”Training should be future-proofed
to respond to the rise of automation and
digitalisation and the predicted transfor-mational
effects that these will have on
the role of crew’ Nautilus Federation
director Mark Dickinson.”
FINLANDS SJÖFART J SUOMEN MERENKULKU 37
A
from shore, but felt strongly that if the concept does
become reality, shore controllers should be experienced
mariners qualified to at least officer of the watch (OOW)
standard, possibly with additional training and education
on top.
Most respondents felt that STCW would continue to be
the appropriate place to regulate those in control of
merchant ships – on land or at sea.
QUESTIONS OF COMPETENCY
One reason often cited by industry for a need to overhaul
STCW is a perceived lack of competency in a significant
percentage of certified crew.
Deficiencies in basic skills, seamanship, experience and
common sense were flagged as major problems by re-spondents
to the survey. These are all competencies which
seafarers should have on completing a training pro-gramme
that meets the minimum requirements of STCW,
which suggests that the problem is not related to the
standards themselves but their implementation.
Indeed, feedback indicated that the primary reason for
a perceived lack of competency among seafarers was
inconsistency in implemen-tation and enforcement of the
minimum requirements by flag states, and ship owners
knowingly prioritising crew cost over competence.
This has led to a situation where seafarers’ competence
is being called in to question by employers, while adminis-trations
that attempt to rectify the situation by implement-ing
a higher standard are put at a competitive disadvan-tage
by those same employers.
Working conditions onboard play a significant part in
the development of seafarers and the quality of training
they receive. While this is in large part down to individual
shipowners, STCW has a role, as it is the convention from
which maximum working hours are derived.
Excessive working hours and insufficient crew levels
prevent officers from investing enough time in cadets’
training and development. Poor working conditions
contribute significantly to a high rate of turnover
among crew, which often leads to the loss of
highly experienced seafarers and to seafarers
being promoted before they have gained
enough experience to carry out more senior
roles.
There was support for raising the overall
standard of STCW training, providing it is
properly enforced to ensure a ‘level playing
field’ for seafarers as well as ship owners.
26%
felt that most
seafarers have a level
of competency
below that required
for their role.
IS STCW FIT FOR PURPOSE?
Some 45% of respondents felt that the STCW in its current
form is not fit for purpose, with 39% saying it is fit for
purpose, and 16% unsure.
When asked what was most lacking from the STCW
Convention and Code as a whole, respondents suggested
that the differing standards between flag states are the
biggest issue and this is caused by lack of enforcement.
As one officer noted: ‘International standards vary too
greatly. While many international centres provide training
to a high standard, many also just provide training to the
bare minimum requirements. This leads to a skills gap
between officers and crew who have trained in more
reputable establishments and those who haven’t.’
Respondents also expressed considerable dissatisfac-tion
with the hours of work and rest regime that is
permitted under the Code and the lack of any prescriptive
crewing requirements.
One respondent stated: ‘Rest hours – this is the biggest
issue we face … rest hour rules and the enforcement of
them need major improvement.’
There was clear consensus among respondents that this
situation is detrimental to the quality of training that
seafarers receive, with only 27% believing that crewing
levels are enough to allow cadets/trainees to receive
adequate training, mentoring and supervision onboard.
It is worth noting that 71% believed simulator training
cannot be considered an adequate replacement for
seatime.
There were also suggestions that the STCW in its
current form is outdated and does not relate to the roles as
experienced by the modern seafarer.
ONE DECK OFFICER COMMENTED:
‘The equipment and plant I am expected to maintain on my
vessel is above and beyond anything I am officially holding
STCW training for. I basically need an engineering CoC as
well.’
A master mariner stated: ‘There is very out of date stuff
being taught for mates and masters. It is only there to pass
the exam and has no real use in the industry now… It does
not relate to the modern job now as it stands.’
The areas where it was felt the Convention
and Code were most lacking were:
• enforcement/differing standards
• hours of rest and crewing
• outdated topics
• the revalidation/renewal process
• general level required too low
• the lack of mandatory requirement for
electro-technical officers (ETOs)
SKILLS GAPS
Seafarers were asked whether competency levels were
adequate for the roles in which colleagues onboard were
employed.
THE RESPONSES SHOWED:
• 51% believed that some seafarers have the appropriate
level of competency but not all
• 26% felt that most seafarers have a level of competency
lower than required for the role that they are in
• 21% agreed that most seafarers have the appropriate
level of competency
• 2% felt that most seafarers have a higher level of
competency than required for their role