1 января 2017 года вступили в силу Манильские поправки к Международной конвенции о подготовке и дипломировании моряков и несении вахты (STCW). В настоящей статье рассматриваются вопросы, связанные с отношением морского сообщества к воплощению в жизнь требований этих Поправок. Автор использовал материалы социологического исследования, проведенного как среди плавсостова, так и среди берегового персонала. В результате этого исследования выяснилось, что многие полагают, что действующее право недостаточно эффективно способствует улучшению состояния сферы безопасности мореплавания. Мы делаем недостаточно для улучшения безопасности моряков с целью предотвращения человеческих жертв и загрязнения морской среды. Вряд ли Поправки окажутся достаточными для изменения текущей практики в области аттестации и обучения в соответствии с нормами STCW, не в последнюю очередь потому, что в среде морской индустрии нету убеждения в том, что такие изменения необходимы.
“The competence of seafarers is the most critical factor in the safe and efficient operation of ships, and has a direct impact on the safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment.” (ICS/ISF, 2013)
This is the opening statement in a guide to the Manila Amendments, and it is something that has resonated through every piece of work I do. My day to day work involves teaching in a maritime education and training institution, where I am often regaled with anecdotal tales from my students which have many times left me feeling concerned for the safety of those still at sea.
The apparent skill fade of officers in the merchant navy is quite appalling if these tales are to be believed, and I have no reason not to, considering some of the academic reports 1 have seen from students that have been signed off by ‘competent officers’ at sea. Captain Robert Rayner, president and CEO of IDESS Interactive Technologies, in the American P&I Club’s publication Currents, comments:
“No one in their right mind would put a multi-million dollar asset – their ship and its ability to earn (and lose) money – in the care of individuals who were anything, other than competent. Yet that is exactly what is happening, and on an ever increasing scale in the shipping industry,”
One just has to look at the latest list of accident investigations to find evidence of incidents that have human error as a causal factor. Whilst this article is neither intended to cause offence to those that may have been injured or worse at sea, or be an investigation into the causes of accidents at sea; where human error is a factor, it is difficult to conceive that all the personnel involved could be deemed to have acted in a competent manner.
Once qualified, always competent?
The Manila amendments introduced specific requirements for updating training across the suite of so called ‘safety courses’, but still accept that an officer with as little as 12 months sea time in five years, has established continued professional competency under regulation 1/11 – Revalidation. This approach is at odds with nearly all other professions, particularly the healthcare, legal and aviation professions; in the UK, one even has to do refresher training every five years in order to drive a bus.
It would seem that our profession has taken on the ‘once qualified, always competent’ mantra. We do not perceive a difference between an officer serving on a cross channel ferry, weaving in and out of traffic, working with a closest point of approach of five cablcs for two weeks at a time, with an officer working pan-ocean on a bulk carrier, who may not even see another vessel in the same period. I believe that it is nearly impossible to avoid an element of skill fade to critical competence. One way to avoid such skill fade would be through the introduction of periodic assessment of the individual, benchmarking current competency against international standards. In other words, the revalidation of core competencies.
I recently carried out a study that set out to understand the attitudes of seafarers and those involved in the maritime industry to the changes required under the amendments to the STCW convention, and their openness to extending that change. Specific thought was given to the state of CPD in the industry and mechanisms that can be bought in to stop skill fade.
It is easier to ask someone to do something that they believe in rather than that which they do not.
Respondents were given a series of questions, and asked to indicate on a scale of 1-6 whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements. The scope of the research was limited to those working within the deck department at sea or those with deck officer Certificates of Competency (CoC) working ashore in the maritime sphere. The survey sample was taken from those engaged in short course training, with additional sampling taken during conferences and seminars. In the end, I managed to get 68 returns.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
It is easier to ask someone to do something that they believe in rather than that which they do not. Ownership of a task in that respect is extremely important. In the context of the CPD, if seafarers believe they are part of a worthwhile and important process, and that they feel supported in that process, then asking them to take part in CPD tasks may not create too much difficulty. However, there must be a limit to the amount of extra work, or the situation will start to have a detrimental effect on the whole process.
