Skipper's Qualifications Abroad

[Robin]

The only time in recent years I was asked to produce evidence of qualification was by the Border Protection Service in Grays Harbor, Washington. They looked very dubiously at my RYA Yachtmaster certificate. "Does that include a US Coastguard approved safety course?" Err .... no, why would it.

They let me go after they found "UK" wouldn't work on their electronic form, and had to put "AK" instead. So now I live in Dover, England, Alaska.

That is a requirement here in Flori-duh unless you were born before d/mm/yy, I didn't need one on basis of age but did the course anyways online and got my card to wave if required , so far not. The course and subsequent online exam is so basic it is ridiculous with multi choice question/answers where you have to achieve a certain minimum number correct ( I got 100%) I have an ICC but that does not negate the Boater's safety Cert requirement if you are young enough to need one.

WE live overlooking the Intracoastal waterway and have twice had occasion to call on the local CG for boats in trouble in the anchorage we overlook. ON both occasions the CG boat arrived at full chat in a speed and wake restricted area with their blue lights flashing. They called me for directions to the sinking vessel on the phone but when told to move farther west they went first east then south, not very impressive I did not enquire if they had boater safety certs, nor suggest that if they turned off their blindingly bright flashing lights ( mounted at the boat driver's eye level) that they might actually be able to see what they were looking for that was just 50 yds away to their west. :disgust:

 

[VexedIllologist]

The only time in recent years I was asked to produce evidence of qualification was by the Border Protection Service in Grays Harbor, Washington. They looked very dubiously at my RYA Yachtmaster certificate. "Does that include a US Coastguard approved safety course?" Err .... no, why would it.

They let me go after they found "UK" wouldn't work on their electronic form, and had to put "AK" instead. So now I live in Dover, England, Alaska.

The Americans generally use 'Great Britain' (GB) as the correct short form for the country's name 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', rather than the abbreviation of the description of its political structure (UK); their own usage for the United States of America ('US' rather than America) being among the few exceptions that prove the general rule of international usage.

So a Briton is a British Citizen rather than a UK Citizen, for example.

We are rather fortunate that the Dutch no longer call themselves a united kingdom, but I suppose the Danish state's formal title comes close enough to the same thing.

Usage is a funny old thing...

As to Skipper's qualifications, I have not been asked, but proof of insurance has been required in marinas (not by any governmental authority). I have been asked for the Ship's Radio Licence a few times, though, but not whether anyone with a licence to operate was onboard!

 

[macd]

The Americans generally use 'Great Britain' (GB) as the correct short form for the country's name 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', rather than the abbreviation of the description of its political structure (UK)

I think you'll find that the full and correct name for the sovereign state in question is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Looking into your point a little more, it seems that (just as with ensigns?) the country in question prefers to confuse rather than clarify. Under ISO 3166, the 2-letter country code is 'GB'. But on the internet, it's 'uk', which is 'exceptionally reserved' at the request of...er, GB. As you wrote, 'UK' is often preferred, and indeed is the mandated style within the EU (and no doubt the EC and EEC before it). On drop-down website menus, of course, it's invariably 'UK'.

Can't blame the Yanks for getting that lot wrong...if, indeed, they did.

 

[VexedIllologist]

I think you'll find that the full and correct name for the sovereign state in question is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Looking into your point a little more, it seems that (just as with ensigns?) the country in question prefers to confuse rather than clarify. Under ISO 3166, the 2-letter country code is 'GB'. But on the internet, it's 'uk', which is 'exceptionally reserved' at the request of...er, GB. As you wrote, 'UK' is often preferred, and indeed is the mandated style within the EU (and no doubt the EC and EEC before it). On drop-down website menus, of course, it's invariably 'UK'.

Can't blame the Yanks for getting that lot wrong...if, indeed, they did.

Thanks for your points, macd.

Regarding the 'full and correct name' this statement bears further scrutiny; it is interesting to note that in the two Acts that created the union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, one uses 'united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', while the other uses 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' - the same words, but the use of capitals gives a different emphasis. In both Acts the affected persons (now British Citizens) are clearly to be subjects of 'Great Britain and Ireland' with the description 'United Kingdom' used to identify the institutions of the newly unified country by comparison with those of Great Britain and Ireland separately. The creation of the Irish Free State (now Ireland) in 1922 resulted in consequential amendments to legislation to accommodate to the creation of Northern Ireland.

As you have found, GB is the correct form internationally. Indeed, it has been the correct form for longer than many countries have been in existence (the Universal Postal Union, for example, has recorded 'Great Britain' since 1885 and that is what the Royal Mail franks on letters and why GB is the suffix for registered letters and parcels etc).

The waters have indubitably been muddied in recent decades by the usage of UK rather than GB in the various European Communities and this became particularly obvious when driving licences to a standard pattern began to be issued with UK on the front.

The similarly unaccountable decision by Blair's Cabinet Office in 1997 to abandon governmental use of the .gb domain (HM Government already used the .gb domain, although it was relatively early days for the public internet) means that this country is the only one in the world that does not use its ISO-compliant domain; moreover, it actively prevents its citizenry from doing so. This decision was taken without any public consultation or democratic mandate, which says much about the process of governmentin general and, perhaps, 1997 in particular.

1997 was also the year in which a dishonest argument was made by government in a public consultation promoting the change of the letters used on vehicles in international traffic from GB to UK, so there seems to have been a determined effort to force a change then. Perhaps this was to assuage the unionists in Northern Ireland, while Blair was at the same time secretly agreeing to provide 'comfort letters' to the IRA so that terrorist murderers would not be prosecuted? As GB had been notified as the correct letters for 'Great Britain and Ireland' in 1909 (i.e. for the whole of the island of Ireland) the specious argument made lacked any credibility. Moreover, GB had almost certainly been chosen because is translates so superbly. UK fails at 22 miles when it becomes RU in French!

