Oversight of maritime training institutions: beyond checking documents and licences

A common misunderstanding in maritime training management is that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) “approves” or “accredits” particular training centres or courses. In international law IMO does not supervise training institutions; under Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention, exclusive responsibility for approving, monitoring and controlling the quality of training institutions and competence programmes lies directly with national maritime Administrations. Relying on surface inspections and administrative documents creates a deep gap between the certificates issued and the real competence of seafarers on the water.

Zoom

1. Competence-based assessment versus administrative filing

Administrative compliance only shows that course headings match the IMO Model Courses; it does not guarantee learning. Under Section A-I/6 of the STCW Code, effective public oversight rests on two pillars:

• Qualified instructors and assessors: instructors must not only have relevant seagoing experience but must also have completed professional training in modern teaching methods and competence assessment techniques (such as Model Courses 6.09 and 3.12).
• Competence-based assessment: examiners must measure the student’s practical ability to make critical decisions, rather than relying only on theoretical multiple-choice tests.

2. Simulator standards and independent evaluation of the quality system

Simulator training under Regulation I/12 and Section A-I/12 of the STCW Code is subject to strict criteria. A bridge or engine-room simulator has training value only when the ship’s dynamic response, weather conditions and emergency failure scenarios have been carefully calibrated. In addition, under Regulation I/8 and Section A-I/8, the quality standards system is subject to independent evaluation: under Regulation I/8 it must undergo an independent evaluation at intervals of not more than five years, and the report must be submitted to the maritime Administration for communication to IMO and to keep the country’s place on the “White List” (MSC.1/Circ.1164).

A decision scenario (hypothetical)

In a hypothetical scenario, a private maritime training centre renews its licence to run a bridge resource management (BRM) course by submitting flawless documents. During an unannounced public inspection of the final examination, the auditors find that a grounding scenario was run without recording objective assessment criteria and that the course assessor had no valid assessment qualification. The maritime Administration records a critical non-conformity and suspends the centre’s licence to hold practical examinations until all deficiencies are corrected and the candidates are re-examined.

Three management actions to strengthen public oversight

• Organisational ownership of the action: the head of seafarer training and examinations in the national maritime Administration (and the deputy for quality assurance in maritime training institutions).

1. Introduce objective performance checklists: move from classroom audits to field observation of simulator assessment sessions and record the criteria for assessing practical skills.
2. Review teaching staff qualifications every year: require instructors and examiners to refresh their teaching techniques periodically and update their knowledge of new maritime technologies.
3. Track the results of the five-yearly independent evaluation: monitor corrective actions arising from quality audits continuously and require centres to document their improvements.

Conclusion

Maritime training institutions are where seafarers are made. If public oversight does not move beyond documentary formality, a training institution’s skill failures will become catastrophic accidents at sea in the future. Training quality is the front line of maritime safety.