THE STCW MANILA AMENDMENTS
\nIts Challenges to the Far East<\/p>\n
ABSTRACT
\nTitle of Dissertation: The STCW Manila Amendments: Its Challenges to the Far
\nEast
\nDegree: MSc
\nThe comprehensive review of the STCW 1978, as amended in 1995 and associated
\nCode was carried out during the last 4 years from 2006 to 2010 with the 8 scopes
\napproved by the Maritime Safety Committee. As a result, the diplomatic
\nconference took place in Manila, the Philippines, from 21 to 25 June 2010 under the
\nauspices of the IMO to adopt amendments to the STCW Convention. These
\namendments will have a certain degree of impact on Maritime Education and
\nTraining (MET) institutes in terms of education and training of seafarer worldwide.
\nParticularly, the Far East region countries are effected more than other regions since
\nthey covered about 30% of officers and 37% ratings in 2010. In view of these facts
\nthis dissertation conceived to analyze the problems in the Far East main seafarer
\nsupply countries facing the implementation of \u201cSTCW Manila Amendments\u201d To
\nanalyze these problems, this dissertation carried out questionnaire research to 7
\ntargeted main MET institutes or universities of major Far East seafarer supply
\ncountries.
\nThis dissertation also suggests the possible solutions to the problems identified
\nthrough the questionnaires. In addition, this dissertation suggests further amendments,
\nwhich should be included in \u201cSTCW Manila Amendments\u201d. The conclusion and
\nrecommendations are provided to suggest possible solutions to Far East major
\nseafarer supply countries, MET institutes and IMO to complete and fulfil the
\nresearch endeavour together in order to ensure the attainment of the defined
\nobjectives of this study.
\nKEY WORDS: STCW Manila Amendments, Maritime Education and Training,
\nMET, Implementation, Far East region, Further amendments, Possible solutions
\niv
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS
\nDeclaration ————————————————————————————– i
\nAcknowledgements —————————————————————————- ii
\nAbstract —————————————————————————————– iii
\nTable of contents —————————————————————————— iv
\nList of Tables ——————————————————————————– viii
\nList of Figures ——————————————————————————— ix
\nList of Abbreviations ————————————————————————– x
\nCHAPTER 1
\nINTRODUCTION —————————————————————————- 1
\n1.1 Background ——————————————————————————— 1
\n1.1.1 Back ground of STCW 1978 ——————————————————— 1
\n1.1.2 Background of STCW 1978, as amended 1995 ———————————— 2
\n1.1.3 STCW Comprehensive review of STCW 1978, as amended 1995————– 2
\n1.1.4 Diplomatic conference —————————————————————- 4
\n1.2 Importance and purpose of the study —————————————————- 4
\n1.3 Methodology and scope ——————————————————————- 5
\nCHAPTER 2
\nDETAILED REVIEWS OF THE STCW MANILA AMENDMENTS ———— 8
\n2.1 Introduction ——————————————————————————— 8
\n2.2 Chapter I – Regulation I, Section A\/I and B\/I —————————————— 8
\n2.2.1 Regulation I\/1 \u201cDefinitions and clarifications\u201d ———————————— 8
\n2.2.2 Regulation I\/2 \u201cCertificates and endorsements\u201d ——————————— 11
\nv
\n2.2.3 Regulation I\/3 \u201cPrinciples governing near-coastal voyages\u201d —————— 13
\n2.2.4 Regulation I\/6 \u201cTraining and assessment\u201d ————————————— 13
\n2.2.5 Regulation I\/7 \u201cCommunication of information\u201d——————————– 14
\n2.2.6 Regulation I\/9 \u201cMedical standards\u201d ———————————————– 14
\n2.2.7 Regulation I\/11 \u201cRevalidation of certificates\u201d ———————————– 15
\n2.2.8 Regulation I\/12 Use of simulators ————————————————- 17
\n2.2.9 Regulation I\/14 Responsibilities of companies ———————————- 17
\n2.2.10 Regulation I\/15 Transitional provisions —————————————– 18
\n2.3 Chapter II – Regulation II, Section A\/II and B\/II ———————————— 19
\n2.4 Chpater III – Regulation III, Section A\/III and B\/III ——————————– 22
\n2.5 Chapter V- Regulation V, Section A\/V and B\/V ———————————— 25
\n2.6 Chapter VI – Regulation VI, Section A\/VI and B\/VI ——————————- 27
\n2.7 Chapter VIII – Regulation VIII, Section A\/VIII and B\/VIII ———————– 29
\n2.8 Summary ———————————————————————————- 31
\nCHAPTER 3
\nCHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE STCW MANILA
\nAMENDMENTS —————————————————————————- 34
\n3.1 Introduction ——————————————————————————- 34
\n3.2 Analysis of questionnaire ————————————————————— 36
\n3.2.1 Training ships for onboard training ———————————————– 36
\n3.2.2 Distance learning and E-learning ————————————————– 40
\n3.2.3 Hours of rest regulations ———————————————————— 42
\n3.2.3.1 Background ———————————————————————– 42
\n3.2.3.2 Hours of rest and work regulations under the ILO Conventions and STCW
\nManila Amendments ——————————————————————— 42
\n3.2.3.3 Opinions collated on hours of rest regulations ——————————- 43
\n3.2.3.4 Case study on hours of rest depending on manning levels —————– 44
\nvi
\n3.2.3.5 Paper workload of seafarers —————————————————- 46
\n3.2.3.6 Ship inspection burden ———————————————————- 46
\n3.2.4 Additional costs required for implementation of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments ——————————————————————————– 48
\n3.2.5 Other issues related with the STCW Manila Amendments ——————– 51
\n3.2.5.1 The possibility of misinterpretation of KUPs ——————————– 51
\n3.2.5.2 Definition of qualified person was not defined —————————— 51
\n3.2.5.3 Issuing party of training record books for approved seagoing service of
\ntanker ships ——————————————————————————– 52
\n3.3 Summary ———————————————————————————- 52
\nCHAPTER 4
\nPOSSIBLE PROPOSALS —————————————————————– 54
\n4.1 Introduction ——————————————————————————- 54
\n4.2 Lack of onboard training placements ————————————————- 54
\n4.2.1 Storage in qualified seafarers —————————————————— 54
\n4.2.2 Proposal \u2013 Joint On-board Training Centre (JOBTC) ————————– 56
\n4.3 Proposal – Joint Asia Maritime E-Learning Systems (JAMES) ——————- 62
\n4.4 Reducing work-load, ship inspection burden and determine mandatory minimum
\nsafety manning standards in a safe way ————————————————— 64
\n4.4.1 Reducing paper work-load ———————————————————- 64
\n4.4.2 Mandatory minimum safety manning standards ——————————— 65
\n4.4.3 Harmonizing ship inspections —————————————————— 67
\n4.5 Proposal – Technical cooperation fund to support installation of training
\nsimulation\/equipment ———————————————————————— 68
\n4.6 Clarify vague terminology ————————————————————– 70
\nvii
\nCHAPTER 5
\nPROPOSED FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE STCW MANILA
\nAMENDMENTS —————————————————————————- 72
\n5.1 Introduction ——————————————————————————- 72
\n5.2 Guidance on the training and qualifications for personnel onboard Tugs-barges 72
\n5.2.1 Findings ——————————————————————————- 73
\n5.2.2 Proposal ——————————————————————————- 75
\n5.3 Mandatory training requirements for seafarers in the IMDG Code ————— 75
\n5.3.1 Introduction ————————————————————————— 75
\n5.3.2 Proposal ——————————————————————————- 77
\nCHAPTER 6
\nCONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ———————————————— 79
\n6.1 Conclusion ——————————————————————————– 79
\n6.2 Suggestions ——————————————————————————- 82
\nReferences ———————————————————————————– 84
\nAppendices
\nAppendix 1 Summary of STCW Manila Amendments and its Resolutions ———- 92
\nAppendix 2 Questionnaire paper ———————————————————- 102
\nAppendix 3 Brief summary of 7 MET institutes of Far East 7 Countries ———— 106
\nAppendix 4 Working hour record of two tanker ships ——————————— 113
\nviii
\nLIST OF TABLES
\nTable 1 Comparison table for existing and new definition …………………………………. 10
\nTable 2 List of certificates or documentary evidence required …………………………… 12
\nTable 3 Amended competence for engineers ……………………………………………………. 24
\nTable 4 Recent trends of seafarer supply …………………………………………………………. 34
\nTable 5 Number of officer supply in Far East ranks 7 countries …………………………. 34
\nTable 6 Required on-boarding training period to get CoC and tanker Certificates … 37
\nTable 7 Types of on board training placement available in the surveyed institutes .. 37
\nTable 8 Status of distance learning or E-learning possessions ……………………………. 41
\nTable 9 Hours of rest and works regulation under …………………………………………….. 42
\nTable 10 Opinion of hour of rest regulations ……………………………………………………. 43
\nTable 11 working hours for deck officers of VLCC \u201cA\u201d …………………………………… 45
\nTable 12 working hours for deck officers of VLCC \u201cB\u201d …………………………………… 45
\nTable 13 Listed the costs of some of simulation systems installed in MET institutes
\nof ROK in 2009 and 2010 ……………………………………………………………………………… 49
\nTable 14 Listed the course fees for ECDIS, BRM and ERM ……………………………… 49
\nTable 15 Status of requirement of simulation system ………………………………………… 50
\nTable 16 Supply and Differences by Broad National Group for 2020 …………………. 55
\nTable 17 General particulars of training ship of KIMFT, KMU and MMU …………. 57
\nTable 18 Training ship boarding rates of ROK ………………………………………………… 57
\nTable 19 On-board training cost of KIMFT …………………………………………………….. 59
\nTable 20 On-board training cost of KMU ……………………………………………………….. 59
\nTable 21 The rate of ship accidents versus total registered ships ………………………… 73
\nTable 22 The rate of tug-barge accidents versus total registered tug-barge ………….. 73
\nTable 23 Causes of accidents on tug-barge ……………………………………………………… 74
\nTable 24 Types of accidents on tug-barges ……………………………………………………… 74
\nTable 25 The number of ship accidents in Japan ………………………………………………. 74
\nix
\nLIST OF FIGURES
\nFigure 1 Transitional provisions …………………………………………………………………….. 19
\nFigure 2 Certification procedures of tankers ……………………………………………………. 26
\nFigure 3 Yearly statistics of piracy incidents occurred since 1984 ……………………… 28
\nFigure 4 required hours to preparation for ……………………………………………………….. 47
\nFigure 5 Difficulties about Major inspection on tanker ships (Chae, 2009) ………….. 47
\nFigure 6 Procedure to establish JOBTC ………………………………………………………….. 61
\nFigure 7 Concept of Joint Asia Maritime E-learning System (JAMES) ………………. 63
\nFigure 8 Procedure for supporting financial resources ………………………………………. 70
\nx
\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
\nALAM Malaysian Maritime Academy
\nASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\nBAC blood alcohol level
\nBIMCO The Baltic and International Maritime Council
\nBPP Beneficiary Pays Principle
\nBRM Bridge Resources Management
\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations
\nCOC Certificate of Competency
\nCOP Certificate of Proficiency
\nDMU Dalian Maritime University
\nDNV Det Norske Veritas
\nDP Dynamic Positioning
\nECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
\nERM Engine Room Management
\nETO Electro-Technical Officer
\nETR Electro-Technical Rating
\nFSC Flag State Control
\nGT Gross Tonnage
\nGOBTC Global On-Board Training Centre
\nICS International Chamber of Shipping
\nILO International Labour Organization
\nIMDG Code International Maritime Dangerous Good Code
\nIMO International Maritime Organization
\nISF International Shipping Federation
\nISPS Code International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
\nISWG Inter-Session Working Group
\nITCP Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme
\nxi
\nJAMES Asia Maritime E-learning System
\nJOBTC Joint On-Board Training Centre
\nKIMFT Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology
\nKMST Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal
\nKMU Korea Maritime University
\nKUP Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency
\nMDTFs The Multi-Donor Trust Funds
\nMET Maritime Education and Training
\nMLC 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
\nMLTM Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
\nMMU Mokpo Maritime University
\nMoU Memorandum of Understanding
\nMPA Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
\nMSC Maritime Safety Committee
\nNGO Non Governmental Organization
\nNMP National Maritime Polytechnic
\nODA Official Development Helpance
\nOSV Offshore Supply Vessel
\nPSC Port State Control
\nROK Republic of Korea
\nSMA Singapore Maritime Academy
\nSTCW 78, as amended
\nin 1995
\nInternational Convention on Standards of Training,
\nCertification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers, 1978, as
\namended in 1995
\nSTCW Manila
\namendments
\nInternational Convention on Standard of Training
\nCertification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers, 1978, as
\namended Including the Final Act of the 2010
\nConference of Parties to the International Convention on
\nStandards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping
\nfor Seafarers, 1978, and resolutions 1 and 3 to 19 of the
\nxii
\nconference
\nSTW Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping
\nTCC Technical Co-operation Committee
\nUK United Kingdom
\nUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
\nVIMARU Vietnam Maritime University
\nVTS Vessel Traffic Service
\nWHO World Health Organization
\nWMU World Maritime University
\n1
\nCHAPTER 1
\nINTRODUCTION
\n1.1 Background
\nAccording to Rothblum the maritime system is a people system, and human errors
\nfigure prominently in casualty situations. So about 75 – 96% of marine casualties
\nare caused, at least in part, by some form of human error (Rothblum, 2010).
\nThe effect of the human element is gaining awareness in relationship to safety of
\nships. The competence of seafarers is one of the most critical factors in the human
\nelement to ensure safe and efficient ship operations. It is directly related with safety
\nof life at sea and the protection of the marine environment as well. The STCW
\nConvention constitutes a comprehensive set of regulations intended to maintain the
\nhighest standards of competence globally (ISF, 2011).
\nHence, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
\nWatch-keeping for Seafarers (STCW) is placed as an important international
\nconvention that will affect the human element part in the maritime industry.
\n1.1.1 Back ground of STCW 1978
\nIt was noted at that time, there were different levels of seafarer training, period of
\ntraining and conditions of certification. Therefore, it is recognized that an
\ninternational platform is required to unify the standard for seafarer training some
\ntime in 1960 ~ 1970. Meanwhile, the Torrey Canyon accident led to
\ninternational concern about standard seafarer training requirements (Stenman,
\n2005)1
\n. As a result, the International Convention on Standards of Training,
\nCertification and Watch-keeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW 78) was adopted by
\nthe IMO diplomatic conference in London on 7 July, 1978, came into force on 28<\/p>\n
1
\nThe Liberian tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground outside the Scilly Isles, UK, on March 18, 1967
\nwith about 120,000 tonnes of crude oil.
\n2
\nApril 1984. This was the first step taken to establish global minimum seafarer
\ntraining standards. However, the STCW 78 does not specific standards and
\ncontrol mechanisms, and these led to different interpretations of standards; and
\nmany maritime authorities failed to administer and enforce the convention\u2019s
\nrequirements, resulting in either fraudulent or genuine but worthless certificates of
\ncompetency. Due to the above stated reasons, the STCW 78 lost its credibility
\nand as a consequence its intentions were not totally realized.
\n1.1.2 Background of STCW 1978, as amended 1995
\nDue to the shortcoming of STCW 78, a revision was decided at a Maritime Safety
\nCommittee meeting. The STW sub-committee was appointed to conduct a
\ncomprehensive review of the STCW 78 Convention in December 1992. The
\nobjective of the review was to transfer and allocate all technical requirements to
\nand associate Code, and ensure verification and control mechanisms. (Maquera,
\n1998). The first draft of the revised convention was considered by the member
\nstates in May 1993, and the amendments were adopted in July 1995 at the
\ninternational conference. The amendments came into force in February 1997.
\n1.1.3 STCW Comprehensive review of STCW 1978, as amended 1995
\nIn May 2006, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the International
\nMaritime Organisation (IMO) agreed to a comprehensive review of the STCW
\nConvention and the Code. The review was to ensure that the Convention met the
\nnew challenges faced by the shipping industry, and to enhance competencies of
\ncrews, while adapting them to the particular prerequisites, but not limited to, rapid
\ntechnological advances today and in the future. \u201cThis exercise is also timely and
\nopportune, given that more than ten years elapsed since the major revision of the
\nConvention in 1995, while several more limited amendments were introduced to it
\nin between and others are likely to ensue\u201d (European Commission, 2010).
\n3
\nThe review was conducted in two steps: First, for the sub-committee on Standards
\nof Training & Watch-keeping (STW) to establish the scope of review for MSC
\nendorsements; Second, for the STW to undertake the revision. In January 2007,
\nSTW 38 proposed the scope of review and was subsequently approved by
\nMaritime Safety Committee (MSC) in October the same year. The scope of the
\nreview covers the following principles:
\n1. Retain the structure and goals of the 1995 revision;
\n2. Do not down-scale existing standards;
\n3. Do not amend the articles of the Convention;
\n4. Address inconsistencies, interpretations, outdated provisions, MSC
\ninstructions, clarifications already issued and technological advances;
\n5. Address requirements for effective communication;
\n6. Provide for flexibility in terms of compliance and for required levels of
\ntraining and certification and watch-keeping arrangements due to innovation
\nin technology;
\n7. Address the special character and circumstances of short sea shipping and the
\noffshore industry; and
\n8. Address security-related issues. (IMO, 2007)
\nIn March 2008, STW 39 commenced the revision work. An Inter-Session
\nWorking Group (ISWG 1) was convened in September 2008 to review the STCW
\nConvention, and the result was presented by ISWG 1. STW 40 continued with
\nthe revision work and a preliminary draft text of the revised STCW Convention
\nwas agreed. A further revised text was finalised in STW 41 in January 2010
\nafter much deliberation. The proposed revised STCW Convention was endorsed
\nin May at the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) 87 session. The revised text
\nsubmitted for adoption by a Diplomatic Conference of the contracting Parties,
\ntook place in Manila in June 2010.
\n4
\n1.1.4 Diplomatic conference
\nThe Diplomatic Conference took place in Manila, the Philippines, from 21 to 25
\nJune 2010 under the auspicious of the IMO. It has adopted major revisions to
\nthe STCW 1978, as amended the 1995 Convention, and its associated Code.
\nMore than 500 delegates from 85 IMO member states as well as observers from
\nthree associate members, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the
\nEuropean Commission (EC) and 1(one) other intergovernmental organization; and
\n17 non-governmental organizations attended the conference (IMO, 2010).
\nThe principle for the revision was to ensure global standards for training and
\ncertification of seafarers to operate technologically advanced ships. The
\namendments, which are known as STCW Manila Amendments will come into
\nforce on 1 January 2012 under the tacit acceptance procedure. The objective of
\nthese amendments is to update the convention and code since it was last revised in
\n1995 and to address anticipated issues that are emerging.
\n1.2 Importance and purpose of the study
\nThere are about 1.4 million seafarers who were trained under the STCW Convention
\nin the world (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010).
\n2 In addition, there are numerous MET
\ninstitutions or universities located in these countries. Therefore, comprehensive
\nrevisions of STCW Manila Amendments will be a crucial factor to all seafarer supply
\ncountries to ensure that the highest standards of seafarer competence are maintained
\nglobally. The International Shipping Federation (ISF) and International Chamber of
\nShipping (ICS) stated that;
\nThe competence of seafarers is the most critical factor in the safe and efficient
\noperation of ships, and has a direct impact on the safety of life at sea and the
\nprotection of the marine environment. The STCW Convention constitutes a<\/p>\n
2
\nThe BIMCO\/ISF Manpower update report dates are from around 190 countries in the world.
\n5
\ncomprehensive set of international regulations intended to maintain the
\nhighest standards of competence globally\u201d. (ISF\/ ICS 2011, p4)
\nAs mentioned above the STCW Manila Amendments will entry into force on 1st
\nJanuary 2012 and have a 5 year grace period until 1st January 2017.
\nMost major seafarer supply countries are now amending or have already amended
\ntheir regulations to comply with the new amendment requirements. However, the
\nsame as after the major revision of STCW 1978 in 1995, there will be difficulties or
\nproblems met by MET institutes in implementing the new requirements within the
\ncountry (Maquera, 1998).
\nAlternative proposals or solutions should be available to resolve the difficulties or
\nproblems. Further amendments beyond the \u201cSTCW Manila amendments\u201d may be
\nrequired to enhance the aim of the STCW Convention. Therefore, this dissertation
\nwill propose further possible amendments of STCW Convention.
\nFollowing are broad questions that will be answer through the research done for this
\ndissertation,
\nz What was amended in the STCW Manila Amendments ? ;
\nz What is necessary to meet its requirements for MET institutes or
\nuniversities ? ;
\nz What kind of unexpected difficulties or problems will be in the Far East
\nregion countries ;
\nz What kinds of possible solutions can there be to meet its requirements and
\nsolving its unexpected difficulties or problems ? ; and
\nz What kind of further amendments should be required beyond the STCW
\nManila Amendments ?
\n1.3 Methodology and scope
\nThis study will conduct a detailed review of the STCW Manila Amendments and
\nsome materials such as the STW Sub-committee papers, related books, publications,
\n6
\nsome report dealing with the STCW Manila Amendments, dissertations which done
\nby former World Maritime University students, NGO\u2019s (Non Governmental
\nOrganization) reports and comments and BIMCO\/ISF manpower update report, will
\nbe used as the basic source of this dissertation research.
\nA questionnaire survey will be carried out to identify the opinions and status of MET
\ninstitutes or universities in implementing the STCW Manila Amendments locally.
\nThis dissertation will focus on Far East countries, which are the biggest seafarer
\nsupply region among five geographical areas3
\non the BIMCO\/ISF 2010 manpower
\nupdate report. The Far East region covering 30 percents officer and 37 percents
\nrating seafarer supplies and consists of 27 countries. (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010) The 7
\nbiggest seafarer supply countries among 27 Far East countries are the Philippines,
\nand followed by China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and
\nMalaysia in terms of the number of officer supply. Additional research will be
\ncarried out from the author\u2019s country such as status of training ship and accident rate
\nof certain type of ships. In addition, the author will carry out a case study to
\nunderstand hours of rest status in certain type of ships.
\nThis study consists of six chapters. Chapter one is the introduction. This chapter
\ndiscussed the background of the study, importance and purpose of the study and
\nmethodology and scope.
\nChapter two is a detailed review of the STCW Manila Amendments, covering the
\nmain amendments of each chapter of the STCW Manila Amendments, except chapter
\nIV and VII since the amendments are relatively minor.
\nChapter three will provide analysis of the difficulties, problems and challenges
\nfaced in complying with the STCW Manila Amendments by the Far East region
\ncountries. A survey had been carried out through questionnaires to 7 main MET
\ninstitutes or universities located in the Philippines, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the
\nRepublic of Korea, Singapore and Malaysia.<\/p>\n
3
\nOECD countries, Eastern Europe, Africa\/Latin America, Indian Sub-continent and Far East.
\n7
\nChapter four will propose the possible solutions for the problems raised by the main
\n7 countries\u2019 MET institutes or universities in the Far East region. This chapter will
\nlook into possible systems or programs with reasonable research.
\nChapter five will cover the necessity for further amendments to the STCW Manila
\nAmendments. The training requirement for tug-barge operators and the IMDG
\nCode training for seafarers will be discussed in this chapter.
\nChapter six is the conclusion of this dissertation. It will highlight the amendments
\ndone during comprehensive review of the STCW Convention 78, as amended 95. It
\nalso identifies the difficulties or problems faced in the Far East region\u2019s main MET
\ninstitutes or universities with brief proposals. Lastly, this chapter will provide
\nsuggestions to the Far East major seafarer supply countries or MET institutes and
\nIMO to solve their difficulties and problems faced with effective implementation of
\nthe STCW Manila Amendments.
\n8
\nCHAPTER 2
\nDETAILED REVIEWS OF THE STCW MANILA
\nAMENDMENTS
\n2.1 Introduction
\nThe comprehensive review of the STCW 78, as amended 95 had made major
\nrevisions from Chapter I to VIII. This resulted in the creation of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments. This chapter will give detailed reviews of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments from Chapter I to VIII with the exceptions of Chapter IV and VII as the
\namendments are minor.
\n2.2 Chapter I – Regulation I, Section A\/I and B\/I
\n2.2.1 Regulation I\/1 \u201cDefinitions and clarifications\u201d
\nThe definitions of several important terms have been revised. Table 1
\nsummarises the definitions that have been revised and the new definitions in
\nRegulation I\/1.
