W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
This case brings before the en banc court a question frequently confronted in this circuit: when is an offshore oilfield worker a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act? 1 We take the opportunity for en banc consideration of whether, after twenty-six years of development and interpretation, the test for Jones Act seaman status enunciated in Offshore Company v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir.1959) should be modified.
The panel opinion, 752 F.2d 129, recites these facts to which we add only the material in brackets:
I.
FACTS
In 1979, Tilden J. Elliott Contractor, Inc. (“Tilden”) contracted with Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. to provide welding crews for maintenance and repair work to offshore platforms and other structures in Chevron’s Bay Marchand Field located in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. Plaintiff, Barrett, was an employee of Tilden who performed services as a welder’s helper under the contract between Tilden and Chevron. [Barrett had worked in the Bay Marchand Field for approximately one year before the accident. Plaintiff and his welding crew worked fourteen days on and seven days off. They were dispatched to different platforms in the field and ordinarily continued working on those platforms until the repairs and renovations were completed. Most of the platforms were large enough to permit the welding crew to perform their assigned work on the platform without the aid of a standby vessel. According to Mr. Barrett’s testimony, seventy to eighty percent of his work was performed on such platforms where no auxiliary vessel was needed.] On one particular assignment, Tilden was [1069]*1069to perform welding services on a caisson located approximately ten to twelve miles offshore. The caisson was a small fixed structure, measuring only ten by fifteen feet, comprised basically of one producing well which was tied into the underwater pipeline system in the field. Barrett was a member of the Tilden welding crew assigned to perform welding operations on the caisson.
Because of the small size of the caisson, a jack-up barge, the D/B FALCON, was positioned alongside the caisson in order to provide space on which the necessary equipment and materials for the Tilden crew could be placed and to provide a work area for the crew. The D/B FALCON was the only barge assigned to the Chevron Bay Marchand Field. The vessel would remain stationary at one job site until an assignment was completed, and then move on to the next site.
The Tilden crew was assigned to the caisson to remove old parts and to fabricate and attach new parts. The only work performed on the caisson itself was the cutting of the old pipe from the caisson and replacing it with the new pipe. The old parts, after removal, were brought by one of the D/B FALCON’S two cranes back to the D/B FALCON where they were measured and new pipes were fabricated. Barrett spent seventy to eighty percent of his time on the D/B FALCON assisting in the measuring and fabricating of new pipe sections.
During the fourteen-day offshore hitch, the Tilden crews were provided living quarters on a large fixed platform called Mike’s Structure. Each morning, the crew boat M/V LADY JUNE, owned and operated by E.B.B. Company, transported the crew members from Mike’s Structure to their respective work sites. Crew members ate lunch at the job site and at the end of each day’s shift, were transported back to Mike’s Structure to eat and sleep.
On the morning of May 23, 1979, Barrett, along with the rest of the Tilden crew, was transported by the crew boat M/V LADY JUNE to the caisson under repair. Crew members were transferred from the M/V LADY JUNE to the D/B FALCON by means of a personnel basket. The basket was lifted by a crane located on the D/B FALCON. While being transferred from the M/V LADY JUNE to the D/B FALCON in the personnel basket, Barrett injured his back. Despite this injury, Barrett continued to perform his duties and returned to the D/B FALCON the following day to perform his usual assignments. On that day, while assisting a co-worker in lifting a heavy piece of pipe, Barrett suffered further injury to his back and was taken from the offshore work site to seek medical care. This second injury or aggravation was sustained while Barrett was aboard the D/B FALCON.
Barrett brought a personal injury action originally against Chevron, owner of the production platform, E.B.B. Company, Inc., owner and operator of the M/V LADY JUNE, and’ Lift Barge, Inc., owner and operator of the D/B FALCON. Barrett alleged that the D/B FALCON crane operator, an employee of Lift Barge, caused the personnel basket to strike the deck of the M/V LADY JUNE with greater than usual force resulting in injury to Barrett. Barrett claimed that his injury was subsequently aggravated by lifting the pipe on board the D/B FALCON. Barrett and his wife then filed a second suit for the aggravation of the injury against Tilden and Lift Barge. Plaintiffs sought damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law for negligence and unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The two actions were eventually consolidated.
752 F.2d at 131-32 (footnotes omitted).
In a non-jury trial, the district court found that Barrett was a Jones Act seaman. On these facts, the majority of the panel agreed with the district court.
II.
