Unit 7: Broader Perspectives and Conceptual Models for Improvements

1. 7.1 Broader Perspectives on Risk Reduction: The Role of Education and Training

It is interesting to remove risk at source. The following are some of the points raised by Horck (2007) which is as valid today as it was in 2007.  According to Jan Horck the ISM Code and the STCW 95 Convention can without doubt be considered two of the most important IMO instruments that have and are contributing to safe, secure and efficient shipping on clean seas. The interesting argument in his paper is that he believes the two instruments are fundamental in the sense that they have a perceptible link to quality assurance (QA). He goes even further and proposes an international QA award in this respect and interestingly notes that the port state control function is made to assure that the Maritime Education and Training (MET) institutions do their job i.e. that the end-products from the MET institutions know how to use knowledge and show professional skills, a ship seaworthy and safely manned. He questions if it is time to ask oneself if the STCW 95 really pass on relevant and needed knowledge and skill to seafarers and assures the shipowners (hereinafter owner) that the ship will not be detained due to their crews and employee’s substandard education. The key questions he poses is that “is it proven that ship casualties are reduced with the introduction of the ISM Code? Have ship detentions and deficiencies onboard been reduced because of improved knowledge and skills among ratings and officers?  Does cargo arrive intact and on time? In raising these questions, he aimed at vital safety issues that still are not adequately addressed in the STCW 95 but important in order to make the ISM Code successful.  Horck is of the view that “the industry is expecting a dialogue with MET, and also that MET not only follows the easiest flow of the stream by no more than fulfilling required minimum knowledge and skills demanded by the lawmakers”.  

Horck (2008) is convinced that if training is properly done it will be an eye opener to better safety standards; less pollution and less accidents by implication no need for ISM audits or PSC inspections. The arguments put forward by Horck clearly suggest that the best way to reduce risk is through better education and training. The SMS is primarily there to produce procedures and for reporting accidents as well as producing procedures for reporting to emergencies; and to have a safe ship it requires an understanding of proper maintenance and regular supervision or inspections. He raises two other issues that very much concern the owners and the MET additional responsibility. The first is that to move cargo and ensuring that it arrives intact and on time to the unloading port and for this a very good knowledge of loading and unloading procedures, lashing of cargo to the ship and lashing of cargo in containers as well as keep the ship stabile during these processes while as the same time caring for the Cargo during the voyage and knowing the properties and behavior of different cargoes. If these issues are not understood, he claims, those who are set to master these issues should be seen as a big disgrace to the industry. The P&I Clubs can tell how much they pay in compensation for cargo damages; the amounts are enormous. For many years about 30% of all compensations are due to cargo being badly treated in ports and during transport. The International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) reports a raising evolution in paid claims in a macro perspective (Seltmann, 2006).

In order to professionally master a ship and to look after its cargo risk identification is needed. The risk is evident i.e., to learn to recognize risk and prepare for emergencies and exercise good safety management skills are very important in modern shipping. Insurers have voiced concern at the risks. The number of reported incidents involving tankers has increased with 64% in 2006. The fire-explosion category represents a substantial increase. The cargo is not travelling comfortably. INTERTANKO has established a human element in shipping committee to find out how to combat this problem.

The SMS contains instructions and procedures to ensure safety and environmental protection. To instruct is a MET concern. With the ISM Code comes higher responsibility where computer literacy is necessary. Many ISM Code objectives are controlled electronically. Therefore, continuous education and training is needed to maintain skills in the operation of computer hardware and software. Computer systems are used to manage the SMS system. With the need and demand of quality assurance come the requirements to keep operational and managerial records in order to be able to verify that you do what you say that you do. Auditors need to see these verifications in order to revalidate a given QA. The inability to effectively use computer-based applications will contribute to commercial losses. It should therefore be in owners’ interest to assure that the crew has knowledge in information technology (IT) and electronic data exchange systems. 

A growing risk onboard is the increase of e-mails arriving to the ship’s computer. Masters need to be trained on how to select what is important in a world exaggerating dissemination. In practice it is shown that the Master does not need all information sent to the ship. Instead of looking after his SMS, time is spent on reading inappropriate e-mails. Dragging it to its extreme such flow of information hampers safety onboard. We have an e-mail paradox that needs to be tackled before the industry encounters e-mail related accidents. Give, in particular the officers, additional theoretical knowledge in functions of the computer because it will assist the OOW in solving various problems in cargo handling, navigation and ships maneuvering etc. Give elderly officers the same training because they might be reluctant to seek advice from a junior officer or a person from another culture than himself. The complexity in electronic based equipment should be understood not to be an easy understanding. b) Duties of Designated Persons (DP), surveyors and Auditors. The MET should be proactive and contribute more in the training of auditors and DP duties. 