\nThe previous term \u201cappropriate certificate\u201d, which was left for interpretation by
\nadministrations, has now been defined specifically in the \u201cSTCW Manila
\nAmendments\u201d as Certificate of Competency (CoC), Certificate of Proficiency
\n(CoP) and documentary evidence as appropriate to discourage the fraudulent
\npractices for CoC and CoP.
\nNew definitions have also been developed to specify the qualification required for
\nElectro-Technical Officers (ETO) and Electro-Technical Ratings (ETR), which
\nwas previously not defined in STCW 78, as amended 95. Under STCW 95, there
\nare no requirements on proof of competency for deck and engine ratings. However,
\nin the STCW Manila Amendments, the ratings which are serving on seagoing
\n9
\nships of 500 G\/T or more will have to obtain certification showing their
\ncompetency in areas such as navigation, cargo handling and stowage, controlling
\nthe operation of the ship and care for persons, maintenance and repair, at the
\nsupport level.4
\nNew definitions for the ISPS Code, Ship Security Officer (SSO) and Security
\nduties has been added to reflect the latest development arising from the
\nimplementation of the ISPS Code.
\nTherefore, it is of utmost importance for administrations, which are parties to the
\nSTCW Convention to understand these new definitions correctly to ensure that
\ncertificates are issued in a proper way.<\/p>\n
4
\nRegulation II\/5, Section A-II\/5, Table A-II\/5
\n10
\nTable 1 Comparison table for existing and new definition
\nTerms Existing Definition New Definition
\nEngineer officer
\n(Reg. I\/1.7)
\n– Officer qualified in accordance
\nwith the provisions of chapter III
\nof the Convention
\n– Officer qualified in accordance with the provisions
\nof regulation III\/1, III\/2 or III\/3 of the Convention
\nGMDSS radio
\noperator
\n(Reg. I\/1.12)
\n– Person holding an appropriate
\ncertificate issued or recognized
\nby the administration under the
\nprovisions of the Radio
\nRegulations
\n– Person who is qualified in accordance with the
\nprovision of chapter IV of the Convention
\nRo-ro passenger
\nship
\n(Reg. I\/1.21)
\n– Passenger ship with ro-ro cargo
\nor special category spaces as
\ndefined in the SOLAS.
\n– Passenger ship with ro-ro spaces or special
\ncategory spaces as defined in the SOLAS.
\nPassenger ship
\n(Reg. I\/1.20) N.A. – Ship as defined in the SOLAS
\nISPS Code
\n(Reg. I\/1.27) N.A.
\n– ISPS Code adopted on 12 December 2002 by
\nresolution 2 of the Conference of Contracting
\nGovernments to the SOLAS by the organization
\nShip Security
\nOfficer
\n(Reg. I\/1.27)
\nN.A.
\n– The person on board the ship, accountable to the
\nmaster, designated by the company as responsible
\nfor the security of the ship including
\nimplementation and maintenance of the ship
\nsecurity plan and liaison with the company
\nsecurity officer and port facility security officers;
\nSecurity duties
\n(Reg. I\/1.29) N.A.
\n– Include all security tasks and duties on board ships
\nas defined by chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS and the
\nISPS Code
\nCertificate of
\nCompetency
\n(Reg. I\/1.30)
\nN.A.
\n– Certificate issues and endorsed for masters and
\nofficers and GMDSS radio operators in accordance
\nwith the provisions of chapters II, III, IV and VII.
\nCertificate of
\nProficiency
\n(Reg. I\/1.31)
\nN.A.
\n– Certificate, other than a certificate of competency
\nissued to a seafarer, stating that the relevant
\nrequirements of training, competencies or seagoing
\nservice in the Convention have bee met
\nDocumentary
\nevidence
\n(Reg. I\/1.32)
\nN.A.
\n– Documentation, other than a CoC or CoP, used to
\nestablish that the relevant requirements of the
\nConvention have been met;
\nElectro-technical
\nofficer
\n(Reg. I\/1.33)
\nN.A.
\n– Officer qualified in accordance with the provisions
\nof regulation III\/6 of the Convention
\nAble seafarer
\ndeck
\n(Reg. I\/1.34)
\nN.A.
\n– Rating qualified in accordance with the provisions
\nof regulation II\/5 of the Convention
\nAble seafarer
\nengine
\n(Reg. I\/1.35)
\nN.A.
\n– Rating qualified in accordance with the provisions
\nof regulation III\/5 of the Convention
\nElectro-technical
\nrating
\n(Reg. I\/1.36)
\nN.A.
\n– Rating qualified in accordance with the provisions
\nof regulation III\/5 of the Convention
\nSource: STCW Manila amendments Chapter I, regulation I\/1
\n11
\n2.2.2 Regulation I\/2 \u201cCertificates and endorsements\u201d
\nThe increasing fraudulent practices associated with CoC and endorsements have
\nled to the addition of regulation I\/2. According to the study carried out by the
\nSeafarers International Research Centre on \u201cfraudulent practices associated with
\ncertificates of competency and endorsements\u201d 5 , 9 percent of the surveyed
\nseafarers possess fake certifications. Based on deriving methodology, the study
\nconcluded that there are approximately 40,500 seafarers likely to hold fraudulent
\ncertificate. (Seafarers International Research Centre (SIRC), 2001)
\nTo reduce fraudulent practices associated with CoC, the STCW Manila
\nAmendments established \u201cwho\u201d6
\ncan issue a CoC and \u201cwhen\u201d7
\na CoC or an
\nendorsement attesting recognition can be issued in Chapter I regulation I\/2. In
\naddition, several new paragraphs highlighted the requirement on checking for
\nauthentication on the certificates prior to recognising such certificates from other
\ncountries had been included.8
\nEnforcement rights have also been added in
\nregulation I\/5 for parties to the Convention to act against unlawful practices
\ninvolving certification and endorsements.9
\nAccording to Article II (c) of the STCW Manila Amendments, \u2018Certificate\u201910
\nmay be issued \u201cby the Administration or under the authorisation of the
\nAdministration or recognized by the Administration\u201d. However, more stringent
\nrequirements have been imposed for issuance of CoC and certificates relating to<\/p>\n
5
\nThe study was carried out via surveys on 1,105 seafarers of all ranks from six countries. These six
\ncountries\u2019 have a total of 450,190 seafarers, which covers 25% of officers and 42 % of rating in the
\nworld.
\n6
\nRegulation I\/2, paragraph 1 Certificates of competency shall be issued only by the administration,
\nfollowing verification of the authenticity and validity of any necessary documentary evidence.
\n7
\nRegulation I\/2, paragraph 7: An administration which recognized under regulation I\/10 shall
\nendorse such certificate to attest its recognition only after ensuring the authenticity and validity of the
\ncertificate.
\n8
\nRegulations V\/1-1 and V\/1-2 : Tanker provisions
\n9
\nChapter I, Regulation I\/5, paragraph 2
\n10 Certificate means a valid document, by whatever name it may be known, issued by or under the
\nauthority of the Administration or recognized by the Administration authorizing the holder to serve as
\nstated in this document or as authorized by national regulations.
\n12
\ntanker operations.11 It has been specifically stated that these certificates should
\nonly be issued by an Administration.
\nThe following Table 2 is an extract from the STCW Code, as amended: Part B,
\nChapter I \u2013 General provisions, Table B-I\/2. It summarises the requirements on
\nthe types of certifications, endorsement attesting recognition of a certificate,
\nregistration, and revalidations required under the Convention in accordance to the
\nrank of the person on board ships.
\nTable 2 List of certificates or documentary evidence required
\nRegulations Type of certificate and brief
\ndescription
\nEndorsement
\nattesting recognition
\nof a certificate
\nRegistration
\nrequired
\nRevalidation
\nof certificate
\nII\/1, II\/2, II\/3,
\nIII\/1, III\/2, III\/3,
\nIII\/6, IV\/2, VII\/2
\nCoC-for masters, officers and
\nGMDSS radio operators Yes Yes Yes
\nII\/4, III\/4, VII\/2 CoP-For ratings duly certified
\nto be a part of a navigational
\nor engine-room watch
\nNo Yes No
\nII\/5, III\/5, III\/7,
\nVII\/2
\nCoP-For ratings duly certified
\nas able seafarer deck, able
\nseafarer engine or electortechnical rating
\nNo Yes No
\nV\/1-1, V\/1-2 CoP or endorsement to a
\nCoC-For masters and officers
\non oil, chemical or liquefied
\ngas tankers
\nYes Yes Yes
\nV\/1-1, V\/1-2 CoP-For ratings on oil,
\nchemical or liquefied gas
\ntankers
\nNo Yes No
\nV\/2 Documentary evidenceTraining for masters, officers,
\nratings and other personnel
\nserving on passenger ships
\nNo No No
\nVI\/1 CoP-Basic training No Yes Yes
\nVI\/2 CoP-Survival craft, rescue
\nboats and fast rescue boats No Yes Yes
\nVI\/3 CoP-Advanced fire fighting No Yes Yes
\nVI\/4 CoP-Medical first aid and
\nmedical care No Yes No
\nVI\/5 CoP-Ship security officer No Yes No
\nVI\/6 CoP-Sucurity awareness
\ntraining or security training
\nfor seafarers with designated
\nsecurity duties
\nNo Yes No
\nSource: STCW Manila Amendments Section B table B-I\/2<\/p>\n
11 Regulations V\/1-1 and V\/1-2
\n13
\n2.2.3 Regulation I\/3 \u201cPrinciples governing near-coastal voyages\u201d
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments have made the adoption of the near-coastal
\nvoyages limits easier. Previously, parties are required to have an \u201cagreement\u201d,
\nwhich is binding to both countries prior to the adoption of the near-coastal voyage
\nlimits. Under the new amendments, parties will only be required to have an
\n\u201carrangement\u201d, which can be in the format of a Memorandum of Undertaking
\n(MoU) 12. Nevertheless, the parties will still be required to keep the SecretaryGeneral informed of such bilateral or multilateral arrangements13, so that the
\ninformation could be circulated to all parties.
\n2.2.4 Regulation I\/6 \u201cTraining and assessment\u201d
\nDue to the development of technology and demand for more convenient training
\nprograms, distance learning and E-learning are gaining popularity. To ensure the
\nquality and methodology of such programs, guidance on distance learning and Elearning have been added in Section B-I\/6. It sets the requirements for parties to
\nensure the quality and method for providing distance learning and E-learning, it
\nalso states the requirement for companies to provide sufficient time for trainees to
\nstudy.14 Section B-I\/6 also states the assessing procedures on the trainee\u2019s
\nprogress and achievements under the distance learning and E-learning program.
\nCurrently, many MET institutes or universities in the world are already running
\nthe distance learning and E-learning system. However, some MET institutes are
\nfacing challenges to cope with these programs especially those in Far East
\ncountries where the internet and computer technology is not at an advance stage.
\nFurther details on the problems faced by the Far East MET institutes or
\nuniversities will be discussed in Chapter 3 of this study.<\/p>\n
12 STCW Chapter I regulation I\/3, paragraph 2
\n13 STCW Chapter I Regulation 1\/3, paragraph 6.2
\n14 Section B-I\/6, paragraph 8
\n14
\n2.2.5 Regulation I\/7 \u201cCommunication of information\u201d
\nIn the STCW Manila Amendments, the \u201ccommunication of information\u201d has now
\nbeen divided into 4 parts, namely, Part 1 that covers the initial communication of
\ninformation of general information such as contact details, clear statement of the
\neducation, training, examination, certification policies and concise outline of
\nprocedures and summary of procedures; Part 2 that covers the subsequent reports
\nrequired to be carried out by the party within six months under various scenarios.
\nThis part covers the information on the qualifications and experience of those who
\nconducted the Assessment and results of the independent Assessment; Part 3 covers
\nthe requirement to maintain a panel of competent persons who may be called upon
\nto evaluate the reports submitted and to Help in the preparation of the report
\nrequired by regulation I\/7, paragraph 2. It also require parties to establish
\nprocedures for communication of information to IMO and at the same time
\nindicating the competent person for this task; and Part 4 covers the reporting task
\nof the Secretary-General to the Maritime Safety Committee and the guiding
\nprinciple of such report. In the STCW amendments, the communication of
\ninformation procedures is clearer and more organized.
\n2.2.6 Regulation I\/9 \u201cMedical standards\u201d
\nThe medical standards only act as guidance (Section B-I\/9) in STCW 95.
\nHowever, it has become mandatory in STCW Manila Amendments with this new
\nmedical standards, seafarers will not be require to carry out additional medical
\nexamination when working in different countries. The validity of the medical
\ncertificate has also been standardized to 2 years validity, except for seafarers who
\nare under 18 years old, in this case the validity is reduced to 1 year. The medical
\ncertificate maybe extended by 3 months after the term of validity.
\nAs it currently stands, only the standards of physical and medical fitness with
\nspecification on minimum eyesight standards has been made mandatory as
\ndescribed in Section A-I\/9. The standards on minimum entry level and in-
\n15
\nservice physical abilities for seafarers are still standing as guidance in Section BI\/9. Consideration should be made to include the minimum entry level and inservice physical abilities mandatory in order to be in-line with the criteria stated in
\nSection A-I\/9, paragraph 2.
\nOther than specifying the physical and medical fitness for seafarers, Section A-I\/9
\nalso states the requirement for the medical fitness examinations of seafarers are to
\nbe carried out by qualified medical practitioners recognised by the parties. The
\nlist of these medical practitioners should be made available to other parties,
\ncompanies and seafarers when required.
\nAlthough improvements have been made in the new Convention to standardize
\nsome of the medical standard requirements, but the standards on medical fitness
\nexaminations of seafarers still depend on the standards of the parties to the
\nConvention. Hence, the International Labour Organization (ILO) initiated a joint
\nworking-group among ILO, IMO and the World Health Organization (WHO) in
\ndeveloping the medical standards. However, WHO did not respond to the
\nrequest. (ILO, IMO, 2010) A joint working-group was formed between ILOIMO on 4th October 2010 held in Geneva after the STCW diplomatic conference.
\nThe medical standards have been targeted to be completed by the end of 2011,
\nand the guidelines will be submitted to the IMO MSC and ILO Governing Body
\nin 2012. If the guidelines are accepted in IMO, MSC, they might be adopted as
\nstandard guidelines for medical standards for all parties to the Convention.
\n2.2.7 Regulation I\/11 \u201cRevalidation of certificates\u201d
\nRegulation I\/11, paragraph 3 and Section A-I\/11, paragraph 3 are new
\nrequirements for ship masters and officers working on board tankers to establish
\ncontinued professional competence for tankers. Continued professional
\ncompetences were defined as an approved seagoing service under the appropriate
\nfunction as required under the certificate for a period of at least:
\n16
\na) Twelve months in total during the preceding five years; or
\nb) Three months in total during the preceding six months immediately prior to
\nrevalidating; or
\nc) Having performed in the capacity considered to be equivalent to the seagoing
\nservice required; or
\nd) Passing an approved test; or
\ne) Completing an approved training course(s); or
\nf) Having performed in capacity as required by the certificate for a period of not
\nless than three months as a supernumerary.15
\nIt is important to ensure the professional competence of officers working on board
\ntankers. As tankers are involved in carriage of bulk liquid, which is opined, to
\nbe of higher risk and may cause substantial pollution to the environment. Hence,
\nit is essential to ascertain the quality of ship masters and officers to ensure safety
\nof navigation.
\nThe functional differences between tankers and general ships are;
\nz Tankers : performing duties appropriate to the tanker certificate or
\nendorsement held
\nz General ships (container, bulk carrier etc.): performing functions appropriate
\nto the certificate held.
\nTherefore, the party, shipping company and seafarer have to make sure these
\nrequirements are met to revalidate the certificates. In addition, if application for
\nrevalidation is made within six months before expiry the certificate may be
\nrevalidated until the fifth anniversary of the date of validity.16<\/p>\n
15 STCW Manila Amendments Section A-I\/11, paragraph 1
\n16 STCW Manila Amendments Section B-I\/11, paragraph 4
\n17
\n2.2.8 Regulation I\/12 Use of simulators
\nThis regulation is the evidence of new and innovative training methodology
\ndevelopments. For instance, it was agreed that simulator systems could be used
\nfor VTS training, during comprehensive review of the STCW Convention in STW
\nsub-committee 41 sessions on January 2010 (IMO, 2010). Requirements for
\ntraining and assessment in the operational use of Electronic Chart Display and
\nInformation Systems (ECDIS) have also been included in Section B-I\/12. A total
\nof 84 new competence areas were added, such as methods for demonstrating
\ncompetence in approved simulator training, where appropriate (DNV, 2010).
\nThese new regulations show the rise of importance of simulation training for
\nseafarers, thence, it will be essential factor influencing the operation of MET
\ninstitutes or universities.
\n2.2.9 Regulation I\/14 Responsibilities of companies
\nTwo new provisions have been inserted under the companies\u2019 responsibilities in
\nthis regulation. These include the requirements to provide refresher and
\nupdating training, and ensuring effective oral communication on board.17
\nAs mentioned in Chapter I, the human element is a very important factor to keep
\nship\u2019s safety. Seafarers\u2019 competence through education and training is one of
\nthe most important parts to ensure that the human element is maintained in a
\nproper way. The importance of MET training is discussed as follows;
\nAfter any incident needing the involvement of authorities, the first thing an
\ninspector of Marine Investigation Branch does on boarding the vessel is to
\ncheck the competence and training of the seafarers on board. (Surugiu and
\nNistor, 2010, p 62)<\/p>\n
17 Regulation I\/14, paragraph 1 .3 and .7
\n18
\nA well-trained seafarer will be valuable asset to the ship owner. Having welltrained seafarers directly demonstrate the company\u2019s responsibility towards
\nsafety and at the same time be seen by the public as having quality and
\ncompetitive operation. (Surugiu and Nistor, 2010, p 62)
\nLikewise, effective communications on board is an essential ingredient to safe and
\nefficient ship operations. \u201cAnd when in an operational situation such as berthing
\na ship or fighting a fire, it is vitally important that those involved can
\ncommunicate effectively.\u201d (Istanbul Technical University, 2002)
\nThese are the reasons that lead to amendment of Regulation I\/14.
\n2.2.10 Regulation I\/15 Transitional provisions
\nFigure 1 shows transitional provisions briefly. The implementation dates of the
\nSTCW Manila Amendments are as follows;
\nz 1 January 2012: the STCW Manila Amendments will enter into force
\nz 1 January 2013: the governments need to report to IMO to give the STCW
\nManila Amendments complete and full effect.
\nz 1 July 2013: Seafarers who start training after this date have to follow
\ntraining requirements of the STCW Manila Amendments.
\nz 1 January 2014: Seafarers who commenced service before 1 January 2012
\nhave to meet the requirements of security training.
\nz 1 January 2017: Governments may continue to renew and revalidate existing
\ncertificate and endorsements in accordance with the STCW provisions which
\napplied immediately prior to 1 January 2012.<\/p>\n
19
\n1 January 2012 1 January 2013 1 July 2013 1 January 2014 1 January 2017
\nSource: (ISF, ICS, 2011, p. 16)
\nFigure 1 Transitional provisions
\n2.3 Chapter II – Regulation II, Section A\/II and B\/II
\nThe amendments to this chapter covers demonstration of additional competence by
\nthe officers at operational level and senior officers at management level in Sections
\nThe 2010
\nManila
\namendments
\nEnter into force
\nTraining and
\nCertification
\nMay continue in
\naccordance with
\nSTCW 95
\nSome
\nGovernments
\nMay begin to
\nIntroduce new
\nstandards
\nNew minimum
\nRest hours
\nenforced
\nGovernments to
\nreport to IMO
\non steps taken to
\ngive the revised
\nConvention full
\nand complete
\neffect
\nSTCW 2010
\ncertification for all
\nseafarers
\nGovernment may continue to renew
\nand revalidate pre 1 January 2012
\ncertificates and endorsements and
\ngovernments may continue to issue,
\nrecognise and endorse certificates in
\naccordance with the provisions of the
\nConvention which applied
\nimmediately prior to 1 January 2012
\nin respect of those seafarers who
\ncommenced training immediately
\nprior to 1 July 2013
\nNew entrants
\ncommencing
\ntraining are
\nrequired to do so
\naccording to the
\nnew standards
\nMandatory
\nsecurity training
\nin accordance with
\nManila
\namendments
\nNew Training
\nStandards Optional
\nNew Training
\nStandards Mandatory
\n20
\nA\/II and B\/II. Areas that have been identified for such competence requirements
\nare functions involving navigation and controlling the operation of the ship and care
\nfor persons on board.
\nThe operational level is applicable for officers in charge of a navigational watch on
\nships of 500 G\/T or more18. They will have to demonstrate competence in using
\nadvanced technology, such as ECDIS, use of effective communication, and ability to
\ntransmit and receive visual signalling such as, the Morse code signalling in the area
\nfor navigation safety. Although it was agreed in the STW sub-committee that the
\nusage of the Morse code has been gradually reduced, it is vital to maintain such
\ntraining as an aid to navigation such as buoys and lighthouses are still using the
\nMorse signalling. Under the function for controlling the operation of the ship, the
\nofficers will have to demonstrate their competence in ensuring compliance with
\npollution prevention requirements, and application of leadership and team working
\nskills such as Bridge Resources Management (BRM).
\nThe management level is applicable for masters and chief mates on ships of 500 G\/T
\nor more. The Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) areas has been identified as an
\nadditional area where additional competence has to be shown when planning a
\nvoyage and conducting navigation. The competence in using of Decca and Loran
\nhas also been replaced with the competence in using of terrestrial electronic positionfixing systems. Additional competence requirements have also been included in
\nareas such as management of operational procedures, system files and data to Help
\nin command decision-making during navigation. They will also be required to
\ndemonstrate additional functional competence in the use of leadership and
\nmanagerial skill.
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments state that irreducible minimum approved seagoing
\nservices require a minimum of 12 months including 6 months supervised bridge<\/p>\n
18 STCW Section A-II\/1 \u201cSpecification of minimum standard of competence for officers in charge of
\na navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more\u201d
\n21
\nwatch-keeping period as part of an approved training program for every candidate, as
\nthe old STCW Convention stated. The different thing is that the trainees must
\nfollow a programme of \u2018structured in-service training\u2019 approved by the
\nadministration issuing their certificate. \u201cStructured in-service training means a
\nprogram approved by a government to ensure that trainees actually practise and
\ndemonstrate their competence to perform the particular tasks and duties that will be
\nrequired of them when they are qualified\u201d. (ISF, 2011, p 36) These requirements
\nare not new, however some MET institutes or universities continually suffering when
\ntraining to meet the requirements of seagoing service period. Therefore, the author
\nwill discuss this issue in Chapter 3 with questionnaire paper responses from 7 MET
\ninstitutes or universities among 7 Far East countries.
\nOne of the main amendments in this chapter is the inclusion of minimum
\ncertification requirements of ratings as able seafarer deck19. This new requirement
\nleads to standardization of the competence level of the able seafarers specially in the
\nknowledge and skills in handling of deck and mooring equipment.
\n\u201cThe STCW qualification of Able Seafarer Deck is intended to reflect the wide range
\nof tasks undertaken by more experienced deck ratings and should serve as an
\nincentive for training and career progression\u201d. (ISF, 2011, p 60) According to the
\nnew competences for able seafarer deck, they should contribute to safe navigational
\nwatch, handling of cargo and stores, operation of deck equipment and machinery,
\nprevention of pollution, operate survival craft and rescue boats and shipboard
\nmaintenance and repair (BIMCO, 2010).
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments have catered for continuous renewal and
\nrevalidation for existing able seafarer deck certificates issued in accordance with ILO
\nNo 74, until 1st January 2017. However, some administrations may require new
\ncandidates to be certified in accordance with the STCW Manila Amendments
\ncompetence standards for able seafarer deck as from 1st January 2012.<\/p>\n
19 STCW Chapter II – Regulation II\/5
\n22
\n2.4 Chpater III – Regulation III, Section A\/III and B\/III
\nThe STCW Manila Amendment Chapter III prescribes the standards for seafarers
\nworking in the engine department. It describes the minimum requirements for
\ncertifications of officers and ratings of different functional levels working in the
\nengine room. Major amendments are presented in this chapter.
\nThe on board training requirements for officers in charge of an engineering watch or
\ndesignated duty engineer on seagoing ship powered by main propulsion machinery of
\n750 kW propulsion power or more has been increased from 6 months, to not less
\nthan 12 months as part of an approved training program including on board training
\nwith a documented training record book. Alternatively, the candidate could chose
\nto complete a combined workshop skills training and an approved seagoing service
\nof not less than 36 months of which not less than 30 months must be seagoing
\nservice in the engine department20. With this amendment, the on board training
\nperiod of junior engineers is synchronized with junior deck officers.
