Benefits of realtime bridge training, is it really necessary?

17/10/2017/in Articles /by Mike Backhouse

Realtime bridge training is one of the new buzzwords in the maritime industry, but how much do we know about it, and is it going to change anything? The benefits of “standard” bridge training, such as Bridge Team Management and Bridge Resource Management, have long been see in the industry as essential for the safety […]

The STCW phenomenon continues..

17/10/2017/in Articles /by Mike Backhouse

BY BRENDA V. PIMENTEL An exception to the general perception that the Philippine maritime industry does not receive the muchneeded attention it deserves as one potent tool for economic development in this archipelago is in respect to the STCW implementation.

STCW refers to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, which was adopted primarily to promote safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment. Said convention sets the global criteria by which a seafarer’s competence and qualification to serve on board ships navigating in international waters is gauged. The STCW is a multilateral maritime agreement that provides ship owners, government, shippers and the general public that level of confidence that ships are properly operated by competent crew, and therefore could safely ferry passengers and cargoes to their port of destination, and that these ships do not pollute the marine environment and the atmosphere.

Advertisements
The STCW significantly altered the centuries-old merchant shipping career in that training and certification anywhere else in the world must conform with the requirements stipulated in the convention. It prescribes the minimum training and certification requirements of one who wishes to become part of a ship’s crew. Of utmost importance for developing countries, the STCW conventionleveled the playing field as seafarers who are trained and certificated in these countries can now compete with those coming from the developed maritime countries provided they acquire the competency prescribed by the said convention.

The country’s implementation of the STCW immediately followed the Philippine accession to the convention in 1984 premised as it was on the desire to maintain its position as the premier supplier of seafarers to the world’s fleet. Even at that time, marketing Filipino shipboard labor was the main consideration in implementing the convention, understandably as the adoption of the STCW came at a time when Filipino seafarers were getting to be known as good alternative to the high-paying seafarers from developed maritime countries. Their competence, skills, industry and English proficiency, among others were getting the attention of ship owners and with the added bonus that they are paid less.

The employment opportunities for Filipino seafarers was an attractive and welcome option for a country with a growing population and with less jobs to offer; therefore, labor consideration figured prominently in developing policies and regulations in the implementation of the STCW convention. Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1404 issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos in 1984 made no reference to maritime safety and environment protection except as to cite these in the preambular clause as the twin objectives of the STCW convention. Thus, LOI 1404 laid down the reasons for the country’s adhering to the convention, i.e. to be able to deploy Filipino seafarers on board international trading ships. It is therefore of no surprise that the said presidential issuance vested on the Ministry of Labor and Employment all STCW-related functions.

In 1986, government re-organization was adopted which resulted in the alignment of functions based on a rational and clear determination of related functions to avoid redundancy and streamline the delivery of services to the public. Executive Order 125/125-A lumped the issuance of certificates to seafarers under the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), except those for merchant marine officers which remained the function of the Philippine Regulation Commission.

Since then, there was the protracted struggle between maritime agencies and labor-focused agencies on which of them should act as the “administration” for the STCW implementation. It was like an all or nothing turf war, to the detriment of the seafarers whose interest they were supposed to promote. The core mandates of the maritime safety agencies and the labor agencies are in fact complementary with distinct areas of concern, yet all of them remained adamant in claiming the title of “administration.”

It took three decades to settle the issue of which agency should take the lead in the implementation of the STCW with the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 10635. Said legislation designated MARINA as the single maritime administration in the implementation of the STCW convention. RA 10635 puts to rest that long-standing question of which agency is in charge… but not quite. Several bills now filed in Congress propose to pluck the STCW functions from MARINA.

It is interesting to know who the proponents are and why they are pushing for such transfer…

Original Source: http://www.manilatimes.net/stcw-phenomenon-continues/356333/

Fight Fatigue

01/09/2017/in Articles /by George Ward

Fatigue is a well known factor as a cause numerous maritime and non-maritime accidents worldwide. In fact driving while fatigued is considered just as bad as driving while under the influence. The requirements under the new Manilla amendments call for vessels and seafarers to log their work or rest hours to meet the standards set out under STCW 2010 or the MLC 2006. Anyone who has ever gone to sea however can tell you that these measures, although a step in the right direction do not necessarily mitigate fatigue anywhere near as well as the IMO and ILO lawmakers expect.

This is especially true when we consider navigation accidents. The 1972 Collision Regulations cover many situations in regards to navigation, but the rules do not cover the state of the watch stander.

