Organisation |
International Shipping Company |
National Shipping Company |
Offshore Shipping Company |
National Government Body |
Nautical College |
International Shipping Company |
International Shipping Company |
Freelance |
Yacht Industry |
Nautical College |
Utility Company |
Law Firm |
Module |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Deck - Emergency Response and Communication |
Your Feedback - Outcome 1 |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Cannot comment on Outcome 1.5 as its not shown on the screen |
Agree with the basis premise with respect to maintaining the current methods for teaching this area are acceptable With respect to 1.2 it is considered that this proposed change to cadet training should await the outcome of the pending IMO discussions There is no 1.5 tabulated above |
For 1.2 - Suggest that the reason behind this extra focus is explained to teachers and students - ideally with a one liner in the syllabus or through a MIN. Reason - Most students and teachers who I have spoken to feel that this is irrelevant, as very few have seen / experienced / heard of aircraft casualties at sea. And if one occurs, they will simply follow the MRCC’s instructions - why do they need to spend time learning about this in nautical college? 1.3 d - Homing - is not relevant for ships today, as we don’t have DF fitted on the bridge any more. Unless you wish to explain how the shore establishment can home in? Or you wish to show how the SART can be used for homing in? If so, this should be clarified in the syllabus so that teachers teach that. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback, apologies this was on the next question. |
Many thanks for your feedback. While we will certainly take into account the outcome of the IMO discussions regarding communication with distressed craft. We believe it would be beneficial to be ahead of the curve and help lead the discussion by including the suggestions in outcome 1.2. Apologies regarding outcome 1.5, this was included on the next question. |
Many thanks for your feedback. With regards to outcome 1.2 it has been indicated through the working group and the industry consultation that this remains a relevant topic. The additional information suggested is for awareness to help respond to an emergency if it arises. With regards to outcome 1.3 this has been indicated through the working group and industry consultation that this remains a relevant topic. While direction finders are no longer fitted to modern vessels, understanding the concept for how shore based establishments would use these techniques remains relevant as well as the use of SARTs, this will be clarified in the academic guidance document published upon completion of the syllabus review. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Feedback - Outcome 1 |
#N/A |
I believe that outcome 1.8 could also benefit from modernisation alongside the others with regards to personal security and security of property when caring for and transferring survivors. |
#N/A |
1.5 Whilst simulator training in this area may have benefit it should not become a mandatory part of the cadet training syllabus 1.6 comments as per 1.5 above the theoretical training of cadets in this area can usefully be supplemented by enabling simulation to be part of the training, it is not however considered necessary to make this a mandatory part of UK first CoC training and examination. 1.7 Whilst basically in favour of the suggested additions, the change should only be implemented after the IMO STCW review 1.8 Agree that current training in this area remains appropriate. |
Additionally, it would be useful to add sessions with MCA personnel coming in to talk to the candidates - even if it is for an hour. Else this will continue to be highly theoretical even after the changes. |
#N/A |
1.5 G) Inclusion of props and cons of a datum search and sector search, and use of environment (ie: Sun & Moon) |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. We are unsure exactly what you are suggesting, are you referring to the personal security of the seafarers or the personal security of the survivors and their property? Please provide further clarification to [email protected] |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. While we appreciate your opinion on outcomes 1.5 and 1.6, the use of simulators is already a requirement for NAEST(O). In addition, the feedback from the working group and industry consultation is that this is desireable. While we will certainly take into account the outcome of the IMO discussions regarding communication with Mass Casualty/ Migrant Rescue. We believe it would be beneficial to be ahead of the curve and help lead the discussion by including the suggestions in outcome 1.7. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. This is something that would certainly be best practice and we can suggest this as a teaching method for colleges to take forward. However, it will not be something that we can mandate within the syllabus. In addition, we believe that this is not necessary to be someone from the MCA but, instead, any outside speaker with experience in real life emergency response scenarios. |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. Datum search and sector search are already covered within this outcome. Taking into account environmental factors such as the sun and moon are already covered under “visibility” within this outcome and the practical aspects are covered through IAMSAR Volume III. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Feedback - Outcome 1 |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
1.10 This proposal can be welcomed in principle but the changes to cadet training should await the outcome of the IMO STCW review |
Examples and clarity is needed regarding what exactly teachers should teach - since this will be new to them as well. Else each university / nautical college might end up teaching different things. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
I think legal obligations should also be linked with a basic understanding of what salvage is and the situations in which it can be claimed over a vessel. |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. For clarification, the STCW Comprehensive review is due to start in 2024, the MCA intends to propose the inclusion of this topic as part of the review but believe adding it to the UK syllabus would provide strong evidence for its inclusion in STCW. |