\nSimilar to the new minimum certification requirements for able seafarers deck in
\nRegulation II\/5, the able seafarers engine are required to be duly certified. There
\nare two certification categories for the able seafarers engine, namely, those Forming
\nPart of an Engineering Watch (RFPEW), and those acting as able seafarers in the
\nengine-room. According to BIMCO manpower 2010 update, there are approximately
\n747,000 ratings engaged in the maritime industry as of 2010. (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010)
\nTherefore, this new amendments will have significant impact on the industry
\nparticularly to countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines
\nwhich are the major ratings supply countries (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010).
\nAnother main amendment in this chapter is the introduction of a new minimum
\ncertification category for Electro-Technical Officers and Ratings21. The purpose of
\nthis category is to address the increasing demand for such expertise on board the<\/p>\n
20 STCW Manila Amendments Chapter III -Regulation III\/1, paragraph 2.2
\n21 STCW Manila Amendments Chapter III- Regulation III\/6 and III\/7
\n23
\nvessels due to the electronic control system of the ship is main propulsion and
\nequipments.
\nIn addition, some special competences were added in Section A-III in connection
\nwith Chapter III – Regulation III\/1 ~ III\/7 for all levels of engineers and ratings.
\nThe Engine-Room resource Management (ERM) and team-work and leadership
\ntraining are now mandatory at both the operational and management levels.
\nDue to the numerous changes in Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP),
\nall the MET institutes or universities have to consider changing their education and
\ntraining curriculum to comply with the STCW Manila Amendments within in its
\nimplementation time lines.
\n24
\nTable 3 Amended competence for engineers
\nCapacity affected Section New KUP22 required
\nOfficers in charge of an
\nengineering watch
\nSection A-III
\nTable A-III\/1
\n\u2022 Use of internal communication
\n\u2022 Operate main and auxiliary machinery and associated control systems
\n\u2022 Operate electrical, electronic and control systems
\n\u2022 Maintenance and repair of electrical and electronic equipment
\n\u2022 Application of leadership and teamwork skills
\nChief engineer and
\nsecond engineer officers
\non ships powered by
\nmain propulsion
\nmachinery of 3,000 kW
\npropulsion or more
\nSection A-III
\nTable A-III\/2
\n\u2022 Manage the operation of propulsion plant machinery
\n\u2022 Plan and schedule operations
\n\u2022 Operation, surveillance, performance assessment and maintaining
\nsafety of propulsion plant and auxiliary machinery
\n\u2022 Manage operation of electrical and electronic control equipment
\n\u2022 Use leadership and managerial skills
\nRatings as able seafarer
\nengine
\nSection A-III\/5
\ntable A-III\/5
\nContribute to:
\n\u2022 a safe engineering watch
\n\u2022 the monitoring and controlling of an engine-room watch
\n\u2022 fuelling and oil transfer operations
\n\u2022 bilge and ballast operations
\n\u2022 operation of equipment and machinery
\n\u2022 safe use of electrical equipment
\n\u2022 shipboard maintenance and repair
\n\u2022 handling of stores
\nApply precautions on and contribute to:
\n\u2022 prevention and pollution of the marine environment
\n\u2022 occupational health and safety procedures
\nElectro-technical officers Section A-III\/5
\ntable A-III\/5
\n\u2022 monitor the operation of electrical, electronic and control systems
\n\u2022 monitor operation of automatic control systems of propulsion and
\nauxiliary machinery
\n\u2022 operate generators and distribution systems
\n\u2022 operate and maintain power systems in excess of 1,000 volts
\n\u2022 operate computers and computer networks on ships
\n\u2022 use internal communication systems
\n\u2022 maintenance and repair of:
\n– electrical and electronic equipment
\n– automation and control systems of main propulsion and auxiliary
\nmachinery
\n– electrical, electronic and control systems of deck machinery and cargohandling equipment
\n\u2022 ensure compliance with pollution-prevention requirements
\n\u2022 prevent, control and fight fire on board
\n\u2022 operate life-saving appliances
\n\u2022 apply medical first aid on board
\n\u2022 application of leadership and team-working skills
\n\u2022 contribute to the safety of personnel and ship
\nElectro-technical ratings Section A-III\/7
\nand table AIII\/7
\n\u2022 Safe use of electrical equipment
\n\u2022 Contribute to monitoring the operation of electrical systems and
\nmachinery
\n\u2022 Use hand tools, electrical and electronic measurement equipment for
\nfault finding, maintenance and repair operations
\n\u2022 Contribute to shipboard maintenance and repair
\n\u2022 Contribute to maintenance and repair of electrical systems and
\nmachinery on board
\n\u2022 Contribute to the handling of stores
\n\u2022 Apply precautions and contribute to the prevention of pollution of the
\nmarine environment
\n\u2022 Apply occupational health and safety procedures
\nSource: STCW Manila amendments Section A-III\/1 ~ III\/7<\/p>\n
22 Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP)
\n25
\n2.5 Chapter V- Regulation V, Section A\/V and B\/V
\nSTCW Chapter V is standards regarding special training requirements for personnel
\non certain types of ships. This includes tankers (oil, chemical and liquefied gas
\ntankers) and passenger ships.
\nThe mandatory requirements for the training and qualifications of masters, officers,
\nand ratings on tankers have been split into two parts as follows;
\nz Oil and Chemical tankers; and
\nz Liquefied Gas tankers
\nThere are two levels, i.e. basic and advanced training, of certifications requirements
\nfor both the oil and chemical tankers, and liquefied gas tankers.
\nFor officers and engineers with \u201cimmediate responsibility\u201d 23 for loading,
\ndischarging, care in transit, handling of cargo, tank cleaning or other cargo-related
\noperations on oil tankers will be required to obtain a certificate in advanced training
\nfor oil tanker cargo operations.\u201d24
\nThe previous requirements on standards of competence have been removed and
\nreplaced with a new category standard of competence in Section A\/V.
\nThe requirement for certification in basic training and advanced training for oil,
\nchemical and liquefied gas tanker is summarised in Figure 2 as follows :<\/p>\n
23 The term \u201cperson with immediate responsibility\u201d means a person in a decision-making capacity
\nwith respect to loading, discharging, care in transit, handling of cargo, tank cleaning or other cargorelated operations. (STCW Manila Amendments Chapter V, Section B-V\/1, paragraph 1)
\n24 STCW Manila Amendments Chapter V, Regulation V\/1-1, paragraphs 3.
\n26
\nSource: author
\nFigure 2 Certification procedures of tankers
\n(Oil, Chemical and Liquefied gas tanker)<\/p>\n
or or
\nor
\nand and
\nApproved basic
\ntraining for oil
\nand chemical
\ntankers
\n– 3 months sea-time
\non oil or chemical
\ntankers and;
\n– meet competence
\nSection A-V\/1-1
\nCertification of Basic
\nOil and Chemical tanker
\nOil tanker Chemical tanker
\n3 months approved
\nsea-time
\non oil tanker
\nz1 month onboard
\ntraining oil tanker
\nzSupernumerary
\ncapacity
\nz3 loading and
\nunloading
\noperations
\nzTraining record
\nbook
\n3 months approved
\nsea-time
\non chemical tanker
\nz1 month onboard
\ntraining chemical
\ntanker
\nzSupernumerary
\ncapacity
\nz3 loading and
\nunloading operations
\nzTraining record
\nbook
\nCertification of
\nadvanced
\nOil tanker
\nCertification of
\nadvanced chemical
\ntanker
\nAdvanced training
\ncourse of oil tanker
\nAdvanced training
\ncourse of chemical
\ntanker
\nand
\nor
\nor
\nApproved basic
\ntraining for
\nliquefied gas
\ntankers
\n– 3 months sea-time
\non liquefied gas
\ntankers and;
\n– meet competence
\nSection A-V\/1-2
\nCertification of Basic
\nliquefied gas tanker
\nLiquefied gas tanker
\n3 months approved
\nsea-time on liquefied
\ngas tanker
\nz 1 month onboard
\ntraining liquefied gas
\ntanker
\nz Supernumerary
\ncapacity
\nz 3 loading and
\nunloading operations
\nz Training record book
\nCertification of
\nadvanced liquefied
\ngas tanker
\nAdvanced training
\ncourse of liquefied
\ngas tanker
\n27
\nNew tables, A-V\/1-1-1, table A-V\/1-1-2 and table A-V\/1-1-3 have been inserted for
\ndescription of the standards of competence in basic training for oil and chemical
\ntankers, advanced training for oil tankers and advanced training for chemical tankers.
\nTable A-V\/1-2-1 and Table A-V\/1-2-2 on the standards of competence in basic
\ntraining for liquefied gas tankers and advanced training for liquefied gas tankers have
\nalso been created.
\nIn addition to the basic fire-fighting course, new competence requirements in
\ncarrying out fire-fighting operations on all types of tankers have been included.
\nOther new KUPs were added in standards of competence in advanced training for all
\ntypes of tankers, such as vapour recovery system, ship-to-ship transfers, precautions
\nfor hot and cold work, cargo operations emergency shutdown and enclosed space
\nrescue.
\nThe training and qualifications requirements for officers and personnel on board RoRo passenger ships have been unified with passenger ships in regulations V\/2. It
\nmeans only one category of passenger ships will be applicable after the STCW
\nManila Amendments. A new section on passenger safety, cargo safety and hull
\nintegrity training is created in Section A-V\/2. Recommendatory guidance for
\nofficers and personnel on board offshore supply vessels25 (OSV) and ships operating
\nin polar waters26 has been included in Section B-V. It generally covers training
\nand qualification required and specific training items such as operating dynamic
\npositioning (DP) systems which have been prescribed in detail.
\n2.6 Chapter VI – Regulation VI, Section A\/VI and B\/VI
\nThe STCW Manila amendments chapter VI incorporates proficiency in emergency,
\noccupational safety, medical care and survival functions. The term \u201cCertificate of
\nProficiency\u201d has replaced the phrase special certificate or documentary evidence, as
\nappropriate to ensure consistency of interpretation among administrations.<\/p>\n
25 Section B-V\/e
\n26 Section B-V\/g
\n28
\nRegulation VI\/6 \u201cMandatory minimum requirements for security-related training
\nand instruction for all seafarers\u201d was also added, in view of the increasing piracy
\nand armed robbery accidents at sea. Figure 3 shows piracy incidents that have
\noccurred since 1984. As can be seen, the total number of piracy and armed robbery
\nincidents are on the rise until 2000. It then fluctuated between 2000 and 2004, and
\nstarted to rise again from year 2006.
\nSource: (International Maritime Organization, 2011)
\nFigure 3 Yearly statistics of piracy incidents occurred since 1984
\nThe types of new security training as stated in the amendments are as follows :
\nz Security-related familiarization training; (all crew members)27
\nz Security-awareness training or instruction; and (ISPS Code, all crew
\nmembers )28
\nz Training for seafarers with designated security duties (person with security
\nduties)29
\nz Requirements for issue of CoP for Ship Security Officers (ISPS Code)30<\/p>\n
27 Section A-VI\/6, paragraph 1
\n28 Section A-VI\/6, paragraph 4
\n29 Section A-VI\/6, paragraph 6 to 9
\n29
\nMarine environmental awareness issues, effective communications on board ship,
\neffective human relationships on board ship and control of fatigue have been
\nincluded in Chapter VI Section A Table A-VI\/1-431 as part of basic safety training.
\nThese new requirements may lead to additional educational days. For example, the
\nduration for a basic safety training course is normally 5 days. In order to meet the
\nadditional requirements, it may be required lengthening the duration of the course to
\n5.5 or 6 days.
\nThe refresher training requirements were vague in Chapter VI, Section A. The
\nrequirement of \u201cwithin five years\u201d for basic safety training and other proficiency
\ntraining was left for parties to interpret loosely before. (Belokas, 2011). The new
\nSection A-VI\/1, 2 and 3 has been included to ensure that competence for such
\ntraining is being maintained. The refresher training may be carried out in the form
\nof E-learning, shipboard drills and training or shore based training. \u201cOn board
\ntraining and experience may also be accepted as a form of maintaining the required
\nstandard of competence32\u201d. However, additional shore based training, such as,
\nactions to be taken when in the water, fire fighting and free fall life boat drill may be
\nrequired. Therefore, new shore based training items may have to be established as
\ndiscussed in each specification of minimum standards of competence tables.
\n2.7 Chapter VIII – Regulation VIII, Section A\/VIII and B\/VIII
\nThe most significant changes in Chapter VIII were hours of rest regulations. The
\namendments are highlighted as follows :
\nz \u201cA minimum 10 hours of rest in any 24 hour period; and
\nz 77 hours in any 7-day period\u201d33<\/p>\n
30 Section A-VI\/5, paragraph 1 to 4
\n31 Table A-VI\/1-4 Specification of minimum standard of competence in personal safety and social
\nresponsibilities
\n32 Section A-VI\/I paragraph 3, A-VI\/2, paragraph 5 and 11, A-VI\/3, paragraph 5.
\n33 Section A-VIII\/1, paragraph 2
\n30
\n\u201cThe hours of rest divided into no more than two periods, one of which shall
\nbe at least 6 hours in length, and the intervals between consecutive periods of
\nrest shall not exceed 14 hours.\u201d 34
\nException clause has also been included:
\n\u201cparties may to allow exceptions from the required hours of rest provided that
\nthe rest period is not less than 70 hours in any 7 day period\u201d and on certain
\nconditions, namely\u201d 35
\nz Exceptions from the weekly rest period shall not be allowed for more than
\ntwo consecutive weeks;
\nz The intervals between two periods of exceptions on board shall not be less
\nthan twice the duration of the exception;
\nz The hours of rest may be divided into no more than three periods
\nz One at least 6 hours in length; and
\nz Neither of the other two periods less than one hour in length
\nz The intervals between consecutive periods of rest shall not exceed 14 hours;
\nand
\nz Exceptions shall not extend beyond two 24-hour periods in any 7-day period.
\nz Exceptions shall, as far as possible, take into account the guidance regarding
\nprevention of fatigue in section B-VIII\/1.
\nThe Section A-VIII\/1 of the STCW Manila Amendments has been harmonized with
\nthe Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) Standard A2.
\nThe objective for amending these regulations is to reduce fatigue. However, the
\nconsideration should be taken prior to inception of the exception clause in the STCW
\nManila Amendments, Section A\/VIII, paragraph 9. Further details on this issue will
\nbe discussed in Chapter 3 of this study.<\/p>\n
34 Section A-VIII\/1, paragraph 4
\n35 Section A-VIII\/1, paragraph 9
\n31
\nIn addition, new mandatory regulations in preventing alcohol abuse is added as
\nfollows;
\nz Not greater than 0.05% blood alcohol level (BAC), or
\nz 0.25 mg\/\u2113 alcohol in the breath, or
\nz A quantity of alcohol leading to such alcohol concentration for masters,
\nofficers and other seafarers while performing designated safety, security and
\nmarine environmental duties
\nAdministrations will need to check or put in place a monitoring system to comply
\nwith these alcohol abuse regulations.
\nThe new watch-keeping arrangements and principle requirements are added in this
\nSection A\/VIII. For example, similar mandatory requirements for the use of BRM
\nand ERM principles, and use of ECDIS are added in Section A\/II and A\/III.36
\n2.8 Summary
\nTo summarize this chapter, the following regulations have been included, or
\namended in the STCW Manila Amendments :
\nz Chapter I
\n– Definitions of the ISPS Code, Ship security officer, Security duties, CoC,
\nCoP, Documentary evidence, Electro-technical officer, Able seafarer deck,
\nAble seafarer engine, Electro-technical rating (Reg. I\/1)
\n– CoC issuing rules for administration, regulation on the issuing of certificates
\nto masters and officers for tanker training, rules for administrations
\nrecognising certificates prior to endorsement, endorsing or issuing
\ncertification must make information available to other administrations and
\ncompanies and a list of certificates or documentary evidence required (Reg.
\nI\/2)<\/p>\n
36 Section A\/VIII\/2, paragraph 8 and 47
\n32
\n– Rules for certificates for seafarers operating in near-coastal voyages (Reg. I\/3)
\n– Guidance for use of distance learning and e-learning (Section B-I\/6.6 \u2013 6.10)
\n– Requirements for the IMO MSC with respect to the communication of
\ninformation by governments to IMO (Reg. I\/7)
\n– Medical certification and medical fitness standards requirements (Reg. I\/8
\nand I\/9)
\n– The requirement for tanker training certificate holders to maintain
\ncompetence every 5 years (Reg. I\/11)
\n– Use of simulators for seafarer training (Section B-I\/12)
\n– Responsibilities for companies (Reg. I\/14)
\n– Transitional provisions (Reg. I\/15)
\nz Chapter II
\n– New required competence such as ECDIS, BRM, use of leadership and
\nmanagerial skills added (Section A-II\/1)
\n– Certification requirements for officers and masters on ships not engaged and
\nships engaged on near-coastal voyages altered (Reg. II\/3)
\n– Certification of ratings as able seafarer deck introduced (Reg. II\/5)
\nz Chapter III
\n– Amended on board training requirements (Section A-III\/1.2)
\n– New required competence such as ERM, use internal communication systems,
\noperate electrical, electronic and control systems, safe use of electrical
\nequipment. were added for officers in charge of an engineering watch.
\n(Section A, table A-III\/1)
\n– Manage the operation of propulsion plant machinery added for marine
\nengineering at the management level(Section A table A-III\/2)
\n– Certification of ratings as able seafarer engine and introduced (Reg. III\/5, AIII\/5, B-III\/5))
\n33
\n– Certification for electro-technical officers introduced (Reg. III\/6, A-III\/6, BIII\/6)
\n– Certification for electro-technical ratings introduced (Reg. III\/7, A-III\/7)
\nz Chapter V
\n– Amended and expanded regulation for seafarers on board oil and chemical
\ntankers and requirements for basic and advanced training (Reg. V\/1-1)
\n– Regulation for seafarers on board liquefied gas tankers introduced (Reg. V\/1-
\n2)
\n– Amended to provide guidance for seafarers on board passenger ships
\nincluding Ro-ro passenger ships (Reg. V\/2)
\nz Chapter VI
\n– Requirement of the CoP introduced (Reg. VI\/1.2)
\n– New refresher training requirements introduced (Section A-VI\/2)
\n– CoP for ship security officers regulation introduced (Reg. VI\/5)
\n– Regulation for security related training and instruction for all seafarers added
\n(Reg. VI\/6)
\nz Chapter VIII
\n– Application of the requirements for the prevention of fatigue amended (Reg.
\nVIII\/1.1)
\n– Minimum hours of rest and fitness for duty amended (Section A-VIII\/1)
\n– Regulation for the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse added (Reg. VIII\/1.2)
\n– Additional factors to be considered for watch-keeping arrangements added
\n(Reg. VIII\/2.2)
\n– New watch-keeping principles introduced (Section A-VIII\/2.8)
\n– Watch arrangements altered to include ECDIS (Section A-VIII\/2.18)
\n34
\nCHAPTER 3
\nCHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH
\nTHE STCW MANILA AMENDMENTS
\n3.1 Introduction
\nAccording to BIMCO\/ISF 2010 manpower Updates, the Far East region supplies
\n29.5 % of officers and 36.7 % ratings to the world wide shipping industry. Table 4
\nshows the trend of seafarer supply proportion by regions. (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010)
\nTable 4 Recent trends of seafarer supply
\nArea Current supply
\nOfficers % Ratings %
\nOECD Countries 184,000 29.4 143,000 19.2
\nEastern Europe 127,000 20.3 109,000 14.6
\nAfrica\/Latin America 50,000 8.0 112,000 15.0
\nFar East 184,000 29.5 275,000 36.7
\nIndian Sub-Continent 80,000 12.8 108,000 14.5
\nAll National Groups 624,000 100.0 747,000 100.0
\nSource: (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010)
\nTable 5 Number of officer supply in Far East ranks 7 countries
\nCountries
\n(Far East Rank No. 7)
\nIn terms of number of officers supply
\nActive supply
\nOfficers Ratings Total
\n1 Philippines 57,688 23,492 81,180
\n2 China 51,511 90,296 141,807
\n3 Indonesia 15,906 61,821 106,202
\n4 Vietnam 10,738 11,438 22,176
\n5 Republic of Korea 9,890 2,888 12,778
\n6 Singapore 7,523 1,150 8,673
\n7 Malaysia 6,313 28,687 35,000
\nSub-Total 159,569 219,772 379,341
\nFar East Total 183,814 274,510 458,324
\n% 86.8 80.0 82.7
\nSource: (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010)
\n35
\nTable 5 ranks the 7 Far East region countries in the sequence of the number of
\nofficers supplied. These countries cover 86.8% of officers and 80.0% of ratings
\nsupplies in the Far East region. Therefore, these countries have been selected for
\ndetailed research on the challenges faced in the implementation of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments, for the purpose of this dissertation. Questionnaires were sent to the
\nseven (7) MET institutes or universities that are in charge of seafarers training under
\nSTCW Convention in their countries, in these 7 countries respectively.
\nAs it will be an uphill task to conduct questionnaire surveys for all MET institutes or
\nuniversities located in the 7 countries, only one main MET institute has been chosen
\nin each country for the purpose of this research. The list of questionnaire replies
\nreceived is listed as follows. It is noted that Indonesia did not reply to the
\nquestionnaire. Hence, in order to understand the challenges faced by Indonesia, the
\nreport submitted by the Indonesia to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN) related to STCW Convention has been referred to instead.
\n1. The Philippines : National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP)
\n2. China : Dalian Maritime University (DMU)
\n3. Indonesia : Report to ASEAN by Indonesian government (Association of
\nSoutheast Asian Nations)
\n4. Vietnam : Vietnam Maritime University (VIMARU)
\n5. Republic of Korea (ROK) : Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries
\nTechnology (KIMFT)
\n6. Singapore : Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) with
\nSingapore Maritime Academy (SMA)
\n7. Malaysia : Malaysian Maritime Academy (ALAM)
\nThe questionnaire covers areas related in additional expenditure incurred in order to
\ncomply with the STCW Manila Amendments ; requirements of training ships to cope
\nwith the seagoing service requirements; training course fees; distance learning and Elearning systems; additional training courses except onboard training and experience
\n36
\nwhich were accepted by parties for maintaining the required standards of competence;
\nopinion on the amendments for hours of rest framework; opinions on the pros and
\ncons of the STCW Manila Amendments; and difficulties faced in complying with the
\nSTCW Manila Amendment and in their opinion if further amendments are required.
\n3.2 Analysis of questionnaire
\nAlthough one main MET institute or university had been selected for the distribution
\nof the questionnaire for each country in the Far East region, the answers obtained
\nfrom these institutes or universities should not be regarded as the countries\u2019 opinions
\nor comments. Nevertheless, the selected institutes or university are the main MET
\ntraining providers, so the replies could be regarded as representative in the challenges
\nfaced in implementing the STCW Manila Amendments by the MET institutes or
\nuniversities. This chapter will analyse the replies received from the questionnaire,
\nand highlight the challenges faced and important opinions provided with regards to
\nimplementation of the STCW Manila Amendments.
\n3.2.1 Training ships for onboard training
\nThe requirements for sea service are not new in the STCW Convention. However,
\nthe new amendments have increased the sea service requirements for marine
\nengineers to synchronise with the deck officers. This means that more on board
\ntraining ship placements will be required as the turnover rate for the cadets will be
\nlonger.
\nTable 6 provides an overview of the sea service period required under each CoC,
\nand sea service period required in order to qualify for tanker endorsements.
\n37
\nTable 6 Required on-boarding training period to get CoC and tanker Certificates
\nCertificate of Competency (CoC) Tanker certificates
\nDeck Engine Oil, Chemical
\nand Liquefied gas tanker
\nOfficers
\n500G\/T or more
\n(Reg. II\/1)
\nOfficers
\nLess than 500 G\/T
\n(Reg. II\/3)
\nOfficers in charge of an
\nengineering watch
\n(Reg. III\/1)
\nMasters, officers and ratings
\n(Reg. V\/1-1)
\nRequired on board training period
\nz 12 months
\napproved
\ntraining ; or
\nz 36 months
\napproved
\nseagoing
\nservice
\nz Appropriate
\nseagoing
\nservice(as
\nrequired by the
\nadministration);
\nor
\nz36 months
\napproved
\nseagoing
\nservice
\nz 12 months
\nwhokshop skills
\ntraining and
\napproved seagoing
\nservice; or
\nz 36 months of
\nseagoing service of
\nwhich not less than
\n30 months shall be
\nseagoing service
\nz Not less than 6
\nmonths engineroom watchkeeping
\nduring the seagoing
\nservice
\nz 3 months approved
\nseagoing service on
\ntanker; or
\nz approved basic training
\n(basic)
\nBasis tanker certificate
\nz Meet basic training
\nrequirements ; and
\nz 3 months approved
\nseagoing service on
\ntanker ; or
\nz 1 month approved
\nonboard training in
\ntanker (advanced)
\nAdvanced tanker
\ncertificate
\nSource: STCW Manila Amendments Regulation II, III and V
\nGenerally, there are two ways which a cadet could complete his or her sea service.