BACKGROUND
The historical background of the question that we address today is one that has [1070]*1070been related many times in many places. Yet for the sake of clarity, we set it forth once again.
The Jones Act grants its liberal remedies to “any seaman.” This term is not defined in the Act, and in the years immediately following the passage of the Jones Act it was given an expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court. In International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 47 S.Ct. 19, 71 L.Ed. 157 (1926), the Supreme Court held that “seaman” included longshoremen when they were employed in maritime work on navigable waters. 272 U.S. at 52, 47 S.Ct. at 19. The next year Congress passed the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. (LHWCA), which provides a compensation remedy for all maritime workers injured on navigable waters, except those employees who are “a master or member of a crew of any vessel.” 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(G). Thus, the coverage of the Jones Act is narrowed by the LHWCA. The LHWCA limits the broad term “seamen” so that only “member[s] of a crew of a vessel” are exempted and permitted to be covered by the Jones Act.2 Just what the term “member of a crew of a vessel” signifies, however, is a question with which the Supreme Court grappled from 1940 until 1958, and which has concerned the circuit courts ever since.
The first real attempt by the Supreme Court to define the term “member of a crew” in order to determine the scope of the Jones Act was South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732 (1940), a suit for the death of an employee who had worked on a lighter used for fueling steamships. The decedent’s primary job was to facilitate the passage of coal from the lighter to the steamship. On occasion he threw lines and cleaned the lighter. The court observed that whether an individual is a member of a crew is a question to be left to the trier of fact, and concluded that “[t]he word ‘crew’ does not have an absolutely unvarying legal significance.” Id. at 258, 60 S.Ct. at 548. The court went on to state:
[The LHWCA] as we have seen, was to provide compensation for a class of employees at work on a vessel in navigable waters who, although they might be classed as seamen [citing International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty ] were still regarded as distinct from members of a “crew.” They were persons serving on vessels, to be sure, but their service was that of laborers, of the sort performed by longshoremen and harbor workers and thus distinguished from those employees on the vessel who are naturally and primarily on board to aid in her navigation.
309 U.S. at 260, 60 S.Ct. at 549. Since the employee’s duties had little to do with navigation, the Supreme Court concluded that he was not a member of the crew and thus was covered by the LHWCA. This restrictive approach to the seaman-status question was to be relaxed by later cases.
The next case to consider the status question was Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U.S. 565, 64 S.Ct. 747, 88 L.Ed. 931 (1944). The trial court found a bargeman who lived aboard the barge, and whose duties included pumping, tying and untying lines, putting out navigational lights, and assisting while the barge was in tow to be a harbor-worker, not a member of the crew. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. In reaching this decision, the Court repeated the Bassett statement that the term “crew” embraces individuals who are naturally and primarily on board the vessel to aid in her navigation, but went on to explain that:
[Navigation is not limited to “putting over the helm.” It also embraces duties essential for other purposes of the vessel. Certainly members of the crew are not confined to those who can “hand, reef and steer.” Judge Hough pointed out in the Buena Ventura that “everyone is entitled to the privilege of a seaman who, like seamen, at all times contribute [1071]*1071to and labor about the operation and welfare of the ship when she is upon a voyage.” We think that “crew” must have at least as broad a meaning under the Act.
321 U.S. at 572, 64 S.Ct. at 751 (footnotes and citations omitted). Of particular significance for our discussion today is one of the final lines of this opinion, which states, “[Plaintiff] moreover had that permanent attachment to the vessel which commonly characterizes a crew.” Id. at 573, 64 S.Ct. at 751.
The next ease of significance for our analysis is Gianfala v. Texas Company, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 775 (1955), an action for death of a worker assigned to a submersible drilling barge who was killed while helping to unload pipe from an adjacent cargo barge. The testimony concerning the employee’s duties was undisputed. A jury found the employee to be a crew member, and the district court entered a judgment on the verdict in plaintiffs favor. This circuit reversed, concluding that, on undisputed facts, the status question was one of law to be resolved by the judge. Texas Company v. Gianfala, 222 F.2d 382, 386 (5th Cir.1955). We concluded that the drilling barge was not in navigation and that the decedent was on board as a member of a drilling crew, not as a member of a ship’s crew. Id. at 387. The Supreme Court disagreed with our conclusion and, without explanation, reversed and remanded with directions for the district court to reinstate its judgment. 350 U.S. at 879.
