion, that your insurance company
will provide charter coverage without a licensed captain.


That's a good point, and you'd better not trust what any insurance agent
says unless he's ready to put it in writing. I'm not talking about reading
the policy itself, which is obviously important, although they can also be
vague. I'm talking about a plain-English letter from the agent which
addresses specific questions you ask. I just went through this with my
agent, who's a real pro with regard to home, car & life insurance. But, he
was a bit weak when it came to providing coverage for musical equipment used
professionally, and questions about what happens if a club burns down with
my equipment in it. I kept giving him scenarios like that, and he finally
said he wasn't 100% sure about all of them. We ended up doing a conference
call to an underwriter at the actual insurance company.

"
That's a good point, and you'd better not trust what any insurance agent
says unless he's ready to put it in writing. I'm not talking about reading
the policy itself, which is obviously important, although they can also be
vague. I'm talking about a plain-English letter from the agent which
addresses specific questions you ask. I just went through this with my
agent, who's a real pro with regard to home, car & life insurance. But, he
was a bit weak when it came to providing coverage for musical equipment
used professionally, and questions about what happens if a club burns down
with my equipment in it. I kept giving him scenarios like that, and he
finally said he wasn't 100% sure about all of them. We ended up doing a
conference call to an underwriter at the actual insurance company.

A letter signed by the agent is worth little more than the paper it's
written on, since your contract of coverage is not with the agent. An agent
can attest to anything, but if it is outside the coverage specified in the
contract (policy), it may not be enforceable. The insurance company can
always claim that the agent was acting outside the authority of his capacity
as agent. A letter signed by an officer of the insurance company
stipulating or clarifying coverage is another matter. I'd take that with me
to court any day.

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

"
That's a good point, and you'd better not trust what any insurance agent
says unless he's ready to put it in writing. I'm not talking about
reading the policy itself, which is obviously important, although they
can also be vague. I'm talking about a plain-English letter from the
agent which addresses specific questions you ask. I just went through
this with my agent, who's a real pro with regard to home, car & life
insurance. But, he was a bit weak when it came to providing coverage for
musical equipment used professionally, and questions about what happens
if a club burns down with my equipment in it. I kept giving him scenarios
like that, and he finally said he wasn't 100% sure about all of them. We
ended up doing a conference call to an underwriter at the actual
insurance company.

A letter signed by the agent is worth little more than the paper it's
written on, since your contract of coverage is not with the agent. An
agent can attest to anything, but if it is outside the coverage specified
in the contract (policy), it may not be enforceable. The insurance
company can always claim that the agent was acting outside the authority
of his capacity as agent. A letter signed by an officer of the insurance
company stipulating or clarifying coverage is another matter. I'd take
that with me to court any day.


Per my lawyer, a letter from the agent is a reminder that he may be
personally liable. Fear is good.

Per my lawyer, a letter from the agent is a reminder that he may be
personally liable. Fear is good.

So, you're willing to have this particular area of coverage backed up by the
solvency of your agent? The two of you deserve each other. And I suppose I
might as well throw the lawyer in there too.

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.?
Probably, depending on the details. In addition to my comments below,
I seem to remember that a "bare boat charter" must not include the
owner or his representative. This sort of makes the described
"contract" bogus.

About 12 years ago the rules were eased up a little, allowing for
guests to share some expenses, bring lunch, etc. However, anything
that "smells" like making money is not allowed. The question that
must be asked is "Would the captain take these guests out even if they
were not contributing anything?" If the answer is "No," then they are
probably passengers for hire. If the answer is "yes", then they are
friendly guests who happen to be contributing a bit. If the
contribution is less than a share of the fuel cost, it probably isn't
a charter. If the Captain ends up with more money in his pocket then
he started with, it is a charter. However, the CG has a lot of local
discretion on a case by case basis.

The following is taken from:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/7_94/n7-94.htm

The important parts are "contributed as a condition" and
"'Consideration' does not include a voluntary sharing of the actual
expenses of a voyage."

SEC. 506. PASSENGER FOR HIRE.

Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting
between paragraphs (21) and (22) a new paragraph (21a) to read as follows:

"(21a) 'passenger for hire' means a passenger for whom consideration
is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether
directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator,
agent, or any other person having an interest in the vessel.".

DESCRIPTION - The determination of what constitutes the carriage of a
"passenger for hire" must be made on a case by case basis. This
determination is dependent upon the actual operation of a vessel and
the flow of consideration as determined by the facts of each case. In
general, there needs to be some form of tangible consideration or
promise of performance being passed for a "passenger for hire"
situation to exist.

SEC. 507. CONSIDERATION.

Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting
between paragraphs (5) and (6) a new paragraph (5a) to read as follows:

"(5a) 'consideration' means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or
profit including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person,
or entity, 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.".

DESCRIPTION - Section 507 amends 46 U.S.C. 2101 by adding a definition
of the term "consideration." Although this term was used in the prior
definition of a "passenger," it was not previously defined by statute.
Generally, some tangible amount of worth exchanged for carriage on a
vessel such as payment, exchange of goods or a promise of performance
is required. "Consideration" does not include a voluntary sharing of
the actual expenses of a voyage. Additionally, employees or business
clients that have not contributed for their carriage, and are carried
for morale or entertainment purposes is not included as exchange of
consideration.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.?
Probably, depending on the details. In addition to my comments below, I
seem to remember that a "bare boat charter" must not include the owner or
his representative. This sort of makes the described "contract" bogus.

About 12 years ago the rules were eased up a little, allowing for guests
to share some expenses, bring lunch, etc. However, anything that "smells"
like making money is not allowed. The question that must be asked is
"Would the captain take these guests out even if they were not
contributing anything?" If the answer is "No," then they are probably
passengers for hire. If the answer is "yes", then they are friendly
guests who happen to be contributing a bit. If the contribution is less
than a share of the fuel cost, it probably isn't a charter. If the
Captain ends up with more money in his pocket then he started with, it is
a charter. However, the CG has a lot of local discretion on a case by
case basis.

Sir, the beer, sandwiches, cooler and ice were in the boat when we came back
from parking the car & trailer. Someone must've dropped them in the wrong
boat by mistake.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message

Sir, the beer, sandwiches, cooler and ice were in the boat when we came back
from parking the car & trailer. Someone must've dropped them in the wrong
boat by mistake.


"Yes, but 200 kegs seems a bit excessive."