<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/322442</link>
		<description>Comments by Graying1</description>
<item>
<title>CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : USCG&#039;s New Feeder (a.k.a. Training) Port Program</title>
<link>http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/uscgs-new-feeder-aka-training-port.html#IDComment15054187</link>
<description>A good first step. I agree with Orniphobe&amp;#039;s conclusion that there is a need to go beyond the pool of retired Coasties (Guardians?) and seek expertise not only from licensed mariners, but others with qualifying expertise.   The defecit of qualified inspectors / investigators was long in the making, and it will not be easily fixed. If the existing cadre of &amp;#039;qualified&amp;#039; inspectors / investigators are to remain qualified, they too will need to be provided with &amp;#039;training&amp;#039; opportunities.  This means that &amp;#039;on duty&amp;#039; time will need to be set aside for them to attend relevant industry-sponsored training and conferences, and that the Coast Guard&amp;#039;s budget recognize such continuing education as a necessary cost (recovered to the Federal purse by the existing system of user fees). From my experience in industry, I would suggest a benchmark of at least 3 hours a week to reading of relevant industry periodicals (and I don&amp;#039;t mean reading the Federal Register - but that too is required) and at least one week each year to relevant training / conferences as a starting point for maintaining professional competence. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/uscgs-new-feeder-aka-training-port.html#IDComment15054187</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>