Next came Senko v. La Crosse Dredging Corp., 352 U.S. 370, 77 S.Ct. 415, 1 L.Ed.2d 404, (1957) in which the plaintiff was hired to splice rope, stow supplies, and in general clean and maintain an anchored dredge barge. An Illinois state court jury found that the plaintiff was a seaman; an Illinois appellate court reversed this finding holding that there was insufficient evidence from which to find the plaintiff to be a crew member. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, stating that on these facts it was a reasonable inference that the plaintiff was responsible for the barge’s seaworthiness. 352 U.S. at 372-73, 77 S.Ct. at 416-17. More significantly, the court stated: “Our holding [in South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett ] that the determination of whether an injured person was a ‘member of a crew’ is to be left to the finder of fact meant that juries have the same discretion they have in finding negligence or any other fact.” 352 U.S. at 374. Since the plaintiff performed almost all of his duties on or on behalf of the dredge, the Supreme Court considered him to be “permanently attached to and employed by the dredge as a member of its crew.” Id. at 372, 77 S.Ct. at 417. This meant that there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding of crew member status.
Two brief per curiam opinions ended the Supreme Court’s consideration of the crew member status issue. The first of these, Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 356 U.S. 252, 78 S.Ct. 687, 2 L.Ed.2d 737 (1958), involved a piledriver who assisted in the completion of a “Texas tower,” a radar relay installation similar to a fixed drilling platform, while it was being constructed in a shipyard. Grimes lived on the tower and kept its equipment in operating condition while it was being towed out to its location at sea. After the tower reached its location and was anchored, the plaintiff Grimes performed only piledriving duties. Six days later, he was injured while returning from a trip from a nearby barge to the tower. Grimes contended that he was a member of the crew of the barge, the Texas tower, or both. The court of appeals held that Grimes was not a crew member as a matter of law; the Supreme Court reversed without explanation, citing Senko, Gianfala, and Bassett for the proposition that there was sufficient evidence to send the status issue to the jury. In the second case, Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271, 78 S.Ct. 734, 2 L.Ed.2d 754 (1958), the decedent performed odd jobs for the defendant around the defendant’s wharf, barge and tug, all of which were on the Mississippi River. The tug had been out of navigation for some months before the decedent’s [1072]*1072death, and immediately before his accident the decedent had apparently been readying the tug for inspection and return to river service. The day of the accident he had been cleaning its boilers. The Supreme Court again held, without explanation, that whether the decedent was a Jones Act crew member was a jury question. 356 U.S. at 271, 78 S.Ct. at 735. With this 1958 decision the Supreme Court ended, for all practical purposes, its consideration of the Jones Act status issue.3
Prior to 1958 this circuit had utilized a test originated by the first circuit in Carumbo v. Cape Cod S.S. Co., 123 F.2d 991 (1st Cir.1941), and adopted in McKie v. Diamond Marine Co., 204 F.2d 132 (5th Cir.1953): “The essential and decisive elements of the definition of a ‘member of a crew’ [are] that the ship be in navigation; that there be a more or less permanent connection with the ship; and that the worker be aboard primarily to aid in navigation.” 204 F.2d at 136. By 1959, however, the intervening Supreme Court decisions in Gianfala, Grimes and Butler called for a reevaluation of this test, and this our court undertook in Offshore Company v. Robison. Robison was a roughneck permanently assigned to a drilling rig mounted on a barge in the Gulf of Mexico. He was injured while attempting to escape from a runaway section of casing. 266 F.2d 771-72. Robison sued his employer, contending that he was a member of the crew of the barge on which he was injured. A jury agreed with these contentions. Id. at 773 n. 4. On appeal, the panel, speaking through Judge Wisdom, surveyed the Supreme Court cases and other jurisprudence, and concluded:
[T]here is an evidentiary basis for a Jones Act case to go to the jury: (1) if there is evidence that the injured workman was assigned permanently to a vessel (including special purpose structures not usually employed as a means of transport by water but designed to float on water) or performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel; and (2) if the capacity in which he was employed or the duties which he performed contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, or to the operation or welfare of the vessel in terms of its maintenance during its movement or during anchorage for its future trips.
266 F.2d at 779. This test does not include the “aid-to-navigation” language which appeared in the McKie test and the early Supreme Court decisions. Explaining the omission, the opinion stated:
Our review of the cases shows this test has been watered down until the words have lost their natural meaning.... we attach less importance to either of these catchphrases than we do to the cases piled on cases in which recovery is allowed when by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the claimant had anything to do with navigation and is a member of the ship’s company only in the sense that his duties have a connection with the mission or the function of the floatable structure where he was injured.
