There was a very strong feeling that any lack of compe-tency
by some seafarers was due to inconsistency in STCW
implementation among IMO member states, and that the
training programmes of certain countries produced
seafarers of lower competency than others.
One deck officer stated: ‘Certain countries issue tickets
far too easily and the standard of training provided differs
vastly from country to country!’
Another officer pointed out: ‘Many maritime academies
are not providing courses which meet the STCW standard.
Why is there no independent body to make sure every
training centre is meeting the minimum requirements?’
A large proportion of respondents believed this was a
problem that shipowners were aware of yet were willing to
accept, choosing crew purely on cost rather than compe-tency
– or as one respondent put it: ‘Cheap, cheaper,
cheapest. Transport in general is not allowed to cost
money.’
Many respondents questioned how claims made by
shipowners regarding their desire for highly trained,
competent crew stacked up against their crewing models:
‘Shipowners will hire everybody with a certificate, valid or
not. Shipowners don’t care about skills; as long the
number of people onboard the vessel compare with the
Safe Manning Cert, it’s fine for them. Money is all. Compa-nies
will say “safety is our utmost priority”, but they don’t
add “as long it doesn’t cost money”.’
QUALITY FAILURES
The idea that shipowners are failing to invest sufficiently
in competent crew was backed up by the three-quarters of
respondents who felt that owners are not doing enough to
ensure that there are enough quality training berths
available to meet future demand.
Respondents also highlighted a lack of practical
experience/seatime as a major issue, both in terms of the
minimum seatime required for a certificate of competency
(CoC), with only 41% believing that this was adequate, and
the amount of experience in rank that individuals had
before being promoted.
One respondent stated: ‘Fast tracking through the
ranks is an issue. Money could be a big motivator to take
on jobs you’re not actually ready for but do have the
certification to do so. Also, the lack of seafarers in this
industry can force companies to promote people that
aren’t actually ready yet.’
A second officer commented: ‘There is too high a
turnover; there are fewer and fewer incentives to stay at
sea throughout one’s career so people with less experience
are promoted into higher ranks quicker to be able to fill
the gaps.’
TRAINING GAPS
Seafarers report significant dissatisfaction with having to
pay for additional STCW training, which leads to courses
being viewed as an unnecessary expense or a ‘scam’.
One respondent noted: ‘It is generally considered by the
seafarers I work with that there is no real benefit from
having the refresher training at five year intervals when it
38 SUOMEN MERENKULKU J FINLANDS SJÖFART
is a requirement on a regular basis to carry out training
onboard for firefighting, lifeboats, etc. It additionally adds
a considerable financial burden to seafarers as most
companies do not cover the costs of this repeated train-ing.’
Only 39% of seafarers in the survey believed that STCW
currently covers the skills needed for today’s maritime
industry and a significant proportion reported that basic
IT skills are not covered at all. One respondent said:
‘Better IT skills are needed. There are still seafarers
leaving school who can’t make a simple Excel sheet to
calculate 1+1.’
Many want an increased focus on interpersonal and
social skills and training in how to recognise the signs of
stress and fatigue in colleagues. One seafarer said: ‘Future
officers need to recognise when personnel are tired/
stressed due to overwork or long hours.’
This perhaps reflects that seafarers are particularly
sensitive to the importance of recognising mental health
issues as they are more likely to be prevalent in the
difficult conditions experienced at sea.
A failure to properly train seafarers in the use of
ancillary equipment onboard could lead to incorrect
operation, respondents said.
Training on newly installed equipment including
scrubbers and ballast water management systems had
been virtually non-existent for many seafarers. The
training gaps in STCW identified by respondents include:
• computing/IT skills
• people skills (social, communication etc)
• basic practical skills
• modern machinery
• new propulsion systems/fuels
• ballasting
• business skills
FUTURE-PROOFING QUALIFICATIONS
The increased importance of more
advanced electrical and digital skills
translated into strong support for the
mandatory carriage of certificated ETOs,
with a massive 80% of seafarers agreeing that
this would become necessary.
As equipment becomes more technologically complex,
the traditional division of roles into deck, engine and
electrical may cease to be appropriate.
An officer in the survey said: ‘There needs to be specific
training of new/incoming technologies. Technologies such
as augmented reality have the potential to overwhelm
unfamiliar users, but used properly will greatly aid in a
navigation officer’s ability to identify causes of concern.’
A move to something more like a dual ticket system
may be of consideration for the future. ‘If automation/
smart technologies develop to a point of requiring less
bridge time this would allow for crew to carry out other
duties. Basic ETO training may be appropriate for main-taining
some of these systems.’
As equipment becomes more sophisticated there will be
an increased need for type-specific training on individual
systems.
One respondent noted: ‘There will need to be more
training on equipment. You see now that too many
accidents are caused by, for instance, not knowing ECDIS
sufficiently.’ The new skills that will be required were
identified as:
”Companies will say ‘safety is our
utmost priority’, but they don’t add ’as
long it doesn’t cost money”.
IT
networking and
computing are seen
as key skills for
the future.