\nOne is serving onboard merchant vessels, and the other is serving onboard a
\ntraining ship provided by the institute.
\nTable 7 Types of on board training placement available in the surveyed institutes
\nNMP DMU Indonesia VIMARU KIMFT SMA ALAM
\nTraining
\nShip(No.) No Yes(1) N\/A Yes(1) Yes(2) No No
\nCapacity – 196
\ncadets N\/A 60
\ncadets
\n318
\ncadets – –
\nShipping
\ncompanies
\non-board
\ntraining
\nRequired Required N\/A Required Not
\nrequired Required Required
\nSource: Questionnaire reply
\n38
\nBased on the survey, there is an even distribution in the sea service method
\ndeployed in their countries. However, the generally comments received from
\nthose institutes or universities that do not own training ship facilities is that the
\navailable onboard ships placement is heavily reliant on the shipping companies\u2019
\nsupport.
\nAccording to questionnaire replies from the NMP (Philippines), a minority of
\ninstitutes only owns training ships, so the majority of the institutes in the country
\nstill send their cadets on merchant ships. In order to ensure that all the register
\ncadets will be able to complete their sea service period, the institute is planning to
\nestablish an agreement with shipping companies to secure their on board training
\nplacement through an apprentice officer program.
\nThe DMU and VIMARU are facing a similar situation, as the capacity available in
\ntheir training ships are insufficient to serve all the registered cadets. Hence, in
\nthese countries the training ships are only used for on board familiarisation. The
\ncadets will have to look for shipping companies to complete their remaining sea
\nservice period. Hence, the dependency on shipping companies to provide on board
\ntraining placements is relatively high.
\nThe KIMFT has 2 training ships with sufficient on-board training capacity to
\nprovide seagoing services to cadets. To understand the status of on-board
\ntraining capacity of ROK, the author has also researched on the availability of
\ntraining ships capacity in other MET universities in ROK.
\nThe ROK has a total of 6 training ships, on which the cadets will be able to fully
\ncomplete their sea service period onboard these training ships. Yet, due to job
\nsecurity reasons, half of the cadets\u2019 preferred option is to serve their on-board
\ntraining on merchant ships. So annually, shipping companies will provide
\napproximately 50% of the on board training placements to these institutes to
\nsupport the training programme. Tables 17 and 18 of Chapter 4, 4.2.3 provide
\n39
\nthe detailed particulars of the 6 training ships and the breakdown of the on board
\ntraining placements in accordance to institutes in 2011.
\nIn ALAM and SMA, the only option for cadets to serve their sea service is onboard merchant ships. The disadvantage of this option is that the on board
\ntraining placement is totally dependent on the shipping companies. In addition,
\nover the years the institutes are facing growing difficulty in securing sufficient
\nonboard training placements.
\nRecognising this problem, the STCW Manila Amendments adopted Resolution 13
\nas follows,
\n\u2026the lack of adequate accommodation for trainees on board ships
\nconstitutes a significant impediment to properly training them and
\nsubsequently retaining them at sea, thus adding to the aforementioned
\nshortage, urges ship-owners, ship managers and shipping companies to
\nprovide suitable accommodation for trainees on board their ships both
\nexisting and new.37
\nThis resolution is to encourage shipping companies to provide suitable
\naccommodation for trainees on existing ships and also to take into account such
\nrequirements on their new ships.
\nBased on the survey, it could be seen that most of the MET institutes or
\nuniversities are facing difficulties in providing sufficient onboard training
\nopportunities to their cadets except the ROK. Although the ROK has sufficient
\ncapacity on its training ships, it is not fully made use of. This vacancy could be
\nput into better use if it is offered to other countries. The detailed proposal will
\nbe discussed in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.<\/p>\n
37 STCW Manila Amendments, Resolution 13, \u201cAccommodation for trainees\u201d
\n40
\n3.2.2 Distance learning and E-learning
\nThe fast pace developments in technology has led to the changes in the STCW
\nManila Amendments to officially recommends the use of technology to Help in
\ntraining38.
\nThe distance learning and E-learning has different concepts. Distance learning
\nand E-learning are defined as follows;
\nDistance learning is defined as an educational system consisting of the
\nmethodologies and technologies that support learning when the learner
\nresources are separated by time and\/or space (IDE, 1998, p.5).
\nE-learning is the delivery and administration of learning opportunities and
\nsupport via computer, network and web-based technology to help individual
\nperformance and development\u201d. E-learning enhances learning by extending
\nand supplementing face-to-face learning rather than replacing it (Pollard and
\nHillage, 2001).
\nGenerally, E-learning could be used as one of the methods for providing distance
\nlearning. There are many advantages in these learning methods. For instance,
\nthrough E-learning, learning materials can be provided to the participant
\nanytime. Hence, the participants can have the flexibility to have courses at their
\nown pace without time restrictions as compared with traditional learning methods.
\nAlso, the accessibility of E-learning from anywhere in the world is one of the
\ngood advantages. The participant will not need to be restricted at any location in
\norder to do the training courses.
\nAccording to the survey carried out, most of the MET institutes or universities
\nhave not set up distance learning and E-learning systems yet. Table 8 shows the
\nstatus of distance learning or E-learning possessions.<\/p>\n
38 Section B-I\/6, paragraph 7 and 11
\n41
\nTable 8 Status of distance learning or E-learning possessions
\nNMP DMU Indonesia VIMARU KIMFT SMA ALAM
\nDistance
\nlearning or
\nE-learning
\nNo No No No Yes Yes No
\nSource: Questionnaire reply
\nThe reasons provided from the institutes or universities for not providing distance
\nlearning and E-learning facilities are mainly due to lack of infrastructure, such as
\ninternet availability, lack of funds to set up suitable systems to provide such
\nprogrammes, lack of trainers, and lack recognition and support from the
\ngovernment. Some also opined that the seafarers training consists of practical
\ncomponents that could not be delivered through distance learning and E-learning.
\nOut of the 7 MET institutes or universities surveyed, only MET institutes from the
\nROK and Singapore are providing options for distance learning and E-learning
\nprogrammes. However, the contents for their programmes differ. KIMFT of
\nROK provides E-learning programs for short training courses, such as a basic
\ntanker course and standards of competence for masters and chief mates on ships
\nof 500 G\/T or more. While in SMA of Singapore, the distance learning and Elearning programs are incorporated as part of the CoC programs for the deck
\nofficers and marine engineers at operational level. The E-learning programs are
\nprovided with the objective to facilitate learning from home or at work at the
\nlearners\u2019 own pace.
\nAlthough there are benefits in introducing distance learning and E-learning,
\nKIMFT has met with some challenges in the up keeping of such programs. For
\ninstance, they had commented that these programs are creating additional
\nworkload for the professors as they are required to monitor, assess and mentor the
\ncandidates who are outside their classes.
\n42
\n3.2.3 Hours of rest regulations
\n3.2.3.1 Background
\nHours of rest for seafarers has been a controversial topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), as on the one hand
\nthe regulations are to ensure that the seafarers are given adequate hours of rest
\nto enhance the safety of the ships together with reducing fatigue. On the other
\nhand, if the regulations are too harsh, it will be difficult to operationalize the
\nrequirements onboard. The revised hours of rest adopted in the STCW
\ndiplomatic conference in Manila was to synchronize the hours of rest
\nrequirements with ILO\u2019s MLC 2006.
\n3.2.3.2 Hours of rest and work regulations under the ILO Conventions
\nand STCW Manila Amendments
\nTable 9 Hours of rest and works regulation under
\nMLC 2006 and STCW Convention
\nRegulation of Hours of rest\/works
\nMLC, 2006
\nStandard
\nA 2.3
\nHours of work and hours of rest, maximum hours of work shall not exceed
\n(i) 14 hours in any 24-hour period; and
\n(ii) 72 hour in any seven-day period;
\nMinimum hours of rest shall not be less than
\n(i) Ten hours in any 24-hour period; and
\n(ii) 77 hours in any seven-day period.\u201d
\nSTCW Manila
\nAmendments
\nSection
\nA-VIII\/1
\nProvide rest period of not less than:
\n2.1 a minimum of 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period; and
\n2.2 77 hours in any 7-day period.
\n.
\n9 Parties may allow an exception from the required hours of rest
\nis not less than 70 hours in any 7 day period\u201d39
\nSource: (MLC, 2006) (IMO, 2011)
\nAs can be seen above in Table 9 the regulation of hours of rest in MLC 2006 and
\nSTCW Manila Amendments roughly harmonized between each other.<\/p>\n
39 STCW\/CONF. 2\/DC\/2, Section A-VIII\/1, paragraph, 9
\n43
\n3.2.3.3 Opinions collated on hours of rest regulations
\nAll the surveyed MET institutes or universities agreed that the regulations
\nshould be applied to all personnel involved in duties covering safety,
\nprevention of pollution and security matters; and duty officers and ratings
\ninvolved in watch-keeping. Table 10 lists the opinions from each of the MET
\ninstitute on hour of rest regulations in terms of reasonability.
\nTable 10 Opinion of hour of rest regulations
\nOpinion of hour of rest regulations
\nNMP Reasonable
\nDMU Reasonable
\nIndonesia N.A.
\nVIMARU Reasonable
\nKIMFT Reasonable, however there are considering item to ensure hour of rest
\nregulations such as manning level, work-load and ship inspection in the port.
\nSMA
\nReasonable, however the regulation by itself will not solve the issue of
\nfatigue unless concerted efforts are made by all parties responsible for
\nshipping industry
\nALAM Reasonable, however the hours of rest regulations are nor considered paperwork
\nSource: Questionnaire reply
\nThe general opinions on the subject are that the hours of rest requirements are
\nreasonable. However, KIMFT and ALAM opined personally that the scope
\nfor hours of rest should not comply with regulations when the seafarer is
\nconducting a lot of ship inspections and doing paperwork as a lot times this
\nwork is conducted during rest hours. The importance of hours of rest is stated
\nas follows.
\nRest breaks during work, particularly aboard ship should be sufficient and
\nstrictly complied by seafarers and management of the vessel due to the
\nimportance of this element which can impair the performance and alertness
\nof seafarers. Some of the factors within human element which can
\npotentially cause fatigue are workload aboard ship and in ports. The tasks
\n44
\nsuch as paperwork requirement, schedule shifts and overtime can have big
\nimpact on seafarer\u2019s fatigue onboard leading to errors being made. (Ermal
\nXhelilaj, 2010, p. 26, 27)
\nAlso, SMA commented that the regulation itself would not solve the issue of
\nfatigue unless concerted efforts are made by all parties responsible for the
\nshipping industry. For instance, charter parties should have provisions for
\ncompliance with rest periods of crew. If crew are given very short periods to
\nclean tanks, load and discharge cargo in voyages of very short duration, then
\nprovisions should be made to allow such ships to proceed to anchorage to catch
\nup with the minimum period of rest. In such cases, to ensure that the ship is
\nsafe at anchor or laid up at berth alternate arrangements for watch-keeping
\nshould be provided.
\n3.2.3.4 Case study on hours of rest depending on manning levels
\nIn order to demonstrate the sufficiency of the hours of rest regulations, the
\nfollowing scenarios were created to analyse the suitability of the mandatory
\nhours of rests requirements. The scenarios are based on two VLCC with
\ndifferent manning levels and hours of rests. The case study is as follows;
\nThere are preconditions in the case study as follows :
\nz Same size two VLCC with different flag states
\nz 5-days of works to discharge 2,000,000 bbls of crude oil to 4 sister
\nships in the Gulf of Mexico.
\nz VLCC \u201cA\u201d has 22 crews. (Master + 4 deck officers)
\nz VLCC \u201cB\u201d has 18 crews. (Master + 3 deck officers)
\n45
\nTable 11 working hours for deck officers of VLCC \u201cA\u201d40 (See in detail Appendix 4)
\nRank
\nDay
\nCapt. C\/O 1\/O 2\/O 3\/O Kind of Works
\nDay 1 8 H 12 H 12 H 12 H 12 H 1st
\nSTS
\nDay 2 8 H 12 H 10 H 12 H 12 H 2nd
\nSTS
\nDay 3 8 H 12 H 10 H 12 H 12 H 3rd
\nSTS
\nDay 4 8 H 12 H 10 H 12 H 12 H 4th STS
\nDay 5 8 H 12 H 12 H 12 H 12 H 4tth STS
\nDay 6 0 H 0 H 8 H 8 H 8 H 1 day rest except duty officer
\nDay 7 4 H 8 H 8 H 4 H 4 H Normal navigation
\nDuty Cargo Cargo Bridge Bridge
\nTTL 44 H 68 H 70 72 H 72 H
\nSources: working hour record of Panama flag state VLCC41
\nAccording to Table 11, VLCC \u201cA\u201d can comply with MLC 2006 and STCW
\nManila Amendments 42 Work\/rest cycles are assigned 6 hours on and 6 hours
\noff in the cargo control room and bridge during the STS operations (See Table
\n11).
\nTable 12 working hours for deck officers of VLCC \u201cB\u201d43 (See in detail Appendix 4)
\nRank
\nDay
\nCapt. C\/O 2\/O 3\/O Kind of works
\nDay 1 12 H 14 H 12 H 12 H 1st
\nShip To Ship (STS)
\nDay 2 12 H 14 H 12 H 12 H 2nd
\nSTS
\nDay 3 12 H 14 H 12 H 12 H 3rd
\nSTS
\nDay 4 12 H 14 H 12 H 12 H 4th STS
\nDay 5 12 H 14 H 12 H 12 H 4tth STS
\nDay 6 8 H 0 H 8 H 8 H 1 day rest except duty officers
\nDay 7 4 H 8 H 8 H 8 H Normal navigation
\nduty Bridge Cargo Cargo Bridge
\nTTL 72 H 78 H 76 H 76 H
\nSource: Working hour record of Singapore flag state VLCC 44<\/p>\n
40 VLCC \u201cA\u201d which one WMU student boarded as C\/O and has discharged crude oil by Ship To Ship
\n(STS) operation in Gulf of Mexico.
\n41 Chae, Chong Ju who boarded VLCC of Hyundai Merchant Marine as a C\/O from 1999 to 2006
\n42 See table 14
\n43 VLCC \u201cB\u201d which the other WMU student boarded as C\/O and has discharged crude oil by STS
\noperation in Gulf of Mexico.
\n44 Jolyn Tay Ling Ling who boarded VLCC of Maersk Line Ltd as a C\/O from 2000 to 2005
\n46
\nAccording to Table 12, the total working hours of Captain, C\/O, 2\/O and 3\/O
\nare 72 H, 78 H, 76 H and 76 H.45 It means that all the deck officers cannot
\ncomply with MLC 2006, even though they can comply with hours of rest of the
\nSTCW Manila Amendments.
\nTherefore, due to the disparity of manning standards, there are different
\nwork\/rest cycles which are applied in the same type of ships.
\n3.2.3.5 Paper workload of seafarers
\nAlthough technology enhancement onboard ship has improved the paperwork
\nburden for seafarers, the introduction of new conventions and regulations is
\naccumulating the paperwork load onboard the ships. This causes the seafarer
\nto be overwhelmed with information and obligated to complete the task to
\nensure that the ship will not meet with any non-compliance when it calls at the
\nnext port. (Hermansson, 2004)
\n3.2.3.6 Ship inspection burden
\nNumerous ship inspections such as port state control inspection, flag state
\ninspection, class survey and oil major inspections46 for tanker ships contribute
\nto the reduction on the hours of rest for seafarers. Based on the author\u2019s
\nresearch on \u201cSuggestion of Improving Measures with the Status Analysis for
\nShip Inspection by Major Oil Companies\u201d, the seafarers answered \u201crequired
\ntime to preperation for major inspection\u201d and \u201cdifficulties about major
\ninspection on tanker ships as can be seen in Figures 4 and 5. (Chae, 2009)<\/p>\n
45 See table 14
\n46 Tanker inspections carry out by Major oil company such as BP, Shell etc.
\n47
\nSource: (Chae, 2009)
\nFigure 4 required hours to preparation for
\nMajor inspection on tanker ships (Chae, 2009)
\nSource: (Chae, 2009)
\nFigure 5 Difficulties about Major inspection on tanker ships (Chae, 2009)
\nFigure 4 draws the required time to preparation of major inspection. 76 % of
\nthe seafarers said that more than 24 hours was required. Figure 5 draws out
\nthe types of activities that lead to reduction of hours of rest onboard the ships.
\nAbout 50% of the seafarers on tanker ships felt that the workload for \u201cmajor
\n76%
\n5%
\n0%
\n14%
\n5%
\nMore than 24
\nHours
\n20 hours 15 hours 10 hours 5 hours
\n0%
\n10%
\n20%
\n30%
\n40%
\n50%
\n60%
\n70%
\n80%
\n46%
\n12% 12%
\n20%
\n10%
\nworkload reprove from
\ncompany
\nlack of related
\ninformation
\nand
\nknowledge
\nnegative
\nattitude of
\nseafarers
\netc
\n0%
\n5%
\n10%
\n15%
\n20%
\n25%
\n30%
\n35%
\n40%
\n45%
\n50%
\n48
\ninspection\u201d is the main cause for the reduction in hours of rest. The
\ninspection work during berthing in port has also been considered as extra
\nworkload to seafarers.
\nTherefore, it is important for shipping companies, administrations and flag
\nstates to carefully consider when they determine manning levels on certain
\ntypes of ships to take into consideration the extra activities onboard the type of
\nvessels that may lead to reduction of hour of rest period of seafarers.
\n3.2.4 Additional costs required for implementation of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments
\nMore than half of the MET institutes or universities have indicated that there are
\nadditional costs for the implementation of the new training or education programs
\nto comply with STCW Manila Amendments. For instance, full mission
\nsimulation for deck and engine, and advanced ECDIS simulator will require
\nsubstantial financial investments.
\nThe guiding principle of the STCW Manila Amendments is to have flexibility in
\nterms of implementing the requirements stipulated in relation to training, and
\ncertification. The STCW Manila Amendments have added \u201c84 new competence
\nareas where methods for demonstrating competence is approved simulator
\ntraining, where appropriate\u201d (Nordholm, 2011).
\nAs mentioned in Chapter 2, more emphasis has been placed on simulator based
\nassessment for core competence required. Indirectly, this requirement has
\nbecome a financial burden to the MET institutes or universities, which are
\nrequired to establish new training programs linked to simulation systems.
\n49
\nTable 13 Listed the costs of some of simulation systems installed in MET institutes
\nof ROK in 2009 and 2010
\nFMSHS* FMERS** ECDIS*** VTS****
\nPrices of
\nsimulatior
\n2.2 million
\nUS$
\n1.3million
\nUS$
\n1.1million
\nUS$
\n1.2 million
\nUS$
\nDate of
\nInstalled 2009 July 2009
\nSeptember 2010 March 2010 March
\n* : Full Mission Ship Handling Simulator
\n** : Full Mission Engine Room Simulator
\n*** : Electronic Chart Display and Information System
\n**** : Vessel Traffic Service Simulator
\nSource: Transas Korea branch (Transas, 2010)
\nWith reference to Table 13, installation of simulation systems requires high
\ncapital costs. Private MET institutes that do not have budgetary support from the
\ngovernment may face financial difficulties for such large amounts of investment.
\nOn the occasion when such investment has been made by private MET institutes,
\nthe recovery costs for the simulator are passed on to the seafarers in the form of
\ncourse fees. Hence, indirectly the seafarers\u2019 training costs may be increased
\nunder such circumstances. Table 14 shows course fees of certain courses.
\nTable 14 Listed the course fees for ECDIS, BRM and ERM
\nin 7 main MET institutes
\nUnit: US $
\nInstitutes
\nCourses
\nNMP DMU Indonesia* VIMARU KIMFT SMA** ALAM
\nECDIS 60 400 N\/A 73 160 790 500
\nBRM 180 400 N\/A 20 480 780 1400 450
\nERM 160 400 N\/A 20 350 780 1400 450
\n* : Indonesia is not replied about course fees
\n** : 780 is for operational level. 1400 is for management level.
\nSource: (MAAP, 2011), (DMU, 2008) (VIMARU, 2011) (KIMFT, 2008), (SMA, 2009)
\nIt can not be concluded that all existing seafarers will be affected by the
\nimplementation of mandatory courses in the STCW Manila Amendments.
\nHowever, new seafarers and some existing seafarers may be affected by the
\nmandatory course requirements.
\n50
\nTable 15 Status of requirement of simulation system
\nNo Name of MET
\ninstitutes Simulation system for BRM and ERM ECDIS
\n1 NMP
\n(Philippines)*
\nExisting facilities are able to cope with the new amendments
\nrequirements.(2009 newly installed)
\n2 DMU(China) Required Required
\n3 Indonesia Required Required
\n4 VIMARU
\n(Vietnam) Required Required
\n5 KIMFT(ROK)
\n**
\nExisting facilities are able to cope with the new amendments
\nrequirements.(2010 newly installed)
\n6 SMA
\n(Singapore)
\nExisting facilities are able to cope with the new amendments
\nrequirements.
\n7 ALAM
\n(Malaysia) Additional cost for training trainers are required
\n* 2009 newly installed full mission Bridge and Engine room simulator supported by Japan
\n** 2011 newly installed full mission Bridge and Engine room simulator supported by
\ngovernment of ROK
\nSource: questionnaire reply
\nOut of 7 MET institutes surveyed, 3 (ie. DMU, Indonesia and VIMARU)
\nexpressed that their MET institutes or universities would require some form of
\nfinancial support in order to install or upgrade the existing simulation system and
\nequipment to meet the STCW Manila Amendments requirements. Especially for
\nthose that require brand new installations, the institutes or universities are facing
\ndifficulties in securing sufficient funds to proceed further. Another challenge
\nfaced, is the financial support to upgrade the knowledge and skills of the trainers
\nin order to deliver the course, which is a problem for ALAM.
\nAs for the remaining countries, they informed that the existing facilities are
\nsufficiently equipped to cope with the new amendments requirements. This is
\nbecause they have a certain form of financial support from their government.
\nFor example, KIMFT installed the Full Mission Ship Handling Simulation
\nSystems on March 2011. The total cost was approximately USD 2.2 million,
\nwhich is funded by the ROK government (KIMFT, 2011).
\n51
\nBased on the survey conducted, almost half of the MET institutes or university
\nwill need to install or upgrade simulation systems and trainers training due to the
\nnew requirements of the amendments. However, most of them are facing
\nchallenges in securing funds.
\n3.2.5 Other issues related with the STCW Manila Amendments
\n3.2.5.1 The possibility of misinterpretation of KUPs
\nIn the KUPs column of the standards of competence tables, the column mainly
\nfocuses on the scope of the training for each competency required. However,
\nthe delivery of training, and the objectives of the training refer to the training
\nsyllabi of general learning objectives and the specific learning objectives.
\nThe interpretation of the KUPs column on learning objectives is critical as any
\nmisinterpretation may result in the wrong training outcomes. Previously, the
\nIMO model courses were used as the guiding instruments. However, for the
\nimplementation of the STCW Manila Amendments, the new\/revised IMO
\nmodel courses may not be in place on timely revision of the learning objectives
\nand most likely that the reliance on the old model courses would still be needed.
\n3.2.5.2 Definition of qualified person was not defined
\nIn paragraph 2 regulation I\/6 \u201cTraining and Assessment\u201d, it is stated that those
\nresponsible for the training and assessment of competence of seafarers, as
\nrequired under the Convention, are appropriately qualified. The term
\nqualified generally refers to as being suitable, appropriate or acceptable. In
\nchapter I regulation I\/1 \u201cDefinition and clarifications\u201d, the definition of
\nqualified person for the context of training and assessment was not in place
\nthus in the absence of a proper definition would be left to individual
\ninterpretation. If studying the training and assessment, the scope of training is
\ncovered in the KUP column whereas the assessment columns are covered in
\ncolumn 3 and 4. All the three columns covered technical competencies
\n52
\nwhereas in training the trainer delivery skills or teaching approach must also be
\nemphasised.
