A new look at watchkeeping standards is needed

AT LAST week's International Chamber of Shipping's conference in London, a marketing display by the UK Hydrographic office caught my attention.

The main product being promoted was a chart display for use in shore-based offices that could replicate in real time what the bridge team on a particular ship would be looking at.

I was first fascinated by the technology and then appalled by the possible implications of this "back-seat driving". Eventually though my thoughts turned to the reasons why the shore-based management might no longer have confidence in ships' masters and officers.

Then I recalled reading just a few weeks ago a report of the casualty investigation from the Singapore Transport Safety Investigation Bureau, of a collision last year between a container ship and a fishing vessel off the coast of China that killed two of the latter's crew.

The collision took place at night and in thick fog in the vicinity of a large fleet of fishing vessels. A junior officer was on the bridge of the container ship and had not called the captain before the incident. So much was wrong that it is difficult to think of any of the cardinal sins that could be made in that situation that were not committed that night.

The captain was not called as soon as the fog closed in. The ship did not reduce to a safe speed as required by international regulations, despite the presence of many vessels in the area. She did not sound fog signals. She made an alteration to port for a vessel forward of the beam. Most shocking of all was the failure to stop the ship after believing a collision had occurred and render assistance. All the above was the complete opposite of what ought to be second nature to a properly trained watchkeeper.

So was that incident a one-off or was it an indication of a systemic problem in the shipping industry's training system? There are plenty who believe the latter is the case, including me.

Disquiet with current competency levels is one reason for wanting the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) to be updated and, in the view of many, made more rigorous.

Need for review

Last year, Global shipowners' organisation International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) started pushing for the International Maritime Organization's convention to be reviewed. ICS argued a review was needed to "ensure that the Convention will be able to respond and adapt to the pace of developments and remains relevant as the set of internationally recognised standards for the training and certification of seafarers".

Speaking last November, ICS chairman Esben Poulsson noted that STCW was reviewed in 2010 with the adoption of the "Manila amendments" but the previous major overhaul of the STCW regime was last undertaken by IMO over 25 years ago.

Mr Poulsson said: "It's now commonplace for employers to routinely provide additional training and assessments prior to the deployment of many officers holding STCW certification, which raises questions as to whether the Convention as currently drafted is still fit for purpose in the 21st century."

He continued: "A fully revised STCW regime would allow the industry to adapt much more effectively to technological developments including increased automation. It should provide a structure of sufficient flexibility to hit the moving target of a changing world fleet, and may need to develop a more modular approach to competency accumulation and certification. The arrival of new technology is already changing the functions that seafarers perform on board and the skills and training they require."

He added: "A revised STCW should seek to improve transparency and the robustness of implementation oversight. The so called STCW 'white list' of nations that have communicated information to IMO about compliance now serves little real purpose as it includes virtually everyone. ICS would not wish to tear up the white list without a suitable replacement but there has to be a more transparent and robust monitoring system of national implementation to ensure that STCW continues to deliver competent and quality seafarers."

Mr Poulsson was being polite. STCW does not comprehensively deliver competent and high quality seafarers. The vast majority of watchkeepers are competent and effective, but there are too many accident reports that uncover very basic failings in watchkeeping standards.

It now looks like enough countries at IMO have been persuaded and that the process will start formally next year. It will, though, probably be 2030 or later before a revised STCW is in full effect.

The fact that it is a slow process and doesn't happen very often means it is really important we get it right. Partly, that means making sure what is taught is what is required by the modern shipping industry. But it is at least as important to give STCW teeth to enable standards to be enforced. Otherwise we can look forward to more reports cataloguing abysmal watchkeeping failures.