Preparing for the comprehensive STCW review: fixing the quality system before the rules change

A situation leaders must read correctly

A comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and Code is on IMO’s agenda. According to IMO’s own explanations, the gap analysis had identified more than 400 issues by 2025, covering subjects such as new technologies, cyber security, alternative fuels, mental health and psychological safety. A target of considering the revised text at the Maritime Safety Committee in 2029 or 2030, depending on progress, has been mentioned; that date does not mean the amendments will have been adopted or have entered into force. A training institution should therefore not present proposals in its marketing as final requirements.

Zoom

Work that does not need to wait for amendments

The best starting point is the requirements already in force. Regulation I/8 deals with quality standards systems and independent evaluation; Regulation I/10 sets out the conditions for recognising certificates issued by another State. The first question for a manager is not “what new subject will be added?” but “does our current curriculum really assess competence?” Answering it means reviewing the link between learning objectives, teaching methods, simulators, tests, assessment evidence and instructor qualifications.

The hidden link in certification quality

The credibility of a certification system depends on several actors: the competent national body, the training centre, the examiner, the issuing unit and the verification system. If these parts are not integrated, the result can be recording errors, delays in revalidation or weak checks on the authenticity of certificates. It is advisable to map the life cycle of a certificate as a process, from the candidate’s admission through examination, issue, recognition, revalidation and complaint handling, and to record an independent control at each point.

Prioritising emerging skills without legal prejudgement

Connected ship technology, data, automation, new fuels and human element management can be included in needs analysis today, but clear labels are needed to distinguish “market need”, “voluntary development programme” and “current legal requirement”. Competence-based training is also not the same as adding classroom hours. Measuring performance in realistic scenarios and documented simulation is a more reliable basis for a manager’s decision.

An organisational readiness map

Set up a joint working group for regulation, quality and training. First consolidate the list of programmes and current rules, then assess the gaps in assessment evidence, instructor qualifications and independent oversight. Produce the result as an STCW–QMS matrix with owner, evidence, risk and deadline for correction. Whenever new official text is adopted and enters into force, this matrix becomes the basis for managing the change.

A readiness matrix for future changes

Area	Current duty to review	Suggested readiness action
Quality standards	Evaluation of the quality system under STCW I/8	Review of independent evidence and an action plan
Issue and recognition	Certification processes in line with current rules, including I/10	An audit of data and communication between authorities
Technology and simulators	Existing criteria for competence and assessment	Needs analysis of new methods and validation of tools
Human element	Coverage of current requirements on crew safety and performance	Stronger scenario-based training on fatigue, leadership and professional behaviour

This table does not mean new syllabus headings have been adopted. In a forward-looking programme, each need should carry one of three labels: “current requirement”, “voluntary improvement based on risk assessment” or “subject under review”. This allows a budget to be allocated for building capacity without making an incorrect legal claim.

Questions for the board of a training centre

Has an observable output and a pass criterion been defined for each competence? Does independent evaluation only check that processes exist, or does it also assess how well they are carried out? If a certificate error occurs, how long does it take to detect and correct? Is the training needs analysis connected to data on incidents, performance and industry feedback? Answering these questions improves the credibility of training before any new amendment arrives.