\n3.2.5.3 Issuing party of training record books for approved seagoing
\nservice of tanker ships
\nThe regulation V\/1-1 and V\/1-2 made a mandatory requirement for onboard
\ntraining requirements to be instituted for those who have the intention to
\nobtained advance tanker endorsement and the UK format and content of the
\ntraining record book was recommended. The issue is who will be the issuing
\nparty for this training record book. Would it be the training institution which
\nissued the record book as part of their training or the administration as the
\nendorsement authority ?
\n3.3 Summary
\nSeven main MET institutes or universities from the top seafarer (officers) supplying
\n7 countries of the Far East region were chosen for the questionnaire survey. The
\npurpose of the survey was to investigate the challenges faced by each country in
\nimplementing the STCW Manila Amendments. These 7 countries represent 86.8% of
\nthe officers supplies in the Far East region.
\nSome of the problems faced by the countries in implementation of the STCW Manila
\nAmendments are as follows:
\nz Difficulties in providing sufficient onboard training placements for cadets to
\nserve their sea service requirements as required under regulation to get CoC;
\nz The distance learning and E-learning are useful methods to eliminates barriers
\nto give high quality educations to seafarers. However, most MET institutes
\nor universities do not have that system or have some difficulties even if they
\nhave it;
\nz Hours of rest regulations is harmonized with MLC 2006. However, there
\nare important factors that have to be considered to determine hours of rest and
\n53
\nstandard manning levels such as paper workload, disparity of manning
\nstandards and a lot of ship inspection by different authorities;
\nz Additional budget needed for installation of new equipment to comply with
\nSTCW Manila Amendments or provide better training programs; and
\nz Other issues that need to be considered in the STCW Manila Amendments as
\nfollows
\n– The possibility of misinterpretation of KUPs
\n– Definition of qualified person was not defined
\n– Issuing party of training record books for approved seagoing service of
\ntanker ships
\n54
\nCHAPTER 4
\nPOSSIBLE PROPOSALS
\n4.1 Introduction
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments are more comprehensive as compared to the
\nprevious version. Many core training courses have been made mandatory instead of
\noptional. More emphasis has been put on the mandatory qualifications
\nrequirements of officers and ratings other than deck and engine. The STCW Manila
\nAmendments also shows support in introducing more technology based on training
\nmethodology and they harmonize some of the certification requirements with other
\ninternational conventions.
\nHowever, it is not all a bed of roses. Based on the questionnaire survey conducted,
\nsome MET institutes or universities are facing problems in implementing the
\nrequirements.
\nThis chapter will discuss the possible proposals on some of the problems highlighted
\nin Chapter 3.
\n4.2 Lack of onboard training placements
\nAs highlighted in Chapter 3, 3.2.1, most MET institutes or universities are facing
\nincreasing challenges in securing onboard ship training placement on seagoing ships
\nas required in the STCW, Regulation II\/1 and III\/ 1
\n4.2.1 Storage in qualified seafarers
\nThe BIMCO\/ISF Manpower 2010 update report stated that by 2020, there will be
\na general shortage of qualified officers and ratings. The breakdown based on
\nbroad national groups is illustrated in the Table 16.
\n55
\nTable 16 Supply and Differences by Broad National Group for 2020
\nFlag
\nSupply : 2010 stock Difference
\nLess Wastage Forecast Demand (Supply-Demand)
\nOfficers Ratings Officers Ratings Officers Ratings
\nOECD Countries 204,867 95,332 275,496 316,397 -70,629 -221,065
\nEastern Europe 154,412 107,933 35,949 35,336 11,8463 72,597
\nAfrican\/Latin America 67,006 112,324 227,972 214,170 -160,966 -101,846
\nFar East 242;276 318,580 180,228 196,931 62,048 121,849
\nIndian Sub-continent 95\u2019719 156,908 52,552 57,881 43,167 99,027
\nAll national groups 764\u2019281 791,077 772,198 820,515 -7,917 -29,438
\nSource: (BIMCO\/ISF, 2010)
\nThus, the demand for qualified seafarers has been increasing. The importance of
\nproviding continuous education and training for the younger generation in this
\nprofession is also increasing. However, the efforts have evidently not been
\nsuccessful due to lack of available placements for on board training.
\nIn addition, the STCW Manila Amendments state the importance of seagoing
\nservices as follows in the STCW Section B-II\/1-3
\nThe mandatory periods of seagoing service are of prime importance in
\nlearning the job of being a ship\u2019s officer and in achieving the overall standard
\nof competence required. Properly planned and structured, the periods of
\nseagoing service will enable prospective officers to acquire and practice
\nskills and will offer opportunities for competences achieved to be
\ndemonstrated and assessed.
\nThere are several reasons that led to insufficient placements capacity for on board
\ntraining to cadets. High costs in building and maintaining of training ships are
\none of the contributing factors. Other alternatives such as commercial ships are
\nalso limited, as the manning are mostly reserved for qualified seafarers in order
\nfor the ship to operate safely. Also, the cost for training cadets can be burden a
\nto small shipping companies.
\n56
\nBased on the survey conducted, 6 MET 47 institutes or universities are depending
\non commercial ships for placements of on board training for the cadets. Out of
\nthese six, two of the MET institutes or universities own their own training ship
\n(VIMARU, DMU). The only exception is KIMFT which owns two training
\nships with a total capacity of 318 cadets. This has been proven to be sufficiently
\ncope with the demand for on board training placements. The 6 MET had
\ncommented that as they are highly dependent on commercial ships for on board
\ntraining, at a lot of times not all the cadets will get a placement to fulfil the
\nonboard training requirement on time.
\n4.2.2 Proposal \u2013 Joint On-board Training Centre (JOBTC)
\nIn this proposal, the country with relatively sufficient capacity for on board
\ntraining may extend such vacancies to other countries which require such
\nplacement for their cadets to fulfil their on-board training. This could be carried
\nout through a Joint On-Board Training Centre (JOBTC) taking the ROK as an
\nexample, the total on board training capacity available is 1,084 (i.e. KIMFT,
\nKorea Maritime University and Mokpo Maritime University), and in addition
\ncommercial companies are also providing opportunities for the cadets to complete
\ntheir on board training service on commercial ships. Hence, the ROK has more
\nthan sufficient placements to cope with the on board training demand in the ROK.
\nIn this case, the remaining vacancies of training ships could be extended to other
\ncountries. Table 7 of Chapter 3, 3.2.1 lists types of on board training placement
\navailable in the surveyed institutes or universities and their capacities based on
\nstatistics collated from the questionnaires.
\nAccording to more detailed research which regarding the status of training ships
\nin the ROK, the author recognized the following information. Table 17 shows
\nthe general particulars of training ships in KIMFT, KMU and MMU of the ROK.<\/p>\n
47 DMU, Indonesia, VIMARU, SMA and ALAM
\n57
\nTable 17 General particulars of training ship of KIMFT, KMU and MMU
\nKIMFT KMU MMU
\nName of
\nShip HANBANDO HANWOORI48 HANBADA49 HANNARA SAE YU
\nDAL SAE NU RI
\nG\/T 3,491 4,108 6,686 3,640 3644 4701
\nL\/B\/D
\n99.80\u00d7
\n14.50\u00d7
\n9.50(M)
\n87.55\u00d7 16.00\u00d7
\n10.00(M)
\n117.20\u00d7
\n17.8\u00d7
\n8.15(M)
\n102.70\u00d7
\n14.50\u00d7
\n7.00(M)
\n102.7\u00d7
\n14.5\u00d7
\n9.5(M)
\n103.0\u00d7
\n15.6\u00d7
\n9.9(M)
\nBuilt 1975 1989 2005 1993 1993 2003
\nCapacity 174 144 204 152 202 208
\nTotal
\ncapacity 318 356 410
\nSource: (KIMFT, 2008) (KMU, 2008) (MMU, 2010)
\nTable 18 shows actual boarding rates of training ships in each MET (KIMFT,
\nKMU, MMU) of the ROK. The data of the actual number of cadets in each ship
\nare from each MET institute and universities as dated on 1st September 2011.
\nOn the average, the boarding rate is only about 51.3%.
\nTable 18 Training ship boarding rates of ROK
\nKIMFT KMU MMU
\nName of
\nShip HANBANDO HANWOORI HANBADA HANNARA SAE YU DAL SAE NU RI
\nCapacity 174 144 204 152 202 208
\nNumber of
\nstudents
\n89
\n(boarded)
\n119
\n(boarded)
\n83
\n(boarded)
\n97
\n(boarded)
\n81
\n(boarded)
\n87
\n(boarded)
\nBoarded
\nRates 51.1% 82.6% 40.7% 63.8% 40.1% 41.8%
\nAverage 65.4% 50.6% 41.0%
\nTotal
\naverage 51.3% (556 Boarded)
\nSource: (KMU, 2008), (KIMFT, 2008), (MMU, 2010) Dates : 1st September 2011
\nThe JOBTC idea was first raised during the STCW diplomatic conference in
\nManila on 22nd June 2010. An agreement to establish a Global On-Board<\/p>\n
48 KIMFT bought second-hand training ship \u201cHANWOORI\u201d with cost about 12 million US$ on 2010
\n(KIMFT, 2008)
\n49 KMU built new training ship \u201cHANBADA\u201d with cost about 42.5 million US$ on 2005. (KMU,
\n2008)
\n58
\nTraining Centre (GOBTC) to provide on-board training placements was
\nestablished. This is a potential organization in its embryonic stage, started by 5
\nmaritime universities (KMU, DMU, Maritime State University of Russia, Istanbul
\nTechnical university and Jhon B. Lacson foundation maritime university) and
\nstructured to support the initiative to have all shipping companies work globally to
\nmeet the current and future needs of qualified officers by supplying onboard
\ntraining positions. However, so far there is no progress of GOBTC beyond the
\nagreement. This may be due to several factors. First, the agreement was not
\nestablished at governmental level, unlike the Official Development Helpance
\n(ODA) programs (IMO, 2007). This makes it difficult for it to be pursued
\nfurther at later stage. Second, the funding for supporting this program was not
\nclearly established and properly worked. Taking as lessons learnt, the proposed
\nJOBTC, could be funded by IMO through an international technical cooperation
\nprogram.
\nTable 19 demonstrates the breakdown costs for training a cadet in accordance to
\nthe STCW Convention requirements. It is to be noted that the costs may vary
\ndepending on the commodities of each country and market influences.
\nNevertheless, Tables 19 and 20 can be taken as a reasonable guide to estimate the
\ntraining costs per cadet varying from USD 5,000 at KIMFT or USD 11,000 at
\nKMU per year50. Therefore, if the donor country donates 1 million US$, then
\nabout 100 cadets in KMU or 200 cadets in KIMFT can have onboard training in
\nthe ROK.<\/p>\n
50 The costs different are mainly depending on ships size, capacity, personnel expenses and ship
\noperation period of each MET institutes. The costs of onboard training per cadet are in between
\n11,000US$ ~19,000 US$ in ROK, if the personnel expenses to operation training ships are included.
\n59
\nTable 19 On-board training cost of KIMFT
\nUnit : US$
\nMET
\nCategory KIMFT
\nCost category* Training ship \u201cA\u201d Training ship \u201cB\u201d
\nShip operation costs 683,000 314,000
\nFood expenses 189,000 179,000
\nInsurance 153,000 126,000
\nPersonnel expenses (52 persons) 981,000 981,000
\nTotal cost** 2,006,000 1,600,000
\nTotal capacity 174 144
\nActual boarded 2011 89 119
\nCosts\/cadet with actual boarded 22,539\/year 13,445\/year
\nCosts\/cadet with total capacity 11,529\/year 11,111\/year
\nExcept personnel expenses 5,890\/year 4,299\/year
\naverage 11,320 US$
\n5,094 US$ (except personnel expenses)
\n* Cost category are included only major expenditure
\n** Total cost included personnel expenses of each ship
\nSources : (KIMFT, 2008) Dates : 1 September, 2011
\nTable 20 On-board training cost of KMU
\nUnit : US$
\nMET
\nCategory KMU
\nCost category* Training Ship \u201cA\u201d Training Ship \u201cB\u201d
\nShip operation costs 1,590,000 1,403,000
\nFood expenses 299,000 299,000 US$
\nInsurances 162,000 162,000
\nPersonnel expenses (72 persons) 1,358,000 1,358,000
\nTotal cost** 3,409,000 3,222,000
\nTotal capacity 204 152
\nActual boarded 2011 83 97
\nCosts\/cadet with actual boarded 41,072\/year 33,216\/year
\nCosts\/cadet with total capacity 16,711\/year 21,197\/year
\nExcept personnel expenses 10,054\/year 12,263\/year
\naverage 18,954 US$\/year
\n11,158 US$\/year(except personnel expenses)
\n* Cost category are included only major expenditure
\n** Total cost included personnel expenses of each ship
\nSource: (KMU, 2008) Dates : 1 September, 2011
\nThe financial resources are very important to establish and operate the JOBTC.
\nThe mission of the Integrated Technical Co-operation Program (ITCP) is stated as
\nfollows:
\n60
\nTo help developing countries improve their ability to comply with
\ninternational rules and standards relating to maritime safety and the
\nprevention and control of maritime pollution, giving priority to technical
\nHelpance programs that focus on human resources development and
\ninstitutional capacity-building. (IMO, 2011 )
\nThe resolution A.1006 (25) invites consideration of maritime sector in Official
\nDevelopment Helpance (ODA) programs from Member States and donor
\norganizations (IMO, 2011).
\nThere are 4 funding resources in the IMO for Technical Co-operation.51 The
\nMulti-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) is one of them. The MDTFs \u201care established
\nto encourage contributions targeted on specific issues and are used to support
\nspecific technical co-operation programs\u201d, which could be used for funding of the
\nJOBTC. (IMO, 2011)
\nThere are 3 future priorities of ITCP are as follows:
\nz Advocacy of global maritime rules and standards
\nz Institutional capacity-building
\nz Human resource development (IMO, 2011)
\nThe JOBTC could be inserted as a future priority under the \u201cHuman resource
\ndevelopment\u201d which includes training of seafarers and shore-based personnel.
\nAn alternative funding option is the \u201cBeneficiary Pays Principle\u201d (BPP), which
\nwas introduced by the GOBTC. The beneficiaries in this scheme are: (Maritime
\nAdiministration of Turkey, 2010)
\nz Administrations that provide STCW required training for the purpose of
\ncertification under the Convention.<\/p>\n
51 IMO TC fund, MDTFs, Bi-lateral arrangements, other arrangements and one-off cash donations.
\n61
\nz Industry that requires steadily flow of educated and trained officers
\nz Cadets who need to be given assurance on planned and structured programs
\nof training
\nIn summary, the procedures to establish the JOBTC could be developed as
\nfollows:
\nStep 1. Preparation of regional (Asia) on board training strategies
\n– Making government level regional (Asia) agreement to establish JOBTC
\n– Work with IMO TCC
\n– Pre-discussion of financial resources (MDTFs or BPP or ODA)
\nMaking government level regional (Asia) agreement to establish JOBTC
\nStep 2. Propose to IMO TCC to establish the JOBTC
\n– Agree between onboard training providing countries and its beneficiaries
\n– Decide training ship providers
\n– Decide required money category
\n– Decide financial resources and procedure (MDTFs or BPP or ODA)
\naking government level regional (Asia) agreement to establish JOBC
\nStep 3. Test operations of the JOBTC
\n– Start testing of the JOBTC operations
\n– Monitoring operation of the JOBTC
\n– Finding operation problems of the JOBTC and submit TCC and
\nadministrations involved
\n– Finding operation problems solution and submit TCC and administrations
\ninvolved
\nStep 4. Expand and full operation of the JOBTC
\n– Solving some operational problems of the JOBTC
\n– Continually monitoring and report to TCC and administrations involved
\nSource: author
\nFigure 6 Procedure to establish JOBTC
\n62
\n4.3 Proposal – Joint Asia Maritime E-Learning Systems (JAMES)
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments are embracing enhanced learning methods such as
\ndistance learning and E-learning formats as guidance52. However, based on the
\nquestionnaires, currently most of the MET institutes or universities will not be able
\nto provide distance learning and E-learning programs due to the following reasons:
\nz Lack of infrastructure (i.e. internet)
\nz Lack of trainer resources for monitoring and assessment
\nz Difficulty in assessing distance learning and E-learning course by
\nadministrations
\nsource: Questionnaire reply
\nThe STCW Convention, focuses on standardising qualification, training and
\ncertification for seafarers. Taking \u2018standards\u2019 as the concept, a Joint Asia Maritime
\nE-learning System (JAMES) could be established to provide global E-learning
\ncourses for developing countries that have difficulty in implementing such training
\ncourses. It is, of course, not a mandatory requirement to provide distance learning
\nand E-learning to seafarers. However, it will be popular since it has good
\nadvantages as mentioned in Chapter 3, 3.2.2
\nThe IMO model courses should be the format for these courses. Figure 7 illustrates
\nthe possible approach of JAMES.<\/p>\n
52 STCW Manila Amendments, Section B-I\/6
\n63
\nJAMES – Development training courses (English)
\n– Translate from English to each country language.
\n– Participate to develop certain courses of each country seafarer
\ntraining institutes (Using IMO model courses)
\n– Allowing training courses by each administration (STCW
\nSection B-I\/6)
\nSource: author
\nFigure 7 Concept of Joint Asia Maritime E-learning System (JAMES)
\nEnglish should be the official language for these courses, as it is more universally
\nused and it also acts as an encouragement and learning platform for using the English
\nlanguage. There should be one expert representative from each participating
\ncountry, and an assessor should be appointed. A Web-based assessment system
\ncould be set up to allow each participating country\u2019s assessor to evaluate its cadets
\neasily. With the adoption of such a global platform for distance learning and Elearning, it will make it easier for developing countries to fulfil the STCW Manila
\nAmendments Section B-I\/6 paragraph 6 as follows;
\nParties may allow the training of seafarers by distance learning and elearning in accordance with the standards of training and assessment set out
\nin section A-I\/6.
\nThe IMO TC fund (MDTFs), or BPP, or through ODA could be the funding body for
\nthis proposed program.
\nCountry A
\n1. Evaluating of
\ncompetence
\n2. Issuing related
\ncertificates
\nCountry B
\n1. Evaluating of
\ncompetence
\n2. Issuing related
\ncertificates
\nCountry C
\n1. Evaluating of
\ncompetence
\n2. Issuing related
\ncertificates
\nAccess to JAMES through internet
\n64
\n4.4 Reducing work-load, ship inspection burden and determine mandatory
\nminimum safety manning standards in a safe way
\nBased on the questionnaires, most of the MET institutes or universities and experts
\nconsulted had opined that the hours of rest stated in the STCW Manila Amendments
\nchapter VIII is reasonable and harmonises with MLC, 2006 requirements. However,
\nbased on research and analysis done in Chapter 3, 3.2.3, the hours of rest requirement
\nshould take into consideration the work hours for carrying out paper work, disparity
\nof manning standards among flag states and additional work hours in facilitating
\ndifferent types of ship inspections such as PSC, FSC, class surveys and oil major
\ninspections for tankers.
\n4.4.1 Reducing paper work-load
\nWith the introduction of new conventions, and revision of existing conventions,
\nthe working time required for paperwork in eminently increasing. The use of
\ntechnology could be a solution to reduce the time required for doing paperwork
\nand improvement in data recording procedures. For instance, \u201cDet Norske
\nVeritas (DNV) has developed the DNV Navigator, a computer-based tool that
\nrelieves the workload of the bridge team, secures ship operation and reduces costs
\nand risks\u201d (SSG, 2008). This system contains port entry information and
\nchecklists to Help specific to ports. This proposal is in line with IMO
\nFacilitation Committee\u2019s (FAL) vision, as the committee is also looking at
\n\u201cElectronic means for the clearance of ships\u201d in a Single Window System53
\n(MLTM, 2010) to facilitate and simplify the vessel\u2019s clearance processes. By
\nmoving towards the electronic platform, it will definitely reduce the paperwork
\nload.<\/p>\n
53 \u201ca system that allows traders to lodge information with a single body to fulfil all import or export
\nrelated regulatory requirements\u201d (UN\/CEFACT International Trade Procedures Working Group
\n(ITPWG), 2003)
\n65
\n4.4.2 Mandatory minimum safety manning standards
\nThe UNCLOS Article 94 states the responsibility of flag states with regards to
\nsafety manning levels of ships, and paragraph 3 states that,
\nEvery flag states shall take measures for ships to ensure safety at sea with
\nregard to certain matters such as construction of ships, manning of ships,
\nlabour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable
\ninternational instruments (UNCLOS, 1982, p 58).
\nArticle 94 paragraph 4 states the qualification and numbers of crew required
\ndepending on the type, size, machinery and equipment of the ship. UNCLOS is
\nthe international legal framework for maritime related matters (Balyk, 2006).
\nThe SOLAS consolidated edition 2009, mainly stipulates the certification
\nrequirements on ships for providing safe manning, with the objective of ensuring
\nsufficiency and efficiency. The guidelines in determining the safe manning level
\nis promulgate in the IMO resolution A. 890(21) and A. 955(23).
\nThe ILO Convention C180, article 11 also stipulates rest hours for seafarers,
\n\u201cEvery ship to which this convention applies shall be sufficiently, safely and
\nefficiently manned, in accordance with the minimum safe manning documents
\nor an equivalent issued by the competent authority\u201d (ILO, 1996 )
\nThe Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) was adopted with the
\nobjective to unify all maritime labour conventions and guidelines that have been
\nestablished during past 80 years. The MLC 2006 regulation 2.7 (Manning levels)
\nstates that:
\nEach Member shall require that all ships that fly its flag have a sufficient
\nnumber of seafarers employed onboard to ensure that ships are operated safety,
\nefficiently and with due regard to security under all conditions, taking into
\n66
\naccount concerns about seafarer fatigue and the particular nature and
\nconditions of the voyage (MLC, 2006, pp. 38-39)
\nWhen determining, approving or revising manning levels, the competent
\nauthority shall take into account the need to avoid or minimize excessive hours
\nof work to ensure sufficient rest and to limit fatigue, as well as the principles in
\napplicable international instruments, especially those of the International
\nMaritime Organization, on manning levels (MLC, 2006, p. 39)
\nIn summary, at the international level of legislation, the IMO instruments are
\nbinding, but do not sufficiently restrict countries and companies to specific
\nmanning levels. This leads to the proliferation of questionable manning scales
\nwhere economic motives appear to be more of the issue than the principles of
\nsafety manning. The ILO conventions also have limited effects when it only
\ntouch on areas determining specific manning levels. (SchroderJens-Uwe, 2007)
\nAt the national level, States set the requirements for safe manning through
\nnational laws and regulations, taking into account their international and
\nregional obligations. The ambiguity of the international and regional
\ninstruments tends to set in at this point and is exhibited in the variation and
\ndiscrepancies between the methods and criteria different states use for
\nestablishing safe manning for their ships. (Schroder, 2007, p 23)
\nUNCLOS, SOLAS, IMO Resolution A. 890(21) and A. 955(23), and MLC 2006
\nare the international regulations which dealt with minimum safe manning
\nstandards for flag states and ships to ensure that ships are operated safely,
\nefficiently and with due regard to security under all conditions. However, there
\nis no particular procedure for determination of minimum safe manning levels.
\nMost of the flag states determine safe manning based on the size and type of ship.
\nThe flag administrations is the authorised body to approve, reject or modify the
\nship owner\u2019s minimum safe manning standards proposal. (Balyk, 2006)
\nTherefore, there is disparity in manning standards in each flag state.
\n67
\nIn order to unify this difference, developing mandatory international regulations
\nwhich have more binding power to determine reasonable manning levels on board
\nships will ensure proper application of hours of rest regulations requirements.
\nMore intensive PSC inspections would act as the enforcement tool to ensure
\ncompliance with the binding international regulations. These may ensure proper
\nwork\/rest cycles for seafarers are practiced on ships.
\n4.4.3 Harmonizing ship inspections
\nDue to safety and commercial reasons, there are a series of inspection
\nrequirements, such as PSC, FSC, classification society and major oil companies.
\nHowever, at a lot of times the items in these inspections are duplicated. For
\ninstance, if a tanker has loaded in the Middle East and is discharging in the UK,
\nthe tanker may be subjected to two PSC inspections as the two countries are
\nmembers to different PSC MoU regions. At the same time, the tanker may have
\nto go through major inspections in order to comply with their commercial
\nobligations. Due to the above reasons, the hours of rest for the seafarers may not
\ncomply with regulations when the tanker is at berth.