Even if it is not prescribed but indirectly a necessity in the ISM all graduates from a MET institution should have a genuine education in how to meet an audit team. Seafarers need to be trained on how to answer interviews and how to support the audit-team. Auditing in the maritime industry is a fairly new activity that requires special training. It should not be the Class Societies training program training its own auditors. It should, in the name of harmonization, be the training program set by the International Register of Certified Auditors (IRCA). Class Societies should do surveys. Auditing is not surveying. The ISM philosophy is based on checking objectives against the company’s documented procedures and nothing else. In order to make the ISM Code more effective also flag state surveyors and port state inspectors should come to school. They should come to the MET institution to get a teacher mind.

To reduce risks a successful implementation of flag state surveys and port state controls (PSC) requires the performers to be corrective and not have a dictatorial attitude to what is wrong and what is correct. The surveyor/inspector/officer/controller should tell the ship’s crew what could be a better practice or procedure and then kindly have the crew to implement this. Explain the practical, safety, environmental, economic and last the regulatory requirements and other benefits of doing it as the crew just has been told. This is quality shipping! An oil major’s vetting examination is different in the sense that it is a process that offers a clearance if the ship is accepted or not accepted to carry out a specific transport according to a shipper’s requirement/standard. Lecturers’ standard MET should urge owners to allow MET teachers with intervals to work on board ships to keep their officer of the watch (OOW) license. Normally, a typical teacher at a MET institution has seafaring experience. This typical teacher also has lost his license because he/she has not been to sea with intervals as required to keep a valid license. An efficient teacher needs to keep up to date with development in the industry. The best way to do this is to observe and take active part in modern industry practices. An excellent example of such practice can be seen within Chinese MET. The EU CIPMET project showed a remarkable number of teachers still having a valid OOW license. This policy should be introduced and be a worldwide MET teacher requirement. It is far from the situation in EU MET. Teachers: Sign on! Owners: open navigation-bridges and engine-rooms for teachers and you will get value for your training budget and less worries to risk your ships to be detained because of crew substandard education. Governments should allocate funds to MET to be used to subscribe to maritime journals, magazines etc. This is also a way for teachers to update themselves. There is a need for a MET teacher’s’ competency standard. Knowledge and skills are passed on beyond conception making one wonder if the end product from the MET institutions worldwide possibly could be of the same standard. Train the trainer programs are meant to harmonize the MET. Consistency with verifications is a must in future safety and environment thinking in shipping and also in MET. Performance-related benchmarks would help to reach the quality we all wish. MET managers (rectors, presidents etc.) should hurry to obtain an ISO 9000 series recognition in order to assure themselves and owners that what is delivered in MET is up to standard at least in procedural terms

Safety is a matter of teamwork. To be successful when practicing teamwork, it is paramount that the members can talk to each other in a language understood by all. In addition, it is also essential that there are no cultural barriers for fully understanding messages and orders. Courses must be conducted to teach the students about the existence of such obstacles. Studies have been carried out on the pros and cons of mixed crews and conclusions are both negative and positive (Horck, 2005, 2006). In the future, lack of cultural awareness and the negative and afraid attitude to diversity perhaps will be a problem, if not already a problem, also in the owner’s boardrooms, surveyors’ inspectors’ and controllers’ contact with crew and within MET institutions. Workforce mobility has become fundamental in shipping. To manage, a company with many different cultures is complex. In addition, seafarers usually cannot choose their fellow workers i.e., it will be more difficult to manage people onboard than ashore. Apparently, multicultural awareness training is required to be able to manage this challenge. When onboard teamwork training should include subjects like behaviorism, fatigue and cultural understanding. Owners cannot afford to have delays and misunderstandings because crew do not understand each other. Failure of crew to follow correct procedures and to speak with a professional language is becoming major factors for accidents (Ziarati, 2006). The MS Bow Mariner accident is a good example of this. The MET institutions must emphasize their efforts to change seafarers' mentality to safety. Teaching is to change people’s behavior and attitude to certain phenomena linked to the knowledge and skill they need according to mandatory and national MET requirements. 

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) recently issued a booklet named Leading for Safety. The booklet has a heading “Be sensitive to different cultures” (MCA,2006, p.18). The mere fact that the subject appears is an added argument to urgently introduce cultural awareness in the MET curricula (Horck, 2006). The content should not be a surface introduction but to go in depth.

Crew fatigue is many times referred to as the reason for casualties. We cannot teach people to work without rest. What owners and perhaps IMO can do is to review manning levels and the ISM Code would be easier to comply with. Technology Training is without any doubt a proactive approach to safety. If looking to the future, changes will be necessary as ships are differently built and designed.

The question is if training is catching up with the change in technology. There are indications that high technology is a contributing factor to casualties. Crew get sort of hypnotized by all the fancy equipment onboard; gadgets. We also know that a little knowledge is dangerous. Therefore, training must embrace also abnormal situations. The ability of understanding equipment limitations and awareness of distraction factors must be more considered as important issues in future MET. It is imperative that an emphasis is placed on the man-machine interface remembering that everything should be user friendly.