Id. at 780. Robison also emphasized that the Supreme Court cases outlined above had already made clear that the status determination was, like any other factual determination, generally to be entrusted to the jury:
[The terms “seaman,” “vessel,” and “member of a crew” ] have such a wide range of meaning under the Jones Act as interpreted in the courts, that, except in rare cases, only a jury or trier of facts can determine their application in the circumstances of a particular case. Even where the facts are largely undisputed, the question at issue is not solely a question of law when, because of conflicting inferences that may lead to different conclusions among reasonable men, a trial [1073]*1073judge cannot state an unvarying rule of law that fits the facts.
266 F.2d at 779-80 (footnotes omitted).
Robison distilled a test from the existing meager Supreme Court authority on the subject and the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue since.4 For over twenty-five years, since 1959, the Ro-bison test has stood in this circuit as the test for whether the status question should go to the jury, and also for the corollary question, whether the evidence of crew member status is sufficient to support a jury verdict. It has been cited more than ninety-five times, relied on in innumerable other unpublished circuit and district court opinions, and considered a lighthouse by both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel in compromise negotiations.
The many circuit and district court opinions have, however, inevitably emphasized different portions of the Robison test, and, in the course of doing so have created some inconsistencies. Very few of these have involved the second major prong of the Robison test, whether the employee contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. This aspect of the test is by its nature easily ascertained — for example, Robison’s duties aboard the seagoing drilling platform clearly contributed to the function that it was designed to serve — drilling for oil.
Some of our amici suggest that Robison erred in eliminating the “aid-to-navigation” requirement which appears in the early Supreme Court cases. Others suggest that the second prong of the Robison test should be reformed to grant crew member status only to those workers who perform significant navigational functions or further the “transportation function” of the vessel. This is essentially the approach adopted by the Seventh Circuit in Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co., 742 F.2d 1054 (7th Cir.1984).
We cannot accept either of these suggestions, because as Judge Wisdom cogently and convincingly explained in Robison, the later Supreme Court cases require such a broad definition of “aid to navigation” that the test proposed by amici is entirely inconsistent with them.
This leaves for our consideration the first portion of the Robison test — whether the employee was assigned permanently to a vessel or performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel. Robison requires evidence that the worker was “assigned permanently to ... or performed a substantial portion of his work on the vessel.” This test is, of course, disjunctive, and permits a worker to be a crew member if he does substantial work on the vessel even though his assignment to it is not “permanent.” 5
This circuit has given the term “permanent,” which we have used since 1958,6 an extensive judicial gloss. We have said that, in order to prove “substantial work” equivalent to permanent assignment “it must be shown that [the claimant] performed a significant part of his work aboard the vessel with at least some degree [1074]*1074of regularity and continuity.”7 We have also described the necessary relationship as one “evincing a vessel relationship that is substantial in point and time and not merely spasmodic.”8 In perhaps the broadest description we have said, “[T]he permanency requirement is, we think best understood as indicating that in order to be deemed a ‘seaman’ within the meaning of the Jones Act ‘a claimant [must] have more than a transitory connection’ with a vessel or a specific group of vessels.”9
These varying formulations reflect the principle that the permanent-attachment aspect of the crew member status determination, like the status determination as a whole, is an inherently factual question, and, as our cases since Robison make clear, it is generally a question for the fact-finder. Our cases also make clear, however, that status may be determined by summary judgment in the appropriate situation. Thus, we have held that “where the facts establish beyond question as a matter of law [the lack of seaman status] ... a court ... may, in the proper case, hold that there is no reasonable evidentiary basis to support a jury finding that the injured person is a seaman ... under the Jones Act.” 10 Similarly, when the evidence can lead only to the conclusion that the injured person was a crew member, summary judgment declaring his status is proper.11
In most cases the facts and inferences to be drawn from them may lead to either decision by the factfinder, for the Robison test is inherently factual, and, like all applications of a legal standard to widely-varying factual situations, may inevitably result in some inconsistent determination of status. The Supreme Court, which Robison followed, accepts these inconsistencies. The Supreme Court has signalled no disapproval of Robison and we continue to follow it.
III.
