The ‘ramifications’ of training
Posted on | January 26, 2010 | 9 Comments
In the run-up to the STCW Conference in Manila this June, India has proposed that there be mandatory space for training berths provided on all new ships. This will be one of the more heated issues to be discussed. Additional space to accommodate trainee cadets (which might become mandatory) is seemingly attractive, in light of the IMO’s current “Go to Sea” campaign. But there are, as is so often the case, ramifications.
For example, cadets training at sea are subject to the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006. They are also said to be prone (at least in the U.S.) to personal injury problems.
There are also said to be “tonnage penalties” that may result from a requirement of additional cadet accommodation spaces.
So, “ramifications” is another word for “cost.”
Some countries encourage or require a term of cadet training at sea. Others define “sea training” as a longer period of time, depending on the certificate to be awarded.
At the bottom of it all is the question” who pays to train the aspiring seafarer? How much should training cost, overall? Many owners see the mandatory carriage of trainees as requiring an expensive revision to the accommodation spaces volumetric parameters of the 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention.
It is likely that the Manila Diplomatic Conference will adopt a “recommendatory” resolution on carriage of trainees. India would like to exempt trainee accommodation spaces from tonnage calculations for newbuildings. As the Beatles sang long ago, in what has become the unofficial anthem of the IMO,
“Life is very short, and there’s no time…Try to see it my way, Do I have to keep on talking, Till I can’t go on? While you see it your way, Run the risk of knowing. That our love may soon be gone.”
The name of the song? “We can work it out.”
That would be wonderful!
Comments
9 Responses to “The ‘ramifications’ of training”
Leave a Reply
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
[...] Continue Reading… [...]
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
I remember working for a ship management company that prided itself on carrying extra cadet trainees on each ship, in order to maintain the shipowner’s access to skilled personnel. But, of course, they had to do this carefully and in close co-operation with the owners, who might otherwise have merely seen this as an extra (costly) burden.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:54 am
I attended the IMO-STW subcommittee mtg in London this month and read through the proposal by India and also attended a presentation by GOBTC. This is a potential organization in its embryonic stage, started by 4 maritime universities structured to support the initiative to have all shipping companies work globally to meet the current and future needs of qualified officers by suppling onboard training positions. Additionally this would begin to support the STCW requirements of TRB’s being completed for training. My initial response is supportive, I believe this needs to happen to support hands on training, professional mentoring and soft simulation training techniques. The issue is complex, but in a global maritime world, a wise direction to steer in. GOBTC is pushing to have IMO support by June at the Manila convention. See you there.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:00 am
Not only is this an important step for the next generation of mariners but it should be used to help current mariners gain training and promotion. I once worked for a company that had a Master’s training position where the candidate would shadow the captain for six months. It was great, not only for training & evaluation purposes, but the extra person would always tackle a project that would ultimately improve the operation.
February 5th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
As I understand it, the Drewery Shipping Report preducted an 80,000 plus shortage of qualified officers in the future. At the Manning Conference earlier last year in the Phillipines, they stated that the number was revised to 43,000.
It was evident to me that the issue was not due to individuals who wanted a career at sea, it was much more the competence level of the graduates of the school, and the lack of billeted positions for training.
Making Cadets mandatory would resolve this issue in one fell swoop. Guaranteed !!!
If companies continue to decide not to take cadets, then wages and incidents will continue to increase.
February 15th, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
It is not only about increasing the number of berths on board for trainee cadets, but also about making life at sea more attractive for women, which will need to be done simultaneously.
And one of the biggest impediments to this is the archaic traditional 4-on/8-off watchkeeping routine. Watchkeeping at sea and in port needs to be planned around a 3-on/9-off or 6-on/18-off schedule, with a Master and 4 watch-keepers on board.
There also has to be provision during the so-called duty hours of 98 hours a week (or 91) to allow for ongoing e-learning or training. The new STCW recomendations make a whole new series of courses compulsory, nett result being that time on holiday ashore is spent in doing these courses, or hanging around government offices getting documents in order.
Utopian? Probably not. But then again, a reduction if dependance on fossil fuels may change the equations all over again, as may the reduction in number of ships required if the routes through the Arctic open up very soon.
As the 31 Ice Class Super 1A shuttle tankers from Samsung, a few delivered and the rest being constructed, would seem to indicate.
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Veeresh,
These are fantastic points and I couldn’t agree more particularly the issue of e-learning when on R&R – this is absurd but unfortunately the nature of the 24/7 profit-driven culture of shipping.
February 19th, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
I support the idea of mandatory cadet berths – students and academies need to make long term investments and must be sheltered to a reasonable extent from the risks of the market. The problem will be finding a fair solution for small vessels (maybe money instead of cadet berths – this redistribution model works in other industries for training expenses).
But getting cadet berths is only part of the problem – the key issue is to reform the mechanism how to pay for maritime education (fund the academies). The only solution I can see is a consequent transformation of the academies into healthy fee driven enterprises with a system of specialized grant and credit schemes for maritime students. Income must then of course be high enough to pay the credit back (see airlines), and there must be some degree of certainty that you will find such job.
The current employment problems of young German officers are e.g. no advertisement for an industry that ran intensive safe job advertisement campaigns only a few years ago.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Having reviewed a number of manpower options in SE Asia, the current biggest problem in getting the people we need is the availability of seatime. For instance Vietnam is training a large number of people, around 600, per year, only to see the majority of those finish the education and drop out of the system as there is no seatime available.
Likewise in Australia, we have no shortage of people wanting to go to sea, just a shortage of berths to allow people to obtain the qualifications. It has not reached a point that colleges will not accept people unless they have some sort of seatime organised.
SO I would certainly support this move to have additional berths on all vessels and then some system to ensure they are used for training purposes.