A changing scene
In a previous article
I wrote on the way that technology has changed the nature of shipping and
brought new demands for training. Now we face a new technological challenge in
the form of digitalisation and decarboniisation for shipping
and this will lead to new demands for training of seafarers.
Where
should that training come from?
The
International Maritime Organisation has always set the “minimum safety
standards” for the operationf of ships under its conventions, particularly the
four main conventions:
1.
The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention,
2.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL),
3.
The Convention for Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers
4.
The Maritime Labor Convention.
Ratified
by maritime nations it is left to the individual Maritime national authorities
to implement and enforce the conventions. Maritime training institutions offer
courses in compliance with the IMO conventions. IMO vets and monitors
compliance with these standards but it is left to the national maritime
authority to enforce them.
Another
way that standards are monitored is throught Port State Control. This an
inspection service of a maritime nation to check that foreign ships visiting
their ports meet the standards set by IMO under its conventions. It is in
recognition that not all flag states registering ships maintain these minimum
standards of compliance. This has been particualr concern over some “flags of
convenience"
It is
a truism that technological change often precedes the demand for training to
meet the technological challenge and the maritime sector is no exception.
Whilst IMO provides the regulatory framework in which training is formed and
some training guidelines it is the industry through classification socieiteis
and national maritime training organisations that develop and implement
training.
This
has led to concern over the ability of the industry to keep pace with training
requirements. The seminal report by the WMU
highlights the challenge.
One example provided within
this report’s many valuable case studies, is of ferry workers who are expected
to know how to safely charge and discharge a new battery system fitted on board
their vessel. However, they find their training institution unable to keep up
with the technological advances and its faculty unable to offer training
courses on the new equipment’s safe use. Furthermore, the workers felt under
such pressure to make sailing schedules that they didn’t have enough time to
familiarize themselves with the new equipment.
An
upgrade of the global maritime training sector seems necessary.
A DNV report
survey of seafarers showed
that particularly officers felt they needed more
training to meet the coming technological challenge and that the current IMO
STCW training was insufficient to meet their needs.
For the two
most urgent technological demands, digitalisation and decarbonisation there is
a clear need for better IMO
based
courses and the overall seafaring training model
embedded in MET (Maritime education and
training) offered by academic and training institutions needs to adapt to these
changing demands but remain based on general maritime subjects leaving the
specialised technology training to training centres and operators.
Looking further ahead, the automation of ships is leading
to fully unmanned vessels operated by remote assistance from shore-based
service centres. This will have a huge effect on manning and control of ships.
MASS(Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships) has been the
subject of scrutiny by IMO for some time and have highlighted 4 degrees of
autonomy from shipboard seafarers controlling the use of automation to rmotely
operated vessels without shipboard staff.
Clearly the training demand will vary substantially and
add further pressure for a revitalised education and training regime.
