SSBT ISSUE: Who's barking up the wrong tree? - Tinig ng Marino Sept to Oct 2001
By DENNIS GADIL
THE brouhaha generated by the mandatory training of marine deck officers in the course of Ship Simulator and Bridge Teamwork (SSBT) appears to be “premature.” Maritime experts and scholars who choose to stay on the sidelines of the ongoing debate between proponents and oppositors to the SSBT course as part, among others of the compliance to the 95 STCW Convention have entered the picture to put the debate on proper perspective.
Even a high-ranking official of the Professional Regulations Commission -- who at the inception of SSBT, strongly backed the mandatory implementation of the course -- was reported to have had a change of heart.
MISSING LINK
For one, they said, there is a “missing gap” in the bridge teamwork training of deck officers which is a preparatory course called the “Basic Shiphandling and Maneuvering Course” or BSMC.
Second, the preparatory course, the BSMC is an almost forgotten training course that has been relegated as a mere textbook curriculum in most maritime schools and has not been identified as among the required training courses in IMO’s Standard for Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention, as amended in 1995.
Third, concerned maritime authorities like the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) and the Maritime Training Council (MTC) are not aware of the importance of the course to the overall training of deck officers in demonstrating their competency in bridge teamwork functions.
Fourth, the IMO, through the amended STCW Convention, has “presumed” that Filipino deck officers – and their counterparts abroad – were already proficient in the BSMC that’s why the world maritime body did not bother including the course as among the mandatory model courses under the 95 STCW Convention.
The BSMC as a preparatory course is actually envisioned to arm marine officers with the basic knowledge and skill in handling and maneuvering the vessels from its berthing and undocking positions, in all conditions, through the use of simulators. No training center, however, offers such course which, according to good-minded maritime leaders, leaves a big loophole in the over-all competency of deck officers in managing the bridge and in maneuvering their vessels. The course, they said, should have been taken first as part of their mandatory training and even before taking the SSBT course.
PREMATURE DEBATE
When seafarers, including deck officers, were instructed to upgrade their certificates to comply with the amendments set forth in the 95 STCW Convention, the controversy on the necessity of the SSBT as mandatory training course arose. A debate erupted between manning agencies and maritime training centers.
Those opposing the mandatory training argued that aside from spending alot of money for the training because they have already experiences in bridge teamwork while serving their ships.
They stressed that the “in service experience” derived by deck officers while onboard their ships was enough to demonstrate and prove their competency in bridge teamwork procedures.
Capt. Nestor Vargas of Gallant Maritime Services, the leading voice against the mandatory training, said the simulator training being provided by local training centers lacks “physical realism” to actually test the competency of deck officers. He added that the training centers are only cashing in on the mandatory training requirements by charging exorbitant fees.
A one-week course in bridge teamwork procedures cost around $200 or about 20,000 while other centers charge between $700 to $950. IDESS is charging $950, Norwegian Training Center, $750; PTC, $700; NYK, $650; and Protect Marine, $200.
There are about 33,000 deck officers while only about 10,000 are currently employed onboard international vessels.
On the other hand, Engr. Antonino Gascon of Protect Marine said experiences and training derived by the marine officers were part of the old STCW and should be upgraded based on revised STCW 95. Citing a book on how to understand the STCW 95 by Capt. WSG Morrison, Gascon argued that the completion of refresher and updating training or demonstration of competence by the use, among others, of integrated bridge system were the “minimum standards of STCW.”
Gascon even warned that should the country fail to provide proof of bridge competency for our marine officers, international maritime authorities like the United States might use this to blacklist Filipino seamen. He said even the US Coast Guard has started to order US marine officers to prove their competency in bridge teamwork procedures in compliance with STCW 95.
PRC Commissioner Alfonso Abad nevertheless stressed the importance of using simulators in training to improve the competency of marine officers and in pursuant to the provision of the STCW 95. He was, however, vague on whether the SSBT course should be made compulsory as big-time training operators lobby for the Commission’s favorable decision on the issue.
