Международная конвенция о подготовке и дипломировании моряков и несении вахты (ПДМНВ) – один из важнейших международных инструментов, регулирующих отношения в сфере эксплуатации флота, в том числе отношения по поводу труда моряков. Настоящая статья посвящена дальнейшему совершенствованию правового регулирования упомянутых отношений. Такая необходимость обнаруживается в связи с непрерывным техническим прогрессом в области морского транспорта.
The 2010 STCW Convention still needs some amendment to ensure that all ambiguities are removed, and to remove the possibility of different interpretations.
Manning is a matter for SOLAS, but there has always been an integral relationship with STCW because all positions shown in the format of the Safe Manning Document (SMD) are those identified in the STCW. The 2010 version of the Convention may be considered to have taken full and complete effect only when the format of the SMD includes all the newly identified positions – even though many ships may not require all of them. In addition, some further changes are required to remove potential ambiguities:
1. Regulation 1/2 should be further improved to state ‘Certificates of Competency and final certificates for identified capacities in the Convention shall be issued only by administration of a member state’. This will also include such capacities as watch-rating (navigational and engine-room), able seafarer (deck and engine), electro-technical officer and electro-technical rating. Certification for all these capacities requires appropriate training, sea-service and assessment. At present, many member states have delegated this function to companies, while others have delegated it to training institutes. As a result, there is no consistency in training standards, which also makes it difficult to verify any suspected certificate. Only the administration of a member state can review all required evidence and issue the final certificate. The use of the word administration will only mean flag administration and as such it should be clearly mentioned as administration of a party state.
2. In the next review we must re-arrange regulations 1/7 and 1/8 in a more practical and realistic manner. Regulation 1/6 makes it obligatory for the administration to review, assess, approve, supervise and monitor training courses and centres. It is the sole responsibility of the administration to ensure that institutes within its jurisdiction operate under its full control and supervision. Obviously the next step is to mandate independent audit of the administration. This audit is to check and ensure that the administration has done its duty properly. In addition to those duties listed in regulation 1/6, the administration should maintain its own quality standard system to check the identity of each candidate, their age, medical fitness (regulation 1/9), sea-service for the required certification and finally to assess all training required under regulations II or III or VII and VI before issue of the final certificate. The administration should also cheek both sea-service and required training and assessment before issuing a final certificate to an officer for service on a tanker (regulation V/l). The administration should maintain records of all certificates issued and arrangements should be in place for prospective employers and other administrations to access them electronically for verification. The audit team may visit a training institute only to ensure that the administration has done its job. The logical conclusion is that when all these checks, verification and audit are completed then the administration should forward a copy of such independent audit to IMO.
3. Regulation III/l outlines minimum requirements of training for a watch-keeping engineer officer. The training (in addition to those required under regulation VI and final education, training and assessment under A-III/1) has been divided into two different categories:
a) 18 months approved combined (mechanical and electrical) workshop skill training followed by 12 months sea-service in the engine department of which at least 6 months in watch-keeping duties under supervision of a certificated engineer officer with full record-keeping; or
b) 6 months approved combined (mechanical and electrical) workshop skill training followed by 30 months sea-service in the engine department of which at least 6 months on watch-keeping service under supervision of a certificated engineer officer.
This shows the importance that the Convention attaches to workshop training, which is supposed to be the foundation for marine engineering training. Yet the Convention does not give even a basic outline of the items to be covered in this workshop training. This is a major omission, which must be corrected in the next revision of the Convention. Workshop training must include safety at work, familiarisation with tools and equipment, welding, steel fabrication, boilers, machine shop, drawing office, fitting shop, pumps, plumbing and carpentry, diesel shop, electric/electronic workshop, ship-repair, dry-docking and shipyard practice, fire detection and fighting (smoke detectors, sprinkler, CO2 system etc.), air-conditioning and refrigeration, deck machinery, instrument and control, use of engine-room simulator etc.
4. Regulation VI/1 states that ‘seafarers shall receive safety familiarisation and basic training or instruction’. This is wrong and very confusing. Basic training is participatory training for all those who want to make a career at sea. All seafarers have to successfully complete this training. This cannot be equated with familiarisation training, which is ship-specific, and covers everything that a seafarer (even the Master and Chief Engineer) needs to know about a ship and its layout immediately on joining. The familiarisation training
may be given as a conducted tour and briefing. Any future revision must make it clear that the two are distinctly separate components. The Convention will require constant updating to keep pace with development of technology. However, at this stage the Convention can be considered full and complete when the above changes/clarifications are made. I hope some member states will take the initiative to bring the matter to the IMO floor.
Автор:
Fazlur Chowdhury, AFNI
Источник:
Seaways. – 2013. – July. – P. 26.