\nTo resolve the duplication of inspection items, it is hence proposed to harmonize
\nthe inspection requirements. For a start, each PSC region could consider
\nrecognising other PSC region\u2019s inspections which are conducted within 6 months.
\nFor example, if a ship has undergone PSC inspection in the Tokyo MoU region, it
\nshould not be subjected to another PSC inspection in another region. On the
\ncommercial side, the requirements from different oil majors may be harmonized
\nthrough the common platform of OCIMF, or recognising the inspection results
\nfrom other major inspections (Chae, 2009). If the mandatory and commercial
\ninspections can be combined as suggested above, it will reduce the multiple
\ninspections burdens on ships, specially the tankers. This will help to improve
\nhours of rest compliance on ships.
\n68
\n4.5 Proposal – Technical cooperation fund to support installation of training
\nsimulation\/equipment
\nThe STCW Convention has imposed RADAR and ARPA simulators training as a
\nmandatory requirement for watch-keepers in the deck department. The STCW
\nManila Amendments have recently also added mandatory ECDIS, BRM and ERM
\ntraining. Furthermore, the STCW Manila Amendments have added 84 new
\ncompetence areas where methods for demonstrating competence has approved
\nsimulator training (DNV, 2010).
\nAs mentioned in Chapter 3, DMU, Indonesia MET institutes and VIMARU required
\nenhanced ship simulator\/equipment in order to provide better training courses.
\nHowever, large capital investment is required for installation of training
\nsimulator\/equipment. Hence, most of the MET institutes surveyed required more
\ntime and financial support. Also, one of the main MET institutes in Malaysia
\nrequires training of the trainers in order to meet qualified person requirements as
\nstated in Regulation I\/6 \u201ctraining and assessment\u201d.
\nMET institutes or universities which are lacking in training simulator\/ equipment
\ncould be supported by other developed countries such as Japan and EU countries
\nwhich has interest in obtaining deck and engine officers to serve on board their
\nmerchant ships. For example, training institutes could be established in the Far East
\nmain seafarer supply countries such as in the Philippines. This is because of \u201cThe
\nprimary marine manpower suppliers have shifted, and continue to shift, from
\ntraditional countries in North America and Europe, and Japan, to Eastern Europe,
\nIndia, and the Far East.\u201d (WMU, 2005) These efforts as follows;
\nThe Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP)\u2019s JSU-IMMAJ54
\nCampus was a proof of support from interested parties to improve the quality
\nof Filipino seafarers, who are vital to the Japanese commercial fleet. The new<\/p>\n
54 International Mariners Management Association of Japan
\n69
\nfacility provides high-level academic and training programs for mercantile
\nmarine college students (Japan Seamen’s Union, 2009).
\nOn July 20, 2009 representatives from the JSU, the CSU (Chinese Seafarers
\nUnion), the IMMAJ and DIM-SCO (Dalian International Maritime Service Co.
\nLtd.) have announced the establishment and registration of a CSU\/JSU
\ncomprehensive training and education center in Dalian. The program includes
\ninstallation of simulators (Japan Seamen’s Union, 2009).
\nThese efforts can be a possible approach to Help developing countries in enhancing
\ntheir MET institutes and programs by installation of training simulator\/equipment.
\nHowever, this initiative should be restricted to certain MET institutes which are
\nlocated in certain countries since the capital investments are restricted.
\nAs this initiative will involve regional involvement, it could be funded by IMO
\n(MDTFs) or BPP or ODA programs to resolve the financial difficulties faced by the
\ndeveloping countries in installation of simulator\/ equipment. Figure 8 is a possible
\napproach for this program:
\n70
\nFigure 8 Procedure for supporting financial resources
\n4.6 Clarify vague terminology
\nTo eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation of KUPs which is not yet in-place
\nafter the STCW Manila Amendments, the STW sub-committee and MSC may
\nrequire that new IMO model courses which were newly added in the STCW Manila
\nAmendment, be developed as soon as possible. Also, before developing new IMO
\nmodel courses, the training providers need to work together between themselves as
\nwell as the administrations to ensure uniform compliance.
\nEach trainer has different teaching skills and levels even if they are all working in the
\nsame country and institutes. Some trainers may having very good skills or
\nStep 1. Seminar with IMO, donor countries and recipient countries
\n– Identifying what kind of supporting are required for recipient countries
\n– Identifying what kind of supporting can be by donor countries
\n– Identifying support required sector
\n– Identifying what kind help can be by IMO TCC
\nStep 2. Finding way to get financial resources
\n– Direct Helpant from donor to recipient country (ODA); or
\n– Through IMO TCC (MDTFs) or
\n– Beneficiary Pays Principle (BPP)
\nStep 3. Take a step to supporting financial resources
\n– Make a agreement between donor and recipient country to support fund (ex :
\nODA or BPP) ; or
\n– Propose to IMO TCC to get fund if agreed these support through IMO
\nStep 4. Install the equipment and monitoring
\n– Actual funding through ODA or BPP or IMO TCC
\n– Install the simulator\/equipment to recipient countries
\n– Monitoring its operation usefulness
\n71
\nknowledge to teach whereas some trainers may not (Rae, 2002). These differences
\nmay affect directly or indirectly the competence of seafarers. Therefore, a certain
\nacceptable level to assess a qualified person is required. Hence, it is recommended
\nto insert a definition for \u2018qualified person\u2019 in the STCW Convention, in order to
\nensure the acceptable level for such trainers. Also, the JAMES concept (see Figures
\n7 and 8) should be useful to ensure standardized teaching skills or related knowledge.
\nLastly, it is also vital to determine the issuing party for tanker ships training books.
\nDiscussions of STW sub-committee should be carried out together with parties to the
\nSTCW Convention to determine whether the issuing body of such training books.
\nShould be the Administration, or, by MET institutes on behalf of the Administration.<\/p>\n
72
\nCHAPTER 5
\nPROPOSED FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE STCW
\nMANILA AMENDMENTS
\n5.1 Introduction
\nAlthough the STCW Manila Amendments have just been introduced, it is noted that
\ncertain important areas have not been addressed. That may be due to the
\ninsufficient representation from the industry group related to these areas. However,
\nbased on the author\u2019s opinion, amendments could be considered to include the
\nfollowing proposals.
\nz Education and training for tug-barge operators.
\nz IMDG Code training for seafarers who will be dealing with dangerous goods
\non board ships
\n5.2 Guidance on the training and qualifications for personnel onboard Tugsbarges
\nThe current requirements under the STCW Convention for officers and masters in
\ncharge of a navigational watch on ships of less than 500 G\/T are of basic
\nrequirements and do not address the special operational knowledge required when
\nofficers or masters are onboard specialised ships except tankers and passenger ships.
\nThe STCW Manila Amendments address the training, qualification and experience
\nrequirements for some of the specialised ships such as OSV, ships operating in polar
\nregion and DP systems. However, the more commonly smaller ships which might be
\nengaged in very specialised towage operations, such as tugs and barges have been
\nleft out.
\n73
\n5.2.1 Findings
\nBased on the statistics collated by the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST)
\non maritime accidents, the rate of ship accidents versus total registered ships (B\/A)
\nis more or less 1% recorded. The rate of tug-barge accidents (2.81% ~ 5.22%)
\nwas 3 ~ 5 times higher than the rate of maritime accidents of total registered ships
\n(0.72% ~ 1.16%) as shown in Tables 21, 22, 23 and 24.
\nTable 21 The rate of ship accidents versus total registered ships
\n2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
\nRegistered ships(A) 93,405 93,114 88,854 86,087 83,010
\nAccident ships(B) 865 759 636 915 961
\nIncidence of Accident
\n(B\/A) 0.93% 0.82% 0.72% 1.06% 1.16%
\nSource: (KMST, 2011)
\nTable 22 The rate of tug-barge accidents versus total registered tug-barge
\n2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
\nRegistered tug-barge(A) 1,236 1,266 1,259 1,245 1,246
\nAccident tug-barge(B) 53 55 52 35 65
\nIncidence of accident
\n(B\/A) 4.29% 4.34% 4.13% 2.81% 5.22%
\nSource: (KMST, 2011)
\nNavigational duty negligence is the highest accident cause for the tug-barge
\nrecorded at 80.3 % of total accidents, followed by poor maintenance and defects
\nof machinery on board ship as 15.0 % as stated in Table 23.
\n74
\nTable 23 Causes of accidents on tug-barge
\nNavigational
\nnegligence
\nPoor maintenance and
\ndefects ETC
\nAccident case 102 19 6
\nRate 80.3% 15.0% 4.7%
\nSource: (KMST, 2011)<\/p>\n
Furthermore, nearly half of accident types are collisions, followed by grounding
\nand sinking in operating tug-barges. These causes are recorded as 77.7% from
\n2006 to 2010 in the Republic of Korea as stated in Table 24
\nTable 24 Types of accidents on tug-barges
\nSource: (KMST, 2011)
\nTable 25 The number of ship accidents in Japan
\nSource: (MAIA, 2008)
\nYear
\nType of accidents on tug-barge
\nMajor Total
\nCollision
\nMinor
\nCollision
\nAground Capsize
\nFire,
\nExplosion
\nSinking
\nEngine
\nTrouble
\nDistress Casualty Etc
\n2006 26 8 5 1 2 4 2 1 – 4 53
\n2007 29 3 7 3 – 3 1 – 1 8 55
\n2008 19 6 9 4 3 7 – – 1 3 52
\n2009 9 5 6 2 – 3 2 2 1 5 35
\n2010 29 5 10 1 1 9 2 – 6 2 65
\nTOTAL 112 27 37 11 6 26 7 3 9 22 260
\n% 43.1 10.4 14.2 4.2 2.3 10.0 2.7 1.2 3.5 8.5 100.0
\nNumber of vessels involved
\nin marine accidents
\nNumber of vessels accidents
\ninvolved less than 500 G\/T
\nNumber of vessels accident
\ninvolved tug-barge
\nYear Total Number % Number %
\n2003 6,502 5,447 83.8 868 13.4
\n2004 6,474 5,345 82.6 887 13.7
\n2005 5,631 4,700 83.5 731 13.0
\n2006 5,081 4,234 83.3 672 13.2
\n2007 5,158 4,284 83.1 684 13.3
\nAverage 5,769.2 4,802 83.2 768.4 13.3
\n75
\nAccording to Table 25, 83.2 % of ship accidents involved ships of less than 500
\nG\/T ships, and 13.3 % of ship accident are involved with tug-barges from 2003 to
\n2007 in Japan.
\nHence, it is important to ensure that the personnel onboard the tug-barge are
\nproperly trained, qualified and are experience with the towage operations.
\n5.2.2 Proposal
\nThe training requirements for personnel working onboard tugs and barges should
\nbe established and be included in the STCW Convention Section B-V \u201cGuidance
\nregarding special training requirements for personnel on certain types of ships\u201d.
\nThe guidance for tug and barge operation may include the followings :
\nz Definition of tug-barge
\nz Define its unique operation criteria
\nz Define the knowledge requirement for personnel onboard tug and barge
\noperation and specific requirements on special towage operations; and
\nz Define specific training and education criteria
\n5.3 Mandatory training requirements for seafarers in the IMDG Code
\n5.3.1 Introduction
\nThe DSC 55 12 Session on 21st September, 2007 adopted the mandatory
\nInternational Maritime Dangerous (IMDG) Code training requirements for shore
\nbased personnel engaged in the transport of dangerous goods by sea, the code
\nentered into force on 1st January 2010 (MLTM, 2007).
\nThe IMDG Code Section 1.3.1.1 states as follows ;<\/p>\n
55 Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid cargoes and Containers
\n76
\nShore based personnel engaged in the transport of dangerous goods intended
\nto be transported by sea shall receive training in the contents of the
\ndangerous goods provisions commensurate with their responsibilities.
\nHowever, the training requirements for seafarers, who are dealing with dangerous
\ngoods, were not mandatory per se, but only stay as a guidance under the STCW
\nConvention56.
\nIn the USA, the training requirements of the IMDG Code apply to all personnel
\nengaged in the transport of dangerous goods by sea. According to 49 CFR
\n(Code of federal Regulations) Part 17257 Subpart H 70258, the following is stated:
\n(a) A hazmat employer shall ensure that each of its hazmat employees is
\ntrained in accordance with the requirements prescribed in this subpart.
\n(b) Except as provided in \u00a7172.704(c)(1), a hazmat employee who performs
\nany function subject to the requirements of this subchapter may not perform
\nthat function unless instructed in the requirements of this subchapter that
\napply to that function. It is the duty of each hazmat employer to comply with
\nthe applicable requirements of this subchapter and to thoroughly instruct
\neach hazmat employee in relation thereto. (GPO, 2011).
\nAlso, 49 CFR Part 17659, subpart A. 13 states as follows:
\n(c) The record of training required by \u00a7172.704(d) of this subchapter for a
\ncrewmember who is a hazmat employee subject to the training requirements
\nof this subchapter must be kept on board the vessel while the crewmember is
\nin service on board the vessel. (GPO, 2011)<\/p>\n
56 STCW Convention states that the IMDG Code training for officers and ratings as guideline in
\nSection B-V\/c \u201cGuidance regarding training of officers and ratings responsible for cargo handling on
\nships carrying dangerous and hazardous substances in packaged form\u201d. 57 \u201cHazardous materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency
\nresponse information, training requirements, and security plans\u201d 58 Training, Applicability and responsibility for training and testing
\n59 carriage by vessel
\n77
\nIt means that the seafarers, who are involved in carriage of dangerous goods in
\npackaged form will require IMDG training certificates.
\nBased on the above findings, there is disparity in IMDG Code training
\nrequirements between the IMDG Code, the STCW Convention and US CFR as
\nfollows:
\nz SOLAS Chapter 7 Part A states the \u201cthe carriage of dangerous goods in
\npackaged form shall be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the
\nIMDG Code\u201d
\nz The IMDG Code 1.3 states the training requirements for shore based
\npersonnel engaged in the transport of dangerous goods.
\nz The STCW Convention states the training of officer and ratings, who are
\nengaged on ships carrying dangerous and hazardous substances in packaged
\nform as guidance in Section B-V\/c. and
\nz USA 49 CFR Part 172 subpart H states the hazmat employer shall ensure that
\neach of its hazmat employees is trained.
\nThe disparity of IMDG Code training requirements between the IMDG Code, the
\nSTCW Convention and the US CFR is creating confusion for the maritime
\nindustry, and this disparity can lead to interpretation in different ways.
\n5.3.2 Proposal
\nPresently, the training for IMDG Code is only guidance in the STCW Convention,
\nwhile it is a statutory requirement in US 49 CFR. The 49 CFR requires all shore
\nbased personnel engaged in the transports of dangerous goods (IMDG Code) and
\nhazmat employers should be trained for IMDG Code.
\n78
\nTo resolve the disparity in the various Conventions and to enhance the training
\nand proficiency of seafarers dealing with dangerous goods in package forms, it is
\nproposed that the training requirements of IMDG Code for seafarer must be in
\nchapter II section A-II\/1, Table A-II\/1. It should include mandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of officers. Similar to the concept of the training
\nrequirements for ECDIS, an exception note may be included to exempt seafarers
\nnot dealing with dangerous goods in package forms from there mandatory training
\nrequirements.
\nIn short, the requirements of the IMDG Code training for seafarer may be inserted
\nin the STCW Convention Section A Table A-II\/1 as competence \u201cMonitor the
\nloading, stowage, securing, care during the voyage and the unloading of cargos.\u201d
\nPart with a certain exception clause.
\n79
\nCHAPTER 6
\nCONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
\n6.1 Conclusion
\nThis dissertation attempted to identify the changes in the STCW Manila
\nAmendments and the difficulties or problems faced by the MET institutes or
\nuniversities in the Far East region, which covers about 30 % of the officers\u2019 supply in
\nthe world. It also looks at the possible solutions for the difficulties or problems.
\nThe 7 MET institutes or universities chosen are located in these Far East countries in
\naccordance to the ranking of the largest officers suppliers country to the least. Lastly,
\nthis dissertation proposed the further amendments required in the future.
\nNew definitions were added in the STCW Manila Amendments Chapter I. For
\nexample, CoC, CoP, SSO, ETO, Able seafarer deck and engine, ETR. In addition,
\nprocedures of certificates and endorsements, principles governing near-coastal
\nvoyages, distance and E-learning guidance, new requirements for medical fitness
\nstandards, requirements to establish continued competence for tankers, use of
\nsimulators, responsibilities of companies and transitional provisions were either
\nrevised or included. New required competences such as ECDIS, BRM, leadership
\nskills were added. New certification requirements for ratings as able seafarers deck
\nwere introduced in Chapter II of the Convention. For the on-board training
\nrequirement, new competence requirements, such as ERM, operate electrical were
\nadded in Chapter III of the Convention. New certification requirements for ratings
\nas able seafarers engine, ETO and ETR were also introduced. The training
\nrequirement to get certificate of basic tanker and advanced tanker were added and
\nseparated in terms of its cargo character in Chapter V of the Convention. In Chapter
\nVI of the Convention, new refresher training requirements, CoP for SSO were
\nintroduced. Lastly, the minimum hours of rest were amended in Chapter VIII of the
\n80
\nConvention. Among them, this dissertation identified some difficulties in
\nimplementing the STCW Manila Amendment through questionnaires.
\nFirst, some MET institutes or universities (NMP, DMU, Indonesia, VIMARU, SMA
\nand ALAM) are facing difficulties in fulfilling the on-board training requirements for
\ndeck and engine officers as the on-board training placements are not enough in their
\ninstitutes. These MET institutes or universities are heavily dependent on
\ncommercial ship on-board training. Also, these resources are also limited.
\nSecond, most of the MET institutes or universities did not established distance
\nlearning and E-learning systems yet even though the STCW Manila Amendments
\nhave emphasised that these education methods as a guidance with the advantages to
\ngiving education programs to seafarers. The reason behind this is mainly due to
\nlack of financial resources and infrastructure. Other related reasons are the difficulty
\nfaced in monitoring and assessing the program, and mentoring the candidates who
\nare outside their class.
\nThird, most of the MET institutes or universities and their experts replied that the
\nhours of rest regulations are reasonable since they were harmonize with MLC 2006
\neven if there are some exception clauses in the STCW Manila Amendments section
\nA-VIII. However, some experts opined that in some cases, they would not be able
\nto comply with the scope for hours of rest regulations. Disparity of minimum safety
\nmanning levels, increased paper work and numerous ship inspections can lead to
\nreducing hours of rest and increasing fatigue of seafarers.
\nFourth, because there are additional costs to install simulation\/equipment
\ninvestments are required in some institutes or universities (DMU, Indonesia and
\nVIMARU). Therefore, financial support is required.
\nFifth, there is a possibility of misinterpretation of KUP since certain IMO courses
\nhave not yet been developed; the possibility of individual interpretation of \u201cqualified
\nperson\u201d in regulation I\/6 as it was not defined in regulation I\/1 \u201cdefinition and
\n81
\nclarifications\u201d. Further, regulation I\/1 did not defined issuing party of training
\nrecord book for approved seagoing services of tanker ships, which should be clear
\nand accurate.
\nThe following possible solutions were proposed
\nFirst, the JOBTC could be a good solution to provide on-board training placements
\nto cadets who want to have on-board training from different countries, specially in
\nthe Far East countries. This is because some MET institutes or universities have
\nsufficient capacity to provide on-board training placement. At the same time,
\nfinancial resources are required to establish JOBTC. The MDTFs from IMO TCC,
\nBPP from beneficiary bodies and ODA from countries could be one of the financial
\nresources to establish this programme.
\nSecond, the JAMES could be established to provide collaborated global E-learning
\ncourses for developing countries that have difficulty in establishing such training
\ncourses. The JAMES could share the financial resources and experts who can
\nmonitor, assess and mentor participants. English and IMO model courses should be
\nthe format for this system.
\nThird, the computer based paper work tool to facilitate and simplify vessel clearance
\nprocesses through the Single Window System could be a solution to reduce paper
\nwork on board ships. The mandatory minimum safety manning standards which
\nhave more binding power will ensure proper application of hours of rest
\nrequirements. Also, the harmonized ship inspections requirements between the
\nPSC MoU regions and the major oil companies will reduce the multiple inspections
\nburden for seafarers. As a result, this will help to meet hours of rest requirements of
\nthe Convention.
\nFourth, the MDTFs, BPP and ODA to support installation of training
\nsimulation\/equipment for developing countries who have financial difficulties will be
\nan effective solution to provide better quality training courses for seafarers.
\n82
\nFifth, before developing new IMO model courses for the new KUP, the training
\nproviders will need to work together with the administration to eliminate
\nmisinterpretation among the parities. A clear definition of \u201cqualified person\u201d
\nshould also be established including issues like who can be the issuing party of
\ntraining books for tanker ships training through the STW sub-committee.
\nIn addition, the author has identified areas that need further amendments beyond the
\nSTCW Manila Amendments in the future.
\nFirst, many accidents which involved tug-barges occurred in the ROK and Japan.
\nThese ships have unique operation characteristics compared to general cargo ships.
\nTherefore, the training requirements for personnel onboard the tug-barges should be
\nestablished in the STCW Convention Section B-V \u201cGuidance regarding special
\ntraining requirements for personnel on tug-barges\u201d similar to the OSV, DP ships
\nadded in Section B-V.
\nSecond, the IMDG Code training requirement under the IMDG Code, the USA 49
\nCFR and STCW Convention are different. The IMDG Code requires IMDG Code
\ntraining for shore based person only. The USA 49 CFR Part 172 states IMDG Code
\ntraining for hazmat employees, which included not only shore based person but also
\nseafarers. However, the STCW Convention states the training of the IMDG Code
\nas guidance in Section B-V\/c. Therefore, it is proposed that training requirements
\nof the IMDG Code for seafarers should be in Chapter II section A-II\/1 as a
\nmandatory competence.
\n6.2 Suggestions
\nBased on the outcome of the research, the author has developed the following
\nrecommendations to the Far East major seafarer supply countries and MET institutes
\nor universities and IMO to solve their difficulties or problems with effective
\nimplementation of the STCW Manila Amendments.
\n83
\na) The JOBTC can be good solution to provide on-board training services to
\ncadets who have difficulties to meet on-board training requirements.
\nb) The MDTFs from IMO, Beneficiary pays principle from interested bodies
\nand ODA from developed countries can be good financial resources to
\nestablish JOBTC. Further, these financial resources can be used for
\ninstallation simulation\/equipment for developing countries who required
\nmore advanced training systems to meet the STCW Manila Amendments.
\nc) The JAMES can be good solution to provide global E-learning education
\nprogrammes for seafarers who are staying in different countries.
\nd) The STW sub-committee of IMO should clarify the vague terminology of
\n\u201cqualified person\u201d and make sure who can be the issuing party of training
\nbooks for tanker ship training. Also, the training providers have to work
\ntogether to ensure uniform compliance of KUPs.
\ne) The training requirements for persons who are involved in tug-barge
\noperations should be included in the STCW Convention Section B-V since it
\nhas unique operation characteristics.
\nf) The IMDG Code training requirements for seafarers should be included in
\nthe STCW Convention, Chapter II section A-II\/1 as a mandatory competence
\nfor seafarers.<\/p>\n
84
\nReferences
\nBalyk, L. (2006). Crewing of ships in contemporary ship registry systems : safety
\nand socioeconomic considerations. WMU, Master of Science in Maritiem affaris
\n(p. 15). Malmo: WMU.
\nSTCW 2010 Amendments : what you need to know (2011, May 24). safety4sea.
\nRetrieved August 28, 2011, from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/safety4sea.com\/analysis\/2\/21\/stcw-2010-amendments-:-what-youneed-to-know
\nBIMCO. (2010, January 20). BIMCO. Revision of Standards of Training,
\nCertification and Watchkeeping topped the agenda of STW 41. Retrieved August
\n25, 2011, from: the World Wide Web :
\nhttps:\/\/www.bimco.org\/en\/News\/2010\/01\/20_Revision_of_STCW.aspx
\nBIMCO\/ISF. (2010). Manpower 2010 Update : International Shipping Federation,
\nInstitute For Employment Research and International Maritime Conventions
\nResearch Center. London: Author
\nBryant, D. T. (1991). The human element in shipping casualties. Report prepared for
\nthe Dept. of Transport, Marine Directorate, United Kingdom.