Regarding 'drop down menus', the use of 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' is certainly most common now, although it is not yet exclusive, as 'Great Britain' or 'GB' is still shown in some older systems. Microsoft's 'drop down menus' had previously listed 'Great Britain' or 'GB' (there was no reference to 'United Kingdom' or 'UK'), so this change probably reflects the efforts from 1997 too.

It is a bit of a canard that British colours are somehow exceptional in featuring variations from a national norm. I can think immediately of other countries that also have 'non standard' ensigns in use (whether for governmental, yachting or other vessels) of which the following spring to mind : America (yachts), Australia (red, white and blue ensigns), Belgium (yachts and a particularly exotic Naval ensign), Denmark (yachts, Naval), France (ensign proportions, yachts), Finland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Spain...etc

But back to the topic: If evidence of qualifications is to be sought in the future, the standard is likely to be that of the ICC, which is hardly too demanding of a competent yachtsman. Perhaps it will soon be required as an Orwellian 'control and security' measure?

That is surely for another topic on another day, though... ;-)

 

[prv]

The Americans generally use 'Great Britain' (GB) as the correct short form for the country's name 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', rather than the abbreviation of the description of its political structure (UK)

I think the point was that their system couldn't cope at all with boats arriving from places that aren't the USA. Hence insisting on a US Coastguard qualification, and the home port having to be in one of the US States.

Pete

 

[macd]

Thanks for your points, macd....

And thanks for yours, Vexedillologist. Interesting stuff (if a little more esoteric than ICCs )

 

[VexedIllologist]

I think the point was that their system couldn't cope at all with boats arriving from places that aren't the USA. Hence insisting on a US Coastguard qualification, and the home port having to be in one of the US States.

Pete

I don't think that is so, Pete, as the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) organisation exists explicitly to deal with entrants from outside the United States of America.

From personal experience, however, if the foreign yacht's entry is made at a station that doesn't normally handle many such entries, or even if it is a yachting port and there are other circumstances that stretch capabilities (e.g. arriving on a public holiday) there clearly isn't much certainty about the procedures that apply.

Last time I entered (at a major yachting port, but on a public holiday), even contacting CBP was problematic. When contact was eventually made I was told it would be some time before an officer could attend and the usual restrictions on contact with the shore etc were emphasised. No problem: time to catch up on some rest after some nasty weather en route. My suggestion that, as we were safely at anchor with 'Q' hoisted and had no need or intention to land until the next day, clearance could be deferred until it was more convenient for CBP was rejected out of hand.

It was some 8 hours before the Harbour Master brought the CBP officer onboard; the officer had come some 30-odd miles from the nearest airport with a CBP detachment. We then adjourned ashore to an unmanned CBP office at the port where the entry paperwork including that for a Cruising License was completed (the fee is now $27.50 and validity remains for a year from entry). 'GB' and/or 'Great Britain' were the right entries to use in the CBP system then and I suspect that they still are now.

There was a minor crisis of embarrassment for the officer when the Cruising License software could not accommodate 'brigantine' as the description (I rejected the proposal of sloop or cutter for obvious reasons); I suggested 'hermaphrodite brig', given this is the American usage, but that didn't work either, so I ended up with a Cruising License that described the yacht as a 'Barquentine'!

The process was remarkably bureaucratic, woefully inefficient and certainly not cost-effective, but 'rules is rules' and American officialdom is dogged in doing it 'by the book', regardless of the self-inflicted inconvenient consequences.

Still the paperwork was done and that was what mattered!

Despite the effort made to document our entry in every way possible (your Cruising License includes a little sticker 'decal' to be displayed, too), I was not asked for any paperwork other than the Certificate of Registry and the crew passports. The officer who attended was delighted to be earning hours of overtime on completion of a public holiday shift at the airport, but I can imagine that had the officer not been familiar with foreign yacht procedures it could have been a tortuous process.

All that said, it is not that easy to make a report to HMRC these days (dialling an 0845 number doesn't work with a foreign mobile phone, or at least it doesn't for mine) and when you eventually reach a voice on the other end of the 'National Yachtline' there doesn't seem to be very much interest, but the reference number given is always recorded, so 'Mein Arsch ist bedeckt'!

 

[jimbaerselman]

I don't think that is so, Pete,

<big snip>

so 'Mein Arsch ist bedeckt'!

Thanks for two delightful and informative posts!

 

[KellysEye]

We sailed into the following countries - Seychelles, Greece, Turkey, Malta, Corsica and Sardinia, the Balearics, Spain, Portugal, the Carbbean chain from Puerto Rico to Trinidad, Venezuela, Bonaire and Curacao and the Bahamas. We were never asked for a qualification. Immigration want time and date of arrival, crew list and passports, customs want a form filled in to see anything is taxable or taken off the boat such as fire arms, in USA waters they want all food taken off.

 

[syneraida]

We have never been asked for any papers/liscenses to demonstrate our competence whilst sailing in the Mediterranean, even in Croatia where i'd heard they were rigorous about checking you license. Slightly off topic (only very slightly) Croatia will let you sail in their waters with just a RYA Day Skipper Theory!!!! Yep, you don't need to have taken any practical tests, a online theory will suffice (see row 69 on the link) !!!

I guess it's good news for those who want to bare-boat charter and don't want to go through the hassle of doing a practical test.

For more infor on Croatia's requirements see here..... http://www.mppi.hr/UserDocsImages/TABLICA%20ENGLISHMoU%20(2)%203_11.pdf