My results showed that 75% of respondents thought that CPD was important or very important, although only 58% believed that their company took CPD seriously. It camc as no surprise that the results showed a connection between years of experience, the perceived importance of CPD and the belief that having achieved a superior CoC should in some way remove the onus to undertake CPD. As a working member of the Institute’s CPD committee, it also came as no surprise that shore side workers feel that CPD is more important for their future than seagoing staff. There seemed many reasons for this, not least the misunderstanding that working towards a senior CoC can be classed as CPD.
The Manila Amendments
Although survey respondents were keenly aware of the requirements of the Manila amendments, and the areas that currently require revalidation, it is interesting to see that none of them completely agreed with the statement ‘The adoption of the Manila Amendments fully meets the training and certification needs of the modem merchant navy’. In fact, there was a marked rise in those who strongly disagreed with the statement, with a total of 20 responses.
Likewise, 19 respondents strongly disagreed with the statement ‘The current level of refresher / revalidation training is sufficient’. It should be noted that seagoing personnel gave a wider range of responses to this statement, but shore side respondents were more likely to agree with it.
Skill fade
Analysis of the results for the statement ‘Skill fade is prevalent within the industry’ shows that surprisingly 30% of respondents do not agree that skill fade is prevalent in our industry’. Further analysis shows a continued difference in strength of feeling between the seagoing and shore side respondents. Perhaps most striking is the strength of feeling among those respondents sailing as Master, where a whole 15% clear of any other rank agreed with the statement – and not far off 30% more than shore based respondents. This matches with anecdotal evidence gathered when attending conferences and presenting on issues of skill fade and loss of competency.
It was one such event that led me to include the next statement in my questionnaire; ‘I hold a CoC which I have been examined on, and therefore 1 should keep it forever’. Analysis of the results for this statement are quite intriguing. Taking the total number of responses, 42% of respondents disagree with the statement and 58% agree. This is in line with a fairly even split between the shore and sea based respondents. Most telling is the difference in strength of feeling between the ranks, particularly between the relative experience groups. Those sailing as Master were 20% more likely to agree with this statement than those sailing as third officer. Interestingly, 87% of those supporting the statement have over 10 years’ experience since achieving their last CoC.
Revalidation and refresher training
The final two statements in the questionnaire related to improving the scope of revalidation, and making refresher training of core competencies mandatory. They were:
The maritime industry should look to other professions and increase the scope of refresher / revalidation training.
All holders of CoC’s should undertake mandatory refresher training to maintain validity of critical competency.
Comparisons were drawn between the responses to both statements in order to measure the likelihood of ever effecting change in the requirements for revalidation of CoC’s.
Analysis of the full responses proved surprising, weighting 78% – 22% in favour of looking to other professions to increase the scope of refresher / revalidation training. However, only 66% were in favour of making refresher training mandatory.
The trend in strength of feeling throughout the responses to increasing the scope to refresher training is very’ encouraging, having a clear and sharp upwards trajectory towards complete agreement with the statement.
The survey also offered an option for respondents to comment freely upon the questions asked in the survey. Despite the low level of uptake, many of the returns raised insightful ideas that often had common threads running through them, particularly relating to areas that arc not currently included in refiresher/revalidation training, such as ‘Rule of the Road’ training, or implementing revalidation training for ECDIS.
Developing practice
Professional practices arc changing, and with them the requirement to do more to maintain competency in order to keep professional certification valid. This is often mandatory in nature. From the research carried out, there appears to be a significant sway of opinion in favour of this. This is almost a revolution in the industry, with a number of those sampled agreeing with the suggestion that current legislation is not effective enough in pushing to improve maritime safety.
There seems to be a swell of opinion that we are just not doing enough to improve the overall safety of those employed at sea, in order to prevent further loss of life and damage to the marine environment.
Although the data contains very strong evidence on which to base conclusions, the survey could have asked some more in depth questions of the respondents, particularly around the topic of additional areas that should be included as part of the revalidation process. This is something I hope to look at in the future.
Whilst I was extremely pleased that strength of opinion supports my hypothesis, I am not naive enough to believe that this is enough to change current practice and attitudes to CPD and revalidation training under STCW. This is not least because the strongest sense of agreement came from a demographic that are not in the positions within industry that would be required to carry through a change of this magnitude.
The entire report, and a full list of references, is available on request from the editor.
Автор: Jon Reed-Beviere, MNI
Источник: Seaways. – 2017. – February. – P. 25 – 26.