\nChae, C. J. (2009). Suggestion of Improving Measures with the Status Analysis for
\nShip Inspection by Major Oil Companies. Journal of Korean Navigation and
\nPort Research (p. 4). Busan: Korea Maritime University.
\nDMU. (2008). Dalian Maritime University. Retrieved August 31 2011 from
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/dlmu.edu.cn\/
\n85
\nDNV. (2010, 03 08). Proposed amendments to the STCW Convention and Code for
\napproved simulator training. Retrieved August 28, 2011 from Kongsberg
\nMaritime Performance by Providing The Full Picture:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/km.kongsberg.com\/ks\/web\/nokbg0397.nsf\/AllWeb\/A1EC9FC537D
\nFFD81C12576F000314137\/$file\/DNV_Aksel_Nordholm.pdf?OpenElement
\nErmal Xhelilaj, K. L. (2010). The Role Of Human Fatigue Factor Towards Maritime
\nCasualties. Maritime Transport & Navigation Journal, 2 (2010), No. 2 , 26-27.
\nEuropean Commission. (2010). IMO – European Union submissions to be adopted by
\nthe Council concerning the Comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and
\nCode for the Diplomatic Conference in Manila from 21 to 25 June 2010 .
\nBrussels: Author.
\nGovernments Printing Office. (2011, May 11). GPO Access : Electronic Code of
\nFederal Regulations. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from World Wide Web:
\nhttp:\/\/ecfr.gpoaccess.gov\/cgi\/t\/text\/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=962f83b773169e23ac0c
\nbbb157706213&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:2.1.1.3.8&idno=49#49:2.1.1.3.
\n8.8
\nGuanghuang, Y. (1996). The Impact of the revised STCW Convention on Chinese
\nhigher maritime education and training institutions. Unpublished master’s thesis,
\nWorld Maritime University, Malm\u00f6, Sweden.
\nInternational Labour Organization, International Maritime Organization. (2010).
\nJoint ILO-IMO working Group on Medical Fitness Examinations of Seafarers
\nand Ships’ Medicine Chests. Geneva: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009). IMO What it is. London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011). IMO’s Contribution to Sustainable
\nMaritime Development. London: Author.
\n86
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011). International Convention on Standards
\nof Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers including 2010
\nManila Amendments. London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011). Technical Co-operation. Retrieved
\nSeptember 1, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/imo.org\/OurWork\/TechnicalCooperation\/Pages\/Default.aspx
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2007). The linkage between the integrated
\ntechnical Co-operation programe and the millennium development goals (Res A.
\n1006(25)). London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010, January 15). Conference of the parties to
\nthe International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
\nWatchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 Manila, the Philippines, 21-25 June 2010,
\nList of Participants (STCW\/CONF 2\/INF.1). London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2007, January 25). Comprehensive Review of
\nThe STCW Convention and The STCW Code : submitted by drafting group
\n(STW 38\/WP.7). London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011). Reports on acts of piracy and armed
\nrobbery against ships Annual report \u2013 2010 (MSC.4\/Circ.169). London: Author.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010, January 19). Sub-Committee on
\nStandards of Training and Watchkeeping 41st session (STW
\n41\/WP.2\/Add.1\/Rev.1). London: Author.
\nInternational Shipping Federation. (2011). Guidelines on the IMO STCW Convention
\nincluding the 2010 ‘Manila amendments’ Thrid Edition (pp. 4-7, 13-16, 64-72.
\nLondon: Author.
\n87
\nInternational Shipping Federation(ISF), International Chamber of Shipping(ICS).
\n(2011). Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention “A Quick Guide for
\nSeafarers”. London: Author
\nIstanbul Technical University. (2002). The importance of effective communication.
\nIstanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
\nJapan Seamen’s Union. (2009). Developing more project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s for seafarer training. JSU
\nMaritime Journal , 1.
\nKorea Institutes of Maritime and Fisheries Technology (KIMFT). (2011). Full
\nMission Ship Handling Simulation Install Project. Busan: Author.
\nKorea Institutes of Maritime and Fisheries Technology (KIMFT). (2008). Sea
\nTraining Division. Retrieved August 31, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/seaman.or.kr\/_bu_intro\/index.php?mode=list&req_MIDX=19ca14e7
\nea6328a42e0eb13d585e4c22
\nKorea Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST). (2011). Annual maritime accident
\nstatistics of the Republic of Korea. Seoul: Author.
\nKorea Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST). (2011). Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal.
\nRetrieved September 01, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/kmst.go.kr\/eng\/cms\/cms.asp?code=DE
\nKorea Maritime University. (2008). Retrieved August 31, 2011 from the World Wide
\nWeb:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/hhu.ac.kr\/03college\/01_08.j \ub124
\n88
\nMaritime Accidents Inquiry Association. (2008). Maritime Accidents Inquiry
\nAssociation. Retrieved January 9, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/maia.or.jp\/en\/index.html
\nMaquera, Z. G. (1998). An administrative perspective on the implementation of
\nSTCW certification in the Philippines. (p. 19-25). Unpublished master’s thesis,
\nWorld Maritime University, Malm\u00f6, Sweden.
\nMaritime Labour Convention 2006. ILO,(2006).
\nMinistry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. (2007). Report of Sub-Committee
\non Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers, 12th Session. Seoul:
\nAuthor.
\nMinistry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. (2010). The report of the 36th
\nSession of FAL COMMITTEE. Seoul: Author.
\nMokpo National Maritime University. (2010). Retrieved August 31, 2011 from the
\nWorld Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/mmu.ac.kr\/
\nMuirhead, P. M. (2002). A study of the impact of new technology and teaching
\nmethodologies on global maritime education and training into the 21st century.
\n(p. 196). Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
\nNazha, N. (2011, July 27). Comprehensive Review of STCW Convention. Retrieved
\nAugust 23, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/tc.gc.ca\/media\/images\/marinesafety\/Comprehensive_review_of_ST
\nCW-Slide_Presentation-English.pdf
\n89
\nNordholm, A. D. (2011, March 8). Proposed amendments to the STCW Convention
\nand Code for approved simulator training. Retrieved August 31, 2011, from the
\nWorld Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/km.kongsberg.com\/ks\/web\/nokbg0397.nsf\/AllWeb\/A1EC9FC537D
\nFFD81C12576F000314137\/$file\/DNV_Aksel_Nordholm.pdf?OpenElement
\nOwen, P. (2010, August). Revised STCW Convention and Code adopted at the
\nManila Conference. International Federation of Shipmasters’ Associations
\n(IFSMA) – Newsletter No. 61 , p. 6.
\nRae, L. (2002). Trainer Assessment: A guide to measuring the performance of
\ntraniners and facilitators. England: Gower Publishing Company.
\nRothblum, A. M. (2010). Human Error and Maritime Safety. Retrieved August 22,
\n2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/geovs.com\/_UPLOADED\/Human%20Error%20and%20Marine%20
\nSafety.pdf
\nSchroder, J.-U. (2007). Study on Safe Manning Levels of Merchant Ships (p. 23).
\nSweden, Greece, Belgium: Maritime Transport coordination Platform.
\nSeafarers International Research Centre (SIRC). (2001). A study on fraudulent
\npractices associated with certificates of competency and endorsements. Wales:
\nCardiff University Seafarers International Research Centre.
\nSingapore Maritime Academy. (2009). STCW Ancillary Courses. Retrieved
\nSeptember 01, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sp.edu.sg\/wps\/portal\/vp-spws\/schsma.cse.shortcse.stcwcse
\nSingapore Maritime Academy. (2009). Welcome to CoC e-learning programs.
\nRetrieved August 31, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
\nhttp:\/\/sma.teledatamarine.com\/
\n90
\nInternational Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988,
\n(Consolidated Edition 2009), IMO, (2009).
\nHermansson, R. (2004, November 26). Paperwork on board \u2013 a safety threat?
\nScandinavian Shipping Gazette, 22, 37-38
\nStenman, C. (2005). The Development of the MARPOL and EU Regulations to Phase
\nout Single Hulled Oil Tankers. Unpublished master’s thesis (p. 17). School of
\nEconomics and Commercial Law Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.
\nSurugiu Felicia, N. C. (2010). Impact of Seafarers Training on Crew Personnel
\nStrategy and Competitiveness. Maritime Transport & Navigation Journal 2
\n(2010), No. 2, 62.
\nTransas. (2010). An estimate sheet for install simulation systems. Busan: Transas.
\nTransportation Safety Board of Canada. (1994). Working paper on Tankers Involved
\nin Shipping Accidents 1975-1992. Quebec: Transportation Safety Board of
\nCanada (TSB).
\nUN\/CEFACT International Trade Procedures Working Group (ITPWG). (2003). The
\nSingle Window Concept. Geneva: United Nations.
\nUN Convention On The Law of the Sea (1982).
\nVietnam Maritime University. (2011). Retrieved August 31, 2011 from the World
\nWide Web:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/vimaru.edu.vn\/gioithieu\/25
\n91
\nWorld Maritime University. (2005). Study on the Supply & Demand of EU Officers\/
\nRatings and Manning Levels. Malm\u00f6: Maritime Transport Coordination
\nPlatform.
\n92
\nAppendix 1 Summary of STCW Manila Amendments and its Resolutions
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nDefinition and
\nclarifications
\nReg I\/1.7
\nNew definition for engineer
\nofficer
\nReg I\/1.12
\nNew definition for GMDSS
\nradio operator
\nReg I\/1.21
\nChange to definition of ro-ro
\npassenger ship
\nReg I\/1.27-36
\nNew definition added \u2013 ISPS
\nCode, Ship Security Officer,
\nCertificate of Competency,
\nCertificate of Proficiency,
\nSecurity duties, electrotechnical rating and
\ndocumentary evidence
\nCertificates and
\nendorsements
\nReg I\/2.1
\nNew certificate of competency
\nissuing rules for administrations
\nReg I\/2.2
\nNew regulation on the issuing
\nof certificates to masters and
\nofficers for tanker training
\nReg I\/2.6
\nNew endorsement format
\nregulation
\nReg I\/2.7
\nNew rules for administrations
\nrecognising certificate prior to
\nendorsement
\nReg I\/2.8
\nChanges for administrations
\nEndorsing certificates
\nReg I\/2.12
\nParties issuing certificates new
\ncompliance requirements
\nReg I\/2.13
\nNew candidates for certification
\nproof requirements
\nReg I\/2.14
\nAll parties endorsing or issuing
\ncertification now require a
\nregister of documents
\nReg I\/2.15 and Reg I\/2.16
\nAll Parties endorsing or issuing
\ncertification must make
\ninformation available to other
\nadministrations and
\ncompanies(by 1 January 2017
\nthis must be through electronic
\nmeans)
\nNew requirements for
\nthe issue and
\nregistration of
\ncertificates
\nA I\/2.5
\nApproval of seagoing
\nservice
\nA I\/2.6
\nApproval of training
\ncourses
\nA I\/2.7
\nElectronic access to
\nregisters<\/p>\n
93
\nAffected
\nSections
\nRegulation Section A Section B
\nPrinciples
\ngoverning nearcoastal voyages
\nReg I\/3.2
\nNew rule for Parties with
\nships on near coastal voyages
\nin another party\u2019s limits
\nReg I\/3.5
\nNew rules for certificates for
\nseafarers operating in near
\ncoastal voyages
\nReg I\/3.6
\nAltered requirements for
\nparties defining near-coastal
\nvoyages
\nNew Principles governing
\nnear-coastal voyages
\nA-I\/3.1
\nFactors to be considered
\nwhen issuing certificates for
\nnear coastal voyages
\nA-I\/3.2
\nNew requirements on the
\nlimits of near-coastal
\nvoyages
\nB-I\/3
\nAmended near-coastal voyage
\nlimits guidance
\nControl procedures Reg I\/4.1
\nNew security and
\nenvironmental requirements
\nA-I\/4.6
\nAssessment of new
\ncompetency requirements for
\nthose with security duties
\nNational provisions Reg I\/5.1
\nNew requirement to
\ninvestigate any
\nincompetency, act, omission
\nor compromise to security
\nReg I\/5.2
\nNew requirement for the
\nprevention and enforcement
\nof measures in relation to
\nunlawful certificates and
\nendorsements
\nGuidance regarding
\ntraining and
\nassessment
\nB-I\/6.6 \u2013 6.10
\nNew guidance for use of
\ndistance learning and e-learning
\nB-I\/6.11
\nNew guidance for assessing a
\ntrainees\u2019s progress and
\nachievements by distance
\nlearning and e-learning
\nB-I\/6.12
\nNew guidance on a register of
\napproved training providers,
\ncourses and programmes added
\nCommunication of
\ninformation
\nReg I\/7
\nNew requirements for the
\nIMO MSC with respect to the
\ncommunication of
\ninformation by governments
\nto IMO
\nA-I\/7.2
\nAmendments to initial
\ncommunication of
\ninformation requirements
\nA-I\/7.4, .5 and .6
\nAlteration and additions to
\nsubsequent report
\nrequirements
\nA-I\/7.7,.9 and .11
\nAmendment to panel of
\ncompetent persons
\nrequirements
\nB-I\/7
\nNew guidance added on the
\ncommunication of information
\nQuality standards Reg I\/8
\nMedical certification
\nrequirement added, more
\nrequirements for
\nAssessment
\nA-I\/8.3
\nNew addition to national
\nobjectives and quality
\nstandards requirements to
\nunsure all provisions of
\nSTCW are covered by
\nquality standards system
\n94
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMedical Standards Reg I\/9.1 \u2013 9.7
\nNew requirements for medical
\nfitness standards
\nA-I\/9
\nMore detailed medical
\nstandards and
\nrequirement for
\ncertification
\nintroduced
\nB-I\/9
\nMedical examination
\nand certification
\nguidance amended
\nRecognition of
\ncertificates
\nReg I\/10.1
\nNew requirement for
\nadministrations who recognize
\ncertificates
\nReg I\/10.5
\nClarification of 3 months
\nflexibility for endorsement
\nB-I\/10.2 and .3
\nNew guidance
\nregarding the
\nrecognition of
\ncertificates
\nRevalidation of
\ncertificates
\nReg I\/11.3
\nRequirement for tanker training
\ncertificate holders to maintain
\ncompetence every 5 years
\nReg I\/11.4
\nRequirement to compare
\nstandards of competence for
\ncertificates issued before 1
\nJanuary 2017 to determine if
\nrefresher\/updating training is
\nrequired
\nA-I\/11
\nAmendments to
\nrequirements for the
\nrevalidation of
\ncertificates
\nB-I\/11
\nAmended guidance
\nregarding the
\nrevalidation of
\ncertificates
\nGuidance regarding
\nthe use of simulators
\nB-I\/12.19
\nAddition of ECDIS
\nB-I\/12.36-66
\nNew guidance on
\ntraining and assessment
\nin ECDIS introduced
\nB-I\/12.68
\nNavigation and watchkeeping simulation
\nrecommendations
\namended
\nResponsibilities of
\ncompanies
\nReg I\/14
\nNew responsibilities for
\ncompanies
\nA-I\/14.3
\nNew ro-ro passenger
\nship familiarisation
\nrequirements
\nB-I\/14
\nNew guidance for
\ncompanies to ensure
\nemployed seafarers are
\nfamiliar with the vessel
\nand their duties and
\nresponsibilities New roro familiarisation
\nrequirements
\nTransitional
\nprovisions
\nReg I\/15
\nNew transitional provisions for
\n2010 amendments
\n95
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of
\nofficers in charge of a
\nnavigational watch on
\nships of 500 G\/T or
\nmore
\nReg II\/1.2,
\nand .6
\nCandidate
\nrequirements
\nfor
\ncertification
\namended and
\nexpanded
\nA-II\/1
\nFunction \u2013 Navigation at the operational level
\nAmendments and additions to the competence
\n\u201cMaintain a safe navigational watch\u201d
\nNew competence \u201cUse of ECDIS to maintain
\nthe safety of Navigation\u201d
\nAmended competence \u201cUse the Imo Standard
\nMarine Communication Phrases and use
\nEnglish in written and oral form\u201d
\nAmended competence \u201cTransmit and receive
\ninformation by visual signalling\u201d
\nFunction \u2013 Controlling the operation of the ship
\nand care for persons on board at the operational
\nlevel
\nAmended competence \u201cEnsure compliance with
\npollution prevention requirements
\nNew competences \u201cApplication of leadership
\nand teamworking skill\u201d and \u201cContribute to the
\nsafety of personnel ship\u201d
\nB-II\/1.11
\nECDIS added
\nB-II\/1.19
\nand .20
\nGuidance on
\ntraining in
\ncelestial
\nnavigation
\nintrouduced
\nMandatory mimimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of
\nmasters and chief
\nmates on ships of 500
\nG\/T or more
\nA-II\/2
\nFunction \u2013 Navigation at the management level
\nAmended competence \u201cPlan a voyage and
\nconduct navigation\u201d, \u201cDetermine position and
\naccuracy of resultant position fix by any
\nmeans\u201d
\nExpanded competence \u201cMaintain safe
\nnavigation through the use of information from
\nnavigation equipment and systems Help
\ncommand decision making\u201d
\nNew competence \u201cMaintain the safety of
\nnavigation through the use of ECDIS and
\nassociated navigation systems to Help
\ncommand decision making\u201d
\nAmended competence \u201cForecast weather and
\noceanographic conditions\u201d
\nAmended and expanded competence \u201cUse of
\nleadership and managerial skill\u201d
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of
\nofficers in charge of a
\nnavigational watch
\nand of masters on
\nships of less than 500
\nG\/T
\nReg II\/3
\nAltered
\ncertification
\nrequirements
\nfor officers
\nand masters
\non ships not
\nengaged and
\nships engaged
\non near
\ncoastal
\nvoyages
\nA-II\/3
\nFunction \u2013 Navigation at the operational level
\nAmended competence \u201cPlan and conduct a
\ncoastal passage and determine position\u201d,
\n\u201cMaintain a safe navigational watch\u201d
\nFunction \u2013 Controlling the operation of the ship
\nand care for persons on board at the operational
\nlevel
\nNew competence \u201cContribute to the safety of
\npersonnel and ship\u201d
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of ratings
\nas Able Seafarer Deck
\nReg II\/5
\nNew
\nregulation for
\ncertification
\nof ratings as
\nAble Seafarer
\nDeck
\nintroduced
\nA-II\/5
\nNew specification of minimum standards of
\ncompetence for ratings as Able Seafarer Deck
\nintroduced
\nB-II\/5
\nRequirement for
\na training record
\nbook for Able
\nSeafarer Deck
\n96
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of
\nofficers in charge of
\nan engine-room or
\ndesignated duty
\nengineers in a
\nperiodically
\nunmanned engineroom
\nReg III\/1
\nAmended
\nregulation
\nregarding
\ncertificates of
\ncandidates to
\nattain them
\nA-III\/1.2
\nAmended on board training requirements
\nA-III\/1.8
\nPossibility to omit propulsion machinery types
\non certification
\nA-III\/1.10
\nNear-coastal voyages requirements amended
\nTable A-III\/1
\nFunction \u2013 Marine engineering at the
\noperational level
\nAmended competence \u201cMaintain a safe
\nengineering watch\u201d to include \u201cEngine-room
\nresource management\u201d, \u201coperate fuel,
\nlubrication, ballast and other pumping systems
\nand associated control systems\u201d, \u201cOperate
\nelectrical, electronic and control systems\u201d,
\n\u201cMaintenance and repair of shipboard
\nmachinery and equipment\u201d
\nNew competence \u201cUse internal communication
\nsystems\u201d, \u201cMaintenance and repair of electrical
\nand electronic equipment\u201d, \u201cAppropriate use of
\nhand tools, machine tools and measuring
\ninstruments for fabrication and repair on board\u201d
\nExpanded competence \u201cOperate main and
\nauxiliary machinery and associated control
\nsystems\u201d
\nFunction \u2013 Controlling the operation of the ship
\nand care for persons on board at the operational
\nlevel
\nAmended competence \u201cEnsure compliance with
\npollution prevention requirements\u201d
\nNew competence \u201cApplication of leadership
\nand team working skills\u201d, \u201cContribute to the
\nsafety of personnel and ship\u201d
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\ncertification of chief
\nengineer officers and
\nsecond engineer
\nofficers on ships
\npowered by main
\npropulsion machinery
\nof 3,000kW
\npropulsion power or
\nmore
\nReg III\/2
\nAmended
\nregulation
\nregarding
\ncertificates of
\ncompetence
\nand
\nrequirements
\nof candidates
\nto attain them
\nA-III\/2.8
\nAmended requirements for near coastal
\nvoyages
\nTable A-III\/2
\nFunction \u2013Marine engineering at the
\nmanagement level
\nNew competence \u201cManage the operation of
\npropulsion plant machinery\u201d
\nAmended competence \u201cPlan and schedule
\noperations\u201d, \u201coperation, surveillance,
\nperformance assessment and maintaining safety
\nof propulsion plan and auxiliary machinery\u201d
\nFunction \u2013 Electrical, electronic and control
\nengineering at the management level
\nAmended competence \u201cManage operation of
\nelectrical and electronic control equipment\u201d,
\n\u201cmanage troubleshooting restoration of
\nelectrical and electronic control equipment to
\noperating condition\u201d, \u201cmanage safe and
\neffective maintenance are repair procedures\u201d,
\n\u201c ensure safe working practices\u201d, \u201cuse
\nleadership and managerial skills\u201d
\nExpanded competence \u201cDetect and identify the
\ncause of machinery malfunctions and correct
\nfaults\u201d
\n97
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of
\nchief engineer officers and
\nsecond engineer officers on
\nships powered by main
\npropulsion machinery of
\nbetween 750kW and 3,000kW
\npropulsion power
\nA-III\/3.8
\nNear-coastal voyages
\nrequirements
\namended
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of
\nratings forming part of a watch
\nin an manned engine-room or
\ndesignated to perform duties in
\na periodically unmanned
\nengine-room
\nTable A-III\/4
\nFunction \u2013 Marine
\nengineering at the
\nsupport level
\nAmended competence
\n\u201cfor keeping a boiler
\nwatch\u201d
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of
\nratings as Able Seafarer Engine
\nin a manned engine-room or
\ndesignated to perform duties in
\na periodically unmanned
\nengine-room
\nReg III\/5
\nNew regulation for
\ncertification of rating
\nas Able Seafarer
\nEngine introduced
\nA-III\/5
\nNew specification of
\nminimum standards of
\ncompetence for
\nratings as Able
\nSeafarer Engine
\nintroduced
\nB-III\/5
\nRequirement for a
\ntraining record book for
\nAble Seafarer Engine
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of
\nelectro-technical officer
\nReg III\/6
\nNew regulation for
\ncertification for
\nelectro-technical
\nofficers introduced
\nA-III\/6
\nNew specification of
\nminimum standards of
\ncompetence for
\nelectro-technical
\nofficer introduced
\nB-III\/6
\nGuidance regarding
\ntraining and
\ncertification for electrotechnical officers
\nintroduced
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for certification of
\nelectro-technical rating
\nReg III\/7
\nNew regulation for
\ncertification for
\nelectro-technical
\nratings introduced
\nA-III\/7
\nNew specification of
\nminimum standards of
\ncompetence for
\nelectro-technical
\nratings introduced
\nRadio communication and radio
\noperators
\nReg IV
\nChange of term-radio
\npersonnel now named
\nradio operators
\nA-IV
\nChange of term-radio
\npersonnel now named
\nradio operators
\nB-IV
\nChange of term-radio
\npersonnel now named
\nradio operatos<\/p>\n
98
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for the
\ntraining and qualification
\nof masters, officers and
\nratings on oil and
\nchemical tankers
\nReg V\/1-1
\nAmended and
\nexpanded
\nregulation for
\nseafarers on
\nboard oil and
\nchemical
\ntankers and
\nrequirements
\nfor basic and
\nadvanced
\ntraining
\nA-V\/1-1
\nAmended and expanded requirements for
\nthe standard and competence of seafarers
\non board oil and chemical tankers
\nTable A-V\/1-1-1
\nNew tables for the specification of
\nminimum standard of competence in
\nbasic training for oil and chemical tanker
\ncargo operations
\nTable A-V\/1-1-2
\nNew tables for the specification of
\nminimum standard of competence in
\nadvance training for oil tanker cargo
\noperations
\nTable A-V\/1-1-3
\nNew tables for the specification of
\nminimum standard of competence in
\nadvance training for chemical tanker
\ncargo operations
\nB-V\/1
\nAmended and
\nexpanded training
\nguidance for tankers
\nB-V\/1-1.20
\nAmended training
\nguidance for oil
\ntankers
\nB-V\/1-1.22
\nAmended training
\nguidance for
\nchemical tankers
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for the
\ntraining and qualification
\nof masters, officers and
\nratings on liquefied gas
\ntankers
\nReg V\/1-2
\nNew
\nregulation for
\nseafarers on
\nboard
\nliquefied gas
\ntankers
\nintroduced
\nA-V\/1-2