SIX ‘DOF’
But before the debate on SSBT broke out, the course on shiphandling and maneuvering or BSMC were only taught as a textbook subject in maritime academies. The actual use of a vessel, however, was next to impossible that time since it was deemed very “risky” and “costly” once the ship runs into major mishaps during the maneuvering and shiphandling exercises. The basic objective of the training was supposedly to familiarize the seafarer or the deck officer in the various basic movements of the vessels, aptly called as the “Six Degrees of Freedom” or "6 DOF." These six movements are “surge”, “sway”, “yaw”, “roll”, “pitch” and “heave.” And with the introduction of simulators, the basic principles and its actual application could be learned in a room where a simulator is installed.
But Capt. Edwin Itable, president and maritime lecturer at the Eureka Maritime Foundation, revealed that all the existing training simulators used by training centers in the country lacked “behavioral realism” which is imperative in grasping the 6 DOF. He said the present batch of training simulators that are in use today are “Class B” type of simulators which could only provide “visual realism.” According to him, only “Class A” type of simulators are capable of providing “behavioral realism.” He said what SSBT course could only offer is the know-how and training in running the bridge but not the skills and training on how to maneuver the vessel. At present, all of the maritime training centers offering the SSBT course use the Class-B type of simulators.
BEHAVIORAL REALISM
Based on the IMO-approved handbook on training simulators, a simulator equipment that provides behavioral realism must “realistically simulate a ship’s hydrodynamics in open water conditions, including the effects of wind forces, wave forces, tidal stream and currents.” The simulator must also “realistically simulate ship hydrodynamics in restricted waterways, including shallow water and bank effects, interaction with other ships and sheer current.”
Itable said the above requirements for simulator are essential in training the marine deck officer of the basic movements and maneuvering of the vessels. In essence, he said, the marine officer, particularly the deck officer, must familiarize himself first with the basic movements of the ship before he goes into learning the aspect of bridge teamwork. He said the above requirements for simulator are essential in training the marine officer of the basic movements and maneuvering of the vessel.
Itable stressed this was precisely the reason why the debate about the SSBT was premature and therefore, misplaced. He said added that without the training on basic shiphandling and maneuvering, any marine officer is sure to imbibe ‘negative learning.”
“Kapag tinuloy pa natin ang SSBT, without the preparatory course on basic ship maneuvering magkakaroon ng negative learning ang marine officers because of negative knowledge,” he stressed.
TOO ADVANCED
Maritime scholar and instructor Edgar Martinez said the SSBT course was too advanced for an inexperienced junior marine officer to appreciate. He said only senior marine officers like chief mates and master mariners could appreciate the SSBT course since they have already the adequate “on-board experience” in bridge teamwork.
Martinez, a World Maritime University graduate, boldly stated that all active marine officers, including third and second mates, must take the basic shiphandling and maneuvering course once the government declares it as a mandatory course. He stressed that the PRC must push for the course as a mandatory training since it was the one issuing the competency certificates of marine officers. "To fast-track the re-training of all marine officers in shiphandling and maneuvering, the training centers could make do with their Class B simulators while the others are in the process of upgrading," he explained.
But he stressed that Class A type of simulators which provide “behavioural realism” must be used in the training of harbor pilots.
Ideally, only harbor pilots should be trained on the aspect of shiphandling and maneuvering since they are the ones usually tapped by shipowners to guide their vessels when anchoring or undocking from ports.
BACK TO BASICS
Nevertheless, Martinez stressed that aside from being a basic training course, a marine officer must be trained in ship-handling and maneuvering as a “check" on the harbor pilots and which could come in handy during emergency cases when a harbor pilot is not available. Harbor pilots are trained seafarers who are tapped to steer the ships when making an approach to a port or when navigating unfamiliar bodies of water like shallow rivers. He said compared to other maritime states, harbor pilots go to a specific school and training academy to become experts.
The WMU alumnus said, as a start, maritime training centers could offer the course as a separate course but eventually as part of a course package which would include the SSBT and basic shiphandling and maneuvering courses.
In the long run, Martinez said, the basic ship handling and maneuvering as a mandatory training course must be integrated in the undergraduate curricula of all aspiring seafarers. When all these are done, the industry could perhaps stop spewing discordant voices and get their acts together, according to the good-minded maritime scholar.