In this case, we consider the duration of the employee’s assignment necessary to support submission to a jury of the question whether he performed a substantial portion of his duties aboard a vessel or fleet of vessels. By fleet we mean an identifiable group of vessels acting together or under one control.12 We reject the notion that fleet of vessels in this context means any group of vessels an employee happens to work aboard. Unless fleet is given its ordinary meaning, the fundamental distinction between members of a crew and transitory maritime workers such as longshoremen is totally obliterated.
During the year Barrett worked as a welder’s helper in Chevron’s Bay Marchand Field, he spent as much as twenty to thirty percent of his time working aboard vessels. During the fourteen-day hitch in which he suffered his injury, Barrett was assigned for the eight days immediately preceding the injury to work from the D/B FALCON, renovating equipment on the small caisson. In this eight-day period, he spent as much as seventy percent of his work time aboard the FALCON. If Barrett was entitled to [1075]*1075have his status decided on the basis of his work during the eight days immediately before his accident, the district court might properly have concluded that he was a member of the crew of a vessel or, indeed, as we have already indicated, that he was not. On the other hand, if the district court was required to consider Barrett’s vessel-related work during his entire one-year assignment as a welder’s helper to Chevron’s Bay Marchand Field, the record does not support a finding that he was a crewmember.
We considered a similar question in Longmire v. Sea Drilling Corp., 610 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir.1980). Longmire was employed as a floor hand and, for three hitches of seven days each, was assigned to an offshore drilling platform. The plaintiff and his fellow workers ate and slept aboard a tender vessel anchored next to the platform. Longmire had spent the first two hitches working almost exclusively aboard the platform. When he started the third hitch, however, the drilling rig was being dismantled for movement to another location and Longmire was assigned to work aboard the tender. The entire day before his injury he stowed anchor chains on the tender. The district court granted summary judgment holding that Longmire was not a member of the crew of the tender. We affirmed in language that is applicable here:
It can hardly be said that Longmire’s incidental activities aboard the tender— maintenance, moving supplies to and from the drilling platform, and stowing the anchor chain — were sufficient, when viewed in the context of his entire employment as a member of the drilling crew, to amount to performance of “a significant part of his work aboard the ship with ... some degree of regularity and continuity.”
Id. at 1347.
We expanded on this statement in a footnote:
When seaman’s status is sought on the theory that the claimant has performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel, however, the circumstances of the claimant’s injury cannot be viewed in isolation but must be considered in relation to his other regular duties. We do not preclude the possibility that an informal and temporary change of duties, though not tantamount to permanent assignment to a vessel, may be sufficient to effect an immediate change in the worker’s status to that of a seaman if the change of duties involves work that would normally be done by a member of a ship’s crew and it can reasonably be said that, taking into consideration all the circumstances of his employment, the change involves a regular and continuous, rather than intermittent, commitment of the worker’s labor to the “function of the vessel, its mission, its operation, or its welfare.” Cf. Beard v. Shell Oil Co., 606 F.2d 515 at 517 (5th Cir.1979). What is to be avoided is engrafting upon the statutory classification of a “seaman” a judicial gloss so protean, elusive, or arbitrary as to permit a worker to walk into and out of coverage in the course of his regular duties.
Longmire, 610 F.2d at 1347, n. 6.
Thus, if the employee’s regularly assigned duties require him to divide his time between vessel and land (or platform) his status as a crew member is determined “in the context of his entire employment” with his current employer.13 Id. at 1347. This is not an inflexible requirement, however, and does not preclude assessment of the extent of the employee’s work aboard a vessel over a shorter time period if the employee’s permanent job assignment during his term of employment has changed. If the plaintiff receives a new work assignment before his accident in which either his [1076]*1076essential duties or his work location is permanently changed, he is entitled to have the assessment of the substantiality of his vessel-related work made on the basis of his activities in his new job.
Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court erred in concluding that Barrett was a member of the crew of the Barge FALCON. Whether Barrett was a crew member should have been determined in the context of his entire employment as a welder’s helper with Til-den J. Elliott Contractor, Inc. The record reveals that Barrett’s employment duties as a welder’s helper in Chevron’s Bay Mar-chand Field did not significantly change during the term of his employment. Thus, consideration of Barrett’s vessel-related duties during a period shorter than the entire term of his employment with Elliott is unwarranted. Accepting Barrett’s testimony as true, during his one-year employment for Elliott he performed seventy to eighty percent of his work on platforms and no more than twenty to thirty percent of his work on vessels. Because he did not perform a substantial portion of his work aboard a vessel or fleet of vessels, he failed to establish that he was a member of the crew of a vessel.
REVERSED and RENDERED.