\nNew requirements for seafarers on board
\nliquefied gas tankers
\nTable A-V\/1-2-1
\nNew tables for the specification of
\nminimum standard of competence in
\nbasic training for liquefied gas tanker
\ncargo operations
\nTable A-V\/1.2.2
\nNew tables for the specification of
\nminimum standard of competence in
\nadvanced training for liquefied gas tanker
\ncargo operations
\nB-V\/1-2
\nAmended training
\nguidance for
\nliquefied gas
\ntankers
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for the
\ntraining and qualification
\nof masters, officers and
\nratings and other
\npersonnel on passenger
\nships
\nReg V\/2
\nAmended to
\nprovide
\nguidance for
\nseafarers on
\nboard
\npassenger
\nships
\nincluding roro passenger
\nships
\nA-V\/2
\nAmended to provide guidance for
\nseafarers on board all passenger ships
\nA-V\/2.2
\nNew procedures regarding safety training
\nfor personnel providing direct service to
\npassengers in passenger spaces
\nA-V\/2.4
\nAmended to include ro-ro passenger ships
\nAmended to clarify application to ro-ro
\nship spaces
\nB-V\/2
\nAmended guidance
\nfor seafarers on
\nboard passenger
\nships regarding
\nenhanced fire
\nfighting and damage
\ncontrol
\nGuidance regarding
\ntraining and qualification
\nof masters and officers in
\ncharge of a navigational
\nwatch on board OSV
\nB-V\/e
\nNew guidance for
\nmasters and officers
\nin charge of a
\nnavigational watch
\non board OSV
\nGuidance on the training
\nand experience for
\npersonnel operating DP
\nsystems
\nB-V\/f
\nNew guidance for
\npersonnel operating
\nDP systems
\nGuidance regarding
\ntraining of masters and
\nofficers for ships
\noperating in polar waters
\nB-V\/g
\nNew guidance for
\nmasters and officers
\nfor ships operating
\npolar waters
\n99
\nAffected Sections Regulation Section A Section B
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for safety
\nfamiliarization, basic
\ntraining and instruction
\nfor all seafarers
\nReg VI\/1.2
\nNew requirements for a
\ncertificate of
\nproficiency
\nA-VI\/1
\nNew refresher training
\nrequirements
\nTable A-VI\/1-4
\nAmended competence \u201ctake
\nprecautions to prevent
\npollution of the marine
\nenvironment\u201d, \u201ccontribute
\nto effective communications
\non board\u201d, \u201ccontribute to
\neffective human
\nrelationships on board ship\u201d
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for safety
\nfamiliarization, basic
\ntraining and instruction
\nfor all seafarers
\nReg VI\/1.2
\nNew requirements for a
\ncertificate of
\nproficiency
\nA-VI\/2
\nNew refresher training
\nrequirements
\nTable A-VI\/2-1
\nAmended competence \u201ctake
\ncharge of a survival craft or
\nrescue boat during and after
\nthe launch\u201d
\nTable A-VI\/2-2
\nAmended table
\n\u201cspecification of the
\nminimum standard of
\ncompetence in fast rescue
\nboats\u201d
\nB-VI\/2.3
\nOn board training and
\nexperience guidance
\namended
\nMandatory minimum
\ntraining in advanced fire
\nfighting
\nA-VI\/3
\nNew refresher training
\nrequirements
\nGuidance regarding
\nrequirements in medical
\nfirst aid and medical
\ncare
\nB-VI\/4
\nNew guidance for training
\nprogrammes
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for the
\nissue of certificate of
\nproficiency for ship
\nsecurity officers
\nReg VI\/5
\nNew certificates of
\nproficiency for SSO
\nregulation introduced
\nA-VI\/5
\nCertificates of proficiency
\nfor SSO introduced
\nB-VI\/5
\nCertificates of proficiency
\nfor ship security officers
\nguidance introduced
\nMandatory minimum
\nrequirements for
\nsecurity related training
\nand instruction for all
\nseafarers
\nReg VI\/6
\nNew regulations for
\nsecurity related training
\nand instruction for all
\nseafarers
\nA-VI\/6
\nNew requirements for
\nsecurity related training and
\ninstruction for all seafarers
\nB-VI\/6
\nNew guidance for security
\nrelated and instruction for
\nall seafarers
\nIssue of alternative
\ncertificate
\nA-VII\/1.4
\nAmended and expanded
\ncertification requirements at
\nthe support level
\nCertification of
\nseafarers
\nA-VII\/2.3 and .4
\nAdded requirements for
\nseafarers at the support
\nlevel
\nB-VII\/2
\nNew guidance regarding
\nspecial integrated deck and
\nengine training
\nFitness for duty Reg VIII\/1.1
\nAmended application
\nof the requirements for
\nthe prevention of
\nfatigue
\nReg VIII\/1.2
\nA-VIII\/1
\nAmended requirements for
\nstandards regarding
\nwatchkeeping, specifically
\nminimum hours of rest and
\nfitness for duty
\nB-VIII\/1.4
\nAmended guidance on the
\nprevention of fatigue and
\nuse of exceptions for the
\nminimum hours of rest
\nB-VIII\/1.6
\nNew guidance for the
\n100
\nNew regulation for the
\nprevention of drug and
\nalcohol abuse
\nprevention of drug and
\nalcohol abuse
\nWathch-keeping
\narrangements and
\nprinciples to be
\nobserved
\nReg VIII\/2.2
\nNew additional factors
\nto be considered for
\nwatch-keeping
\narrangements
\nA-VIII\/2.8
\nNew watchkeeping
\nprinciples
\nA-VIII\/2.10
\nAmended to include cargo
\nwatch in the principles
\napplying to watchkeeping at
\nsea
\nA-VIII\/2.18
\nWathc arrangements altered
\nto include ECDIS
\nA-VIII\/2.47
\nWatchkeeping uder coastal
\nand congested waters
\namended to include ECDIS
\nA-VIII\/2.107
\nCargo watch requirements
\nintroduced
\nB-VIII\/2 part 4-1
\nNew guidance for keeping
\nan anchor watch
\nSource: Guidelines on the IMO STCW Convention (Including the 2010 \u201cManila
\nAmendments\u201d (ISF, 2011)<\/p>\n
101
\nThe STCW Diplomatic Conference also adopted resolutions on:
\n– Resolution 3 : Expression of appreciation to the host Government;
\n– Resolution 4 : Transitional provisions and early implementation;
\n– Resolution 5 : Verification of certificates of competency and endorsements
\ncontained;
\n– Resolution 6 : Standards of training and certification and ships\u2019 manning levels;
\n– Resolution 7 : Promotion of technical knowledge, skills and professionalism of
\nseafarers;
\n– Resolution 8 : Development of guidelines to implement international standards
\non medical fitness for seafarers;
\n– Resolution 9 : Revision of existing model courses published by the
\nInternational Maritime Organization and development of new model courses;
\n– Resolution 10 : Promotion of technical co-operation;
\n– Resolution 11 : Measures to ensure the competency of masters and officers of
\nships operating in polar waters;
\n– Resolution 12 : Attracting new entrants to, and retaining seafarers in, the
\nmaritime profession;
\n– Resolution 13 : Accommodation for trainees;
\n– Resolution 14 : Promotion of the participation of women in the maritime
\nindustry;
\n– Resolution 15 : Future amendments and review of the STCW Convention and
\nCode;
\n– Resolution 16 : Contribution of the International Labour Organization;
\n– Resolution 17 : Role of the World Maritime University and IMO International
\nMaritime Law Institute and International Maritime Safety, Security and
\nEnvironment Academy (IMSSEA) in promoting enhanced maritime standards;
\n– Resolution 18 : Year of the Seafarer; and
\n– Resolution 19 : Day of the Seafarer.
\n102
\nAppendix 2 Questionnaire paper
\nRe: RESEARCH QUESTIONS ON STCW MANILA AMENDMENTS
\nI am currently undertaking the Masters of Science (MSc) program in
\nMaritime Affairs (MSc) at the World Maritime University (WMU) at Malmo,
\nSweden specializing in Maritime Safety and Environmental Administration. As a
\nprofessional, I am working for the Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries
\nTechnology (KIMFT) as an Helpant Professor.
\nAs part of the MSc program I am writing a dissertation on the recent
\nSTCW Manila amendments. In order to address all possible angles and issues
\nrelated to the Manila amendments, I would like to seek your expertise and opinions
\non the challenges and impacts with regards to the Manila amendments. I would
\nappreciate if you could complete the questionnaire attached herewith where it is
\nrelevant to your area. Your valuable comments are much appreciated.
\nDue to the short timeline given to complete my dissertation, I would
\ndeeply appreciate your prompt response ASAP. Meantime, if there are any
\nqueries please do not hesitate to contact me. I had attached my curriculum vitea for
\nyour reference. I would like to thank you in advance for taking your time to go
\nthrough this questionnaire.
\nThank you.
\nYours sincerely,
\nChae, Chong Ju
\nWMU, Sweden
\n103
\nSTCW Manila Amendments<\/p>\n
The following are only indicative questions. Please provide your
\ncomments in areas which are relevant to your area of expertise.
\n1. What are the procedures for ratifying the STCW Manila amendments
\nor international conventions in your country? (in detail)
\n(Ex: sign at diplomatic conference \u2192 making national regulations \u2192 approved by
\nnational assembly \u2192 send it to IMO \u2192 ratify )
\n2. Are there any additional expenditure required for the implementation o
\nf the new training or education curriculums to comply STCW Manila Amend
\nments? If yes, please provide the details.
\n(Example: Cost for new fire fighting facilities: 20,000US$, Cost for new employed
\nlecturer or professor: 30,000US$\/year, Cost for manpower etc. in detail, use unit
\nUS$ base)
\n3. Do you have training ship to comply on board training requirements
\nwhich mentioned in STCW Chapter 2 and 3 for deck officer and engineer off
\nicer.
\nIf yes, is the training ship capacity sufficient for all cadets in your institute or country?
\n(explain capacity of your training ship)
\nAlternatively how does the cadets in your country complete their sea service
\nrequirement, and what are the difficulties faced?
\n104
\n4. What are the course fees for the education or training courses which
\nare mentioning in STCW Manila amendments for seafarers.
\n(Example: Basic training for crude oil tanker : 100 US$, Advanced training for crude
\noil tanker : 200 US$.
\n(Please attach the course fees structure and data)
\n5. What are the procedures (in sequence) and requirements (in terms of
\ncertification and endorsement) for seafarers who want board tanker ship. In addition,
\nare there any problems for seafarer who want get tanker ship certificate?
\n(Example: Difficult to have one month or three month on board training on tanker
\nship)
\n6. Do you have distance learning and e-learning systems?
\n– If yes, what are the types of distance learning and e-learning programs available.
\nIn addition, what kind of problems you have with regard to distance learning.
\n– If no, are there plans to establish distance learning and e-learning programs. And,
\ndescribe the challenges faced for implementation.
\n7. Are there any additional training courses or programs required beyond the
\nSTCW Chapter VI- Basic Training requirement.
\nPlease state the types of additional training courses required.<\/p>\n
105
\n8. What is your opinion on the new rest hour framework for seafarers in
\nthe STCW Manila amendments.
\n– Is it reasonable? why?
\n– Is it not reasonable? why?
\nAre there any conflicts with your country\u2019s rest hours requirements as compared to
\nthe STCW Manila Amendments?
\n9. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of STCW
\nManila Amendments.
\n10. What are the difficulties faced for
\ni) rectifying the STCW Manila amendments in your country; and
\nii) the compliances of the requirements in your institute?
\n11. How many seafarers will be affected by STCW Manila amendment in
\nyour country? (Please attach your country\u2019s seafarer statistic data if possible)
\n12. In your opinion, are there any further amendments required to the
\nSTCW Conventions for seafarer training in the future and why?<\/p>\n
106
\nAppendix 3 Brief summary of 7 MET institutes of Far East 7 Countries
\nNMP (National Maritime Polytechnic)
\nNATIONAL MARITIME POLYTECHNIC
\nThe NMP was established on May 1, 1978 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1369
\nto meet the need for a maritime training center in the country. Initial operations were
\nhandled by employees from the National Seamen Board. The course offerings
\nconsisted of Basic Messman Course as well as the supervision of radar-related
\ncourses in Manila-based maritime schools.
\nExpanded operations of the Polytechnic became possible with the acquisition in 1980
\nof a 17-hectare lot in Cabalawan, Tacloban City.
\nThe increasing demands for bigger and more modern structures, improved
\naccommodations and enhanced services, the Philippines commitment and Japan’s
\ngenerous Helpance resulted in the construction of up-to-date training, support and
\nadministrative service facilities.
\nThe signing of the Technical Cooperation Program between the Governments of the
\nPhilippines and Japan, the latter represented by the Japan International Cooperation
\nAgency (JICA) in 1985. resulted in a two-phased modernization and expansion
\nprogram.
\nPhase one consisted of the construction of the Administration, Training and
\nGenerator buildings and the donation of simulator equipment, spare parts, technical
\nbooks and references. This became the basis of the dispatch of experts to the NMP
\nfor technology transfer and for the technical training of their Filipino counterparts in
\nJapan.
\nExecutive Order No. 126 signed in 1987 attached NMP to the Department of Labour
\nand Employment (DOLE) converting NMP from state college to a DOLE agency.
\nGoverned by a Board of Trustees, chaired by the Secretary of the DOLE, the NMP
\nthen took off producing more and more highly competitive seafarers.
\n107
\nWith the structures and equipment in place, NMP has since 1986, offered various
\nupgrading and specialized courses for deck and engine officers and the basic safety
\ncourses for both officers and ratings. In the ensuing years, the implementation of the
\nFaculty Development Program (Cross-Training, Shipboard Rotation, Foreign and
\nLocal Schoalrship and Training Grants) and Staff Development Programs were
\nstrengthened to boost the competence of the agency’s manpower resources.
\nRecently, the agency attained its ISO certification as the Quality Management
\nSystems of the NMP were assessed and registered against the requirements of ISO
\n9001 with certificate No. AJA00\/2285 and registered on 25 April 2000 by the AJA
\nRegistrars of Bristol, England. As proof that the agency is maintaining its quality
\nmanagement systems, the agency successfully passed the first two surveillance audits
\nconducted in November 2000 and in July 2001.
\nSource : www.nmp.gov.ph
\nDMU Dalian Maritime University
\nDalian Maritime University (DMU) is one of the largest and best maritime
\nuniversities and is the only key maritime institution under the Ministry of
\nCommunications, People\u2019s Republic of China. DMU enjoys a high reputation
\ninternationally as an excellent center of maritime education and training as
\nrecognized by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
\nThe long history of the University can be traced back to 1909, when the Nanyang
\nInstitute in Shanghai established a Shipping Management Section. Chinese higher
\nmaritime education went through many difficult periods and was not well developed
\nbefore the founding of the people\u2019s Republic of China in 1949.
\nDMU was created in 1953 through the amalgamation of three merchant marine
\ninstitutions: Shanghai Nautical College, the Northeast Navigation College and Fujian
\nNavigation School. At that time its name was Dalian Marine College, and it was the
\nonly maritime college in China. In 1960, DMU was designated a national key
\n108
\ninstitution of higher education. Later in 1983, the Asia-Pacific Region Maritime
\nTraining Center was established at DMU by the United Nations Development
\nProgram (UNDP), and the IMO and in 1985 a branch of the World Maritime
\nUniversity (WMU) was established.
\nWith the approval of the Ministry of Education in 1994, the Univrsity\u2019s name was
\nchanged to the present one. In 1998, the University was awarded the ISO9001
\nCertificate of Quality Assurance accredited by the Norwegian Det Norske Veritas
\n(DNV) and the China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA); it became the first
\nmaritime university in China to have the ISO9001 Certificate. In 2004, the
\nUniversity successfully passed the quality assessment of undergraduate teaching by
\nthe Ministry of Education. Through continual development, DMU has been at the
\nforefront of similar universities both in broadening the scope and in enhancing the
\nlevel of its programs.
\nThe University consists of 13 colleges, and in addition to the departments in each
\ncollege, there are three other departments which serve as support departments for
\nentire University. Presently DMU has a post-doctoral program (R&D base), 16
\nDoctoral programs, 57 master\u2019s degree programs, and 42 undergraduate programs.
\nBoth the Traffic Information Engineering and Control and the Marine Engineering
\nare national key disciplines. The University is authorized to confer MBA, MPA, J.M,
\nand Master of Engineering, an on-the-job master\u2019s degree.
\nSince the amalgamation, DMU has educated and trained nearly 50,000 advanced
\nprofessionals and technical authorities for the country. Many of them are now
\nplaying essential roles in maritime and maritime-related industries both in and
\noutside of China. The current student population has risen to approximately 17,000.
\nAdditionally, our university enrolls overseas students for Bachelor\u2019s Master\u2019s
\nDegrees and PhDs. More than 4,000 overseas students and advanced professionals
\nfrom over 30 countries and regions have been educated and trained at DMU.
\nSource: (DMU, 2008)
\n109
\nVIMARU (Vietnam Maritime University)
\nFounded in 1956, Vietnam Maritime University (VIMARU) has been a leading
\nuniversity of Vietnam in the maritime section. With total number of nearly 16,000
\nstudents who study 19 (nineteen) fields of education and constant-annual enrolment
\nof 2,400 to 3,000 students, VIMARU nowadays has been being assigned for
\neducating higher education level graduates of nautical science, marine engineering,
\nelectrical and electronic engineering, shipbuilding, sea-transport economics,
\nwaterway engineering and all the other fields relating to national maritime sector.
\nBesides, the University also educates post-graduates of Master of Science (Msc.) and
\nDoctor of Philosophy (PhD.) in the fields of Nautical Science, Marine Engineering,
\nEnergetic Engineering, Naval Architecture, Waterway Engineering, Sea-transport
\nEconomics, etc.
\nFurthermore, VIMARU is in charge of training for upgrading and refreshing courses
\nto meet the STCW78\/95 requirements of all levels of competent certifications
\n(Master, Chief Engineer, Deck and Engine Officers, Chief Radio Operator, Chief
\nElectrician, etc. ) for the whole country.
\nSource: (VIMARU, 2011)<\/p>\n
110
\nKIMFT
\n(Korea Institutes of Maritime and Fisheries Technology)
\nI. History
\nII. Major Service
\no Education and training of personnel engaged in maritime, fisheries and other
\nrelative sectors
\no Supporting services to the government on making seafarers policy
\no Services promoting an international exchange of technology related to
\nmaritime affairs and fisheries
\no Services for the execution of maritime license examination
\no Research and development studies on shipping, port operation and fisheries
\no Education and Training of Personnel Engaged in Offshore Safety
\nSource: (KIMFT, 2008)
\n111
\nSMA (Singapore Maritime Academy)
\nSMA’s history began in 1957 when the Singapore Polytechnic (SP) took over the
\nresponsibility of navigation classes from the Sailor’s Institution. SMA celebrated her
\n50th year in Maritime Education and Training with the launch of SatCom@SMA – a
\nmaritime satellite communications centre in partnership with SingTel.
\nSMA have three distinct areas of operation: Marine Engineering, Maritime Business
\nand Nautical Studies. As the country’s main maritime training institution, SMA
\noffers a full range of maritime diplomas and specialist diplomas, Certificate of
\nCompetency (CoC) courses as well as Standards of Training, Certification and
\nWatchkeeping (STCW) courses.
\nThe academy also launched the SMA-SMTC Safety Training Centre (SSSTC),
\nlocated at the Poly Marina, which provides safety training for personnel working in
\nthe offshore oil and gas industry.
\nThe most recent award clinched by SMA was the Seatrade Asia Awards 2011 for
\nThe Education and Training Award. SMA was awarded the global Seatrade Awards
\n2009 (London) for Investment in People with High Commendation, inaugural
\nSeatrade Asia Awards 2008 for Education and Training and Lloyd’s List Asia
\nAwards 2008 for the Training and Crewing’ category of excellence. In the decade of
\nLloyd’s List Asia Awards, SMA won seven consecutive awards of a similar category
\n– The Best Seafarer Training Institute and The Youth Development awards. A series
\nof accolades achieved by SMA over the years are:
\nOver the years, Singapore has developed into a global hub port and a leading
\nInternational Maritime Centre (IMC). SMA has played an important role by
\nproviding quality maritime education and training for more than 50 years. The
\nnumerous awards accorded to SMA signify the strong endorsements by the maritime
\nindustry on SMA’s programmes.
\nSource : (SMA, 2009)
\n112
\nALAM (Malaysian Maritime Academy)
\nThe story of the Academy began in 1977. The need to train and prepare Malaysians
\nfor the exciting maritime industry was addressed with the establishment of a nonprofit making body called MATES (Malaysian Training and Education for Seamen)
\nFoundation. Consisting of the Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad
\n(MISC) (now known as MISC Berhad), International Shipping Carriers Hong Kong
\nand the Malaysian Ministry of Transport as their main promoters, the foundation
\nsoon pioneered the Maritime Training Centre (MTC) in 1977.
\nOn 15 August 1981, MTC was subsequently upgraded to academy status and thus
\nnamed ALAM, short for Akademi Laut Malaysia (Malaysian Maritime Academy).
\nOn 1 January 1997, ALAM was privatised to Malaysian Maritime Academy Sdn Bhd
\n(MMA).
\nALAM, the nation’s premier maritime education and training establishment, has
\nsince been designated as a Branch Campus of the World Maritime University,
\nMalmo, Sweden and has also established formal alliances with other leading
\nmaritime education and training institutions in Australia, Norway, The Netherlands,
\nSingapore and The United States of America.
\nSource : (ALAM, 2011)<\/p>\n
113
\nAppendix 4 Working hour record of two tanker ships
\nKinds of work in detail for deck officers during ship to ship (STS) operations
\nVLCC \u201cA\u201d, H: hours
\nCaptain C\/O 1\/O 2\/O 3\/O
\nDay 1 Berthing 2H
\nCIQ 2H
\nU.S.C.G
\ninspection 4 H
\nCargo duty 12H Cargo duty 12H Bridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 2 Paper work 2H
\nCargo watch 2H
\nGeneral work 4H
\nCargo duty 12H Cargo duty 10H Bridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 3 Paper work 2H
\nCargo watch 2H
\nGeneral work 4H
\nCargo duty 12H Cargo duty 10H Bridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 4 Paper work 2H
\nCargo watch 2H
\nGeneral work 4H
\nCargo duty 12H Cargo duty 10H Bridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 5 Paper work 2H
\nGeneral work 6H
\nCargo duty 12H Cargo duty 12H Bridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 6 1 day rest 1 day rest Navigation duty
\n8H
\nBridge duty 8H Bridge duty 8H
\nDay 7 Paper work 4H Navigation duty
\n8H
\nNavigation duty
\n8H
\nBridge duty 4H Bridge duty 4H
\nTTL 44H 68H 70H 72H 72H
\nSources : working hour record of Panama flag state VLCC (Chae, Chong Ju)
\nVLCC \u201cB\u201d, H: hours
\nCaptain C\/O 2\/O 3\/O
\nDay 1 Bridge duty 12H Cargo duty 12H
\nUSCG inspection 2H
\nBridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 2 Bridge duty 12H Cargo duty 12H
\nBerthing, Un-berthing 2H
\nBridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 3 Bridge duty 12H Cargo duty 12H
\nBerthing, Un-berthing 2H
\nBridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 4 Bridge duty 12H Cargo duty 12H
\nBerthing, Un-berthing 2H
\nBridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 5 Bridge duty 12H Cargo duty 12H
\nBerthing, Un-berthing 2H
\nBridge duty 12H Bridge duty 12H
\nDay 6 Paper work 2H
\nGeneral work 6H
\n1 day rest Bridge duty 8H Bridge duty 8H
\nDay 7 Paper work 4H Navigation duty 8H Bridge duty 8H Bridge duty 8H
\nTTL 44H 78H 76H 76H
\nSources: Working hour record of Singapore flag state VLCC (Jolyn Tay Ling Ling)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE STCW MANILA AMENDMENTS Its Challenges to the Far East ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: The STCW Manila Amendments: Its Challenges to the Far East Degree:\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-132687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}