THE brouhaha generated by the mandatory training of marine deck officers in the course of Ship Simulator and Bridge Teamwork (SSBT) appears to be “premature.” Maritime experts and scholars who choose to stay on the sidelines of the ongoing debate between proponents and oppositors to the SSBT course as part, among others of the compliance to the 95 STCW Convention have entered the picture to put the debate on proper perspective.
Even a high-ranking official of the Professional Regulations Commission -- who at the inception of SSBT, strongly backed the mandatory implementation of the course -- was reported to have had a change of heart.
MISSING LINK
For one, they said, there is a “missing gap” in the bridge teamwork training of deck officers which is a preparatory course called the “Basic Shiphandling and Maneuvering Course” or BSMC.
Second, the preparatory course, the BSMC is an almost forgotten training course that has been relegated as a mere textbook curriculum in most maritime schools and has not been identified as among the required training courses in IMO’s Standard for Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention, as amended in 1995.
Third, concerned maritime authorities like the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) and the Maritime Training Council (MTC) are not aware of the importance of the course to the overall training of deck officers in demonstrating their competency in bridge teamwork functions.
Fourth, the IMO, through the amended STCW Convention, has “presumed” that Filipino deck officers – and their counterparts abroad – were already proficient in the BSMC that’s why the world maritime body did not bother including the course as among the mandatory model courses under the 95 STCW Convention.
The BSMC as a preparatory course is actually envisioned to arm marine officers with the basic knowledge and skill in handling and maneuvering the vessels from its berthing and undocking positions, in all conditions, through the use of simulators. No training center, however, offers such course which, according to good-minded maritime leaders, leaves a big loophole in the over-all competency of deck officers in managing the bridge and in maneuvering their vessels. The course, they said, should have been taken first as part of their mandatory training and even before taking the SSBT course.
PREMATURE DEBATE
When seafarers, including deck officers, were instructed to upgrade their certificates to comply with the amendments set forth in the 95 STCW Convention, the controversy on the necessity of the SSBT as mandatory training course arose. A debate erupted between manning agencies and maritime training centers.
Those opposing the mandatory training argued that aside from spending alot of money for the training because they have already experiences in bridge teamwork while serving their ships.
They stressed that the “in service experience” derived by deck officers while onboard their ships was enough to demonstrate and prove their competency in bridge teamwork procedures.
Capt. Nestor Vargas of Gallant Maritime Services, the leading voice against the mandatory training, said the simulator training being provided by local training centers lacks “physical realism” to actually test the competency of deck officers. He added that the training centers are only cashing in on the mandatory training requirements by charging exorbitant fees.
A one-week course in bridge teamwork procedures cost around $200 or about 20,000 while other centers charge between $700 to $950. IDESS is charging $950, Norwegian Training Center, $750; PTC, $700; NYK, $650; and Protect Marine, $200.
There are about 33,000 deck officers while only about 10,000 are currently employed onboard international vessels.
On the other hand, Engr. Antonino Gascon of Protect Marine said experiences and training derived by the marine officers were part of the old STCW and should be upgraded based on revised STCW 95. Citing a book on how to understand the STCW 95 by Capt. WSG Morrison, Gascon argued that the completion of refresher and updating training or demonstration of competence by the use, among others, of integrated bridge system were the “minimum standards of STCW.”
Gascon even warned that should the country fail to provide proof of bridge competency for our marine officers, international maritime authorities like the United States might use this to blacklist Filipino seamen. He said even the US Coast Guard has started to order US marine officers to prove their competency in bridge teamwork procedures in compliance with STCW 95.
PRC Commissioner Alfonso Abad nevertheless stressed the importance of using simulators in training to improve the competency of marine officers and in pursuant to the provision of the STCW 95. He was, however, vague on whether the SSBT course should be made compulsory as big-time training operators lobby for the Commission’s favorable decision on the issue.