In fact Rule number 5 of the 1972 Collision regulations state “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”

One thing that I enjoy as a mariner is looking through older handbooks and textbooks. Recently I was going through the 1943 edition of the Merchant Marine Officer’s Handbook and what struck me as interesting is the fact that within the first few pages both the Carpenter and the Purser are mentioned. These positions, both of which no longer carried on board, is just proof to the point that we are decreasing crew sizes to the point where certain ship board positions no longer even exist in the industry.

As an industry we are bound by IMO Resolution A1047(27) which lists the factors to be taken in to account when determining what the minimum safe manning of a vessel should be. These factors include the safety of the vessel while underway, at anchor, or in port during navigation and cargo operations. This resolution, too lengthy to be included in this article is the cornerstone of Minimum Safe Manning.

So, why do we still see incidents and accidents relating to fatigue when there should be enough people to run the vessel, while others rest for their duties later on? What many vessel owners use as an argument for reduced manning is the increased automation onboard.

But this does not take in to account that much of this automation requires maintenance. One great example is the request by a ship owner to reduce manning down to One (1) Chief Engineer on board a vessel when the Engine room is fully manned. No oilers, wipers, QMED’s. Just the Chief. What is that Chief Engineer to do when the automation for the Engine Room ceases to work while the vessel is underway?

It is very common item to see on Port state Control forms that either the crew is not getting enough rest as per the rules set out by either the MLC 2006 or STCW 2010, or you will see that the Work/Rest Hours log book has not been properly maintained. A good sign of an overworked and tired crew. Unfortunately there is not a universal interpretation or formula that can be used to determine what the minimum crew size should be.

What we are tending to see in the industry in terms of over reliance on automation Is that vessel owners are placing extraordinary burdens on the ship’s officer. An excerpt from the 1974 SOLAS, Chapter IV requiring the carriage of at least one Radio Officer on board a Cargo vessel. That burden now falls upon the shoulders of our Navigation Officers. Where there was a designated person whose sole responsibility was to handle the incoming and outgoing communications, we now have a few officers who handle that as only a small part of their duties.

Pursers were also a common sight on board ships. Tasked with handling crew documents and pay as well as ordering, this job is now the burden of an already over worked Master. One common theme asked after the accident is, “Where was the Captain”? Post Exxon Valdez many are swift to judge that the Master was in their stateroom, feet up, drinking a cocktail. The answer however is much more mundane than that. Most commonly the Master lays below as soon as possible to complete paperwork that piles up. However they are expected to watch the radar and ECDIS relays in their stateroom and listen in on radio communications to ensure that the mate on watch is doing their job. When are they supposed to actually get work done and still be available to assist the bridge watch in times of doubt? What can be done to prevent these near misses and accidents related to fatigue?

Consider returning to a four mate ship. Let the Chief Officer be tasked solely with maintenance and cargo. Do not burden them with having to stand watch. But do not do so by demanding that the other mates stand six and six watches for days straight. By doing this some of the burdensome paperwork can be relieved from the Master.
Night Mates allow the bridge officers to rest while in port. I have had night mates on liner run ships that would call every few days or so in to Tacoma. The night mate would come on so that the mates could rest and the Captain knew that the people on deck were familiar and experienced with the vessel.
Riding crews and working gangs. Relieve the engineering department of some of the over abundance of work dedicated to special projects, especially on an aging ship with greater maintenance requirements.
Bring back the Purses and Radio Operator (Now called the ETO). Let them assist the Captain in handling message traffic, taking care of crew paperwork, etc.

Although many will argue that the new age of automation is great for shipping there is a counter argument. As automation increases on ships and crews decrease in size there will be a transition period at which the crew will become severely over worked and over fatigued until automation can completely take over and some operator in a control center ashore takes care of the operation of the vessel, while the crews are forced in to retirement. Until that time comes however fatigue will be an increasing concern for operators and ship Master’s.

Matthew Bonvento – Marinelink

Industry sees Sharp rise in BTM and BRM courses but drop in Type Specific Training

01/09/2017/in Articles /by George Ward

2017 has seen a massive jump in the number of seafarers trying to book onto bridge team and resource management courses in recent shown statistics, but type specific courses have seen a massive drop in bookings. So why may this be?

Instructors questioned remotely feel this is due to the increased awareness from shipping companies to have their seafarers more practically prepared in shipboard emergencies as this is a skill that many seafarers lack, but feel that many of their seafarers are cultured enough on the actual navigational equipment on-board there vessels, bringing a decreased number of seafarers through training centers doors for type specific training..

Do you feel this is true?

End.