SIX ‘DOF’
But before the debate on SSBT broke out, the course on shiphandling and maneuvering or BSMC were only taught as a textbook subject in maritime academies. The actual use of a vessel, however, was next to impossible that time since it was deemed very “risky” and “costly” once the ship runs into major mishaps during the maneuvering and shiphandling exercises. The basic objective of the training was supposedly to familiarize the seafarer or the deck officer in the various basic movements of the vessels, aptly called as the “Six Degrees of Freedom” or "6 DOF." These six movements are “surge”, “sway”, “yaw”, “roll”, “pitch” and “heave.” And with the introduction of simulators, the basic principles and its actual application could be learned in a room where a simulator is installed.
But Capt. Edwin Itable, president and maritime lecturer at the Eureka Maritime Foundation, revealed that all the existing training simulators used by training centers in the country lacked “behavioral realism” which is imperative in grasping the 6 DOF. He said the present batch of training simulators that are in use today are “Class B” type of simulators which could only provide “visual realism.” According to him, only “Class A” type of simulators are capable of providing “behavioral realism.” He said what SSBT course could only offer is the know-how and training in running the bridge but not the skills and training on how to maneuver the vessel. At present, all of the maritime training centers offering the SSBT course use the Class-B type of simulators.
BEHAVIORAL REALISM
Based on the IMO-approved handbook on training simulators, a simulator equipment that provides behavioral realism must “realistically simulate a ship’s hydrodynamics in open water conditions, including the effects of wind forces, wave forces, tidal stream and currents.” The simulator must also “realistically simulate ship hydrodynamics in restricted waterways, including shallow water and bank effects, interaction with other ships and sheer current.”
Itable said the above requirements for simulator are essential in training the marine deck officer of the basic movements and maneuvering of the vessels. In essence, he said, the marine officer, particularly the deck officer, must familiarize himself first with the basic movements of the ship before he goes into learning the aspect of bridge teamwork. He said the above requirements for simulator are essential in training the marine officer of the basic movements and maneuvering of the vessel.
Itable stressed this was precisely the reason why the debate about the SSBT was premature and therefore, misplaced. He said added that without the training on basic shiphandling and maneuvering, any marine officer is sure to imbibe ‘negative learning.”
“Kapag tinuloy pa natin ang SSBT, without the preparatory course on basic ship maneuvering magkakaroon ng negative learning ang marine officers because of negative knowledge,” he stressed.
TOO ADVANCED
Maritime scholar and instructor Edgar Martinez said the SSBT course was too advanced for an inexperienced junior marine officer to appreciate. He said only senior marine officers like chief mates and master mariners could appreciate the SSBT course since they have already the adequate “on-board experience” in bridge teamwork.
Martinez, a World Maritime University graduate, boldly stated that all active marine officers, including third and second mates, must take the basic shiphandling and maneuvering course once the government declares it as a mandatory course. He stressed that the PRC must push for the course as a mandatory training since it was the one issuing the competency certificates of marine officers. "To fast-track the re-training of all marine officers in shiphandling and maneuvering, the training centers could make do with their Class B simulators while the others are in the process of upgrading," he explained.
But he stressed that Class A type of simulators which provide “behavioural realism” must be used in the training of harbor pilots.
Ideally, only harbor pilots should be trained on the aspect of shiphandling and maneuvering since they are the ones usually tapped by shipowners to guide their vessels when anchoring or undocking from ports.
BACK TO BASICS
Nevertheless, Martinez stressed that aside from being a basic training course, a marine officer must be trained in ship-handling and maneuvering as a “check" on the harbor pilots and which could come in handy during emergency cases when a harbor pilot is not available. Harbor pilots are trained seafarers who are tapped to steer the ships when making an approach to a port or when navigating unfamiliar bodies of water like shallow rivers. He said compared to other maritime states, harbor pilots go to a specific school and training academy to become experts.
The WMU alumnus said, as a start, maritime training centers could offer the course as a separate course but eventually as part of a course package which would include the SSBT and basic shiphandling and maneuvering courses.
In the long run, Martinez said, the basic ship handling and maneuvering as a mandatory training course must be integrated in the undergraduate curricula of all aspiring seafarers. When all these are done, the industry could perhaps stop spewing discordant voices and get their acts together, according to the good-minded maritime scholar.
posted by brodkaster43 at Biyernes, Setyembre 08, 2006
0 Comments:
Mag-post ng isang Komento
<< Home