Many thanks for your feedback, this has been noted. Our intention is to create academic modules with delivery guidance for colleges following this review. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. This module is purely looking at the practical side of emergency response. Salvage is covered in the Shipmasters’ Law and Business module. |
Your Feedback - Outcome 2 |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Agree that the current training of cadets wrt IMO approved communication procedures used to avoid misinterpretation at sea remain appropriate and that no change is required in this area. |
N.A. |
I question whether a ‘Morse Code’ examination is relevent in this day and age, in 25+ years at sea I have never been called on to use it….. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. This is actually covered in outcome 3.1 in which we have suggested “A review of signals certificate outcome should be undertaken looking into relationship between Signals Certificate and CoC”. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Feedback - Outcome 3 |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
The requirements for Cadet training and examination by visual means iaw the International Code of signals remains relevant, the review of the necessity of the separate signals certificate is welcomed. |
2 letter flag signals are really not needed, as they are not used by merchant ships at sea any more. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Morse restricted / focused to those mentioned in Colregs. Regarding flags - apart from hoisting Alpha, Bravo and Hotel in 11 years at sea no others have been hoisted. |
Having an appreciation of morse and signals even if not kept current through CPD is important in my opinion and feel it would be detrimental to remove all testing of this from such an early stage. That said i would question how relevant it is for later tickets and also if CPD training comes commonplace i would question its validity there |
An awareness of Morse Code is all that is needed since the advent of GMDSS - no need for a certificate at all. The current requirement to send and receive at 3wpm is antiquated |
Although the likelihood of signals being transmitted via flashlight in the event of an emergency, if all other attempts failed and in the middle of the ocean the Officers should have some awareness of this. |
I fail to understand why this would require review. So long as the signals certificate is achieved prior to the CoC why does it matter if it was 6 months ago or 3 years ago? Questions can still be asked in the oral exam if the examiner so wishes. |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. We are in agreement and we will bring this outcome in line with STCW by including in the guidance document, “Ability to transmit and receive, by Morse light, distress signal SOS as specified in Annex IV of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, and appendix 1 of the International Code of Signals, and visual signalling of single-letter signals as also specified in the International Code of Signals” |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. A more focussed approach has been suggested in outcome 3.1 in which we have suggested “A review of signals certificate outcome should be undertaken looking into relationship between Signals Certificate and CoC”. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. Pleaase be advised that we are not suggesting to remove all testing of morse code. However, a more focussed approach has been suggested in outcome 3.1 in which we have suggested “A review of signals certificate outcome should be undertaken looking into relationship between Signals Certificate and CoC”. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. A more focussed approach has been suggested in outcome 3.1 in which we have suggested “A review of signals certificate outcome should be undertaken looking into relationship between Signals Certificate and CoC”. |
Many thanks for your feedback, it has been noted. A more focussed approach has been suggested in outcome 3.1 in which we have suggested “A review of signals certificate outcome should be undertaken looking into relationship between Signals Certificate and CoC”. |
Many thanks for your feedback. Please be advised that, as per MSN 1856 - Amendment 1, to achieve an OOW Unlimited CoC a candidate must hold a Signals certificate issued in the previous 3 years. We are in agreement that it does not matter whether the certificate was achieved in this period and have suggested that this requirement should be reviewed. |
Your Feedback - Outcomes Above and Beyond |
‘Data science’ is a big topic. I am guessing that the outcome is not for the cadets to learn to produce data, but instead to clean smart/big data and take some analysis from it. All careers are going to need to handle larger data and seafaring is no exception, but I feel we need to be realistic about the skills required by Mariners. They will not be data scientists or analysis (yet!), but may well need to be data specialists (as defined by programmes like Tableau) |
I agree with all of the recommendations with regards to data science skills, however I believe this could be taken further with regards to up to date IT skills. Cadets need a solid foundation of knowledge concerning computer science in a this industry as it becomes more reliant on IT for compliance and safety. |
#N/A |
There should be no additional examination or assessment of cadets in any new ‘ Topic’ of ‘Data Science Skills’ unless and until included in changes to STCW; such skills can be developed informally as part of more general training |
N.A. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Contextualisation is done currently, hence the need for this review. Care should be taken to ensure that the formal embedding of specific “soft skills” into units/module are not done to “tick a box” and actually enhance the learning within a particular unit/module. Data analysis is an important skill to learn but it is just as important understand the appropriateness of the data to a particular given situation |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
Many thanks for your feedback. You are correct in your assumption, we are looking to formalise the teaching of data handling and interpretation skills, to ensure that seafarers can make best use of the data they are being presented with. |
Many thanks for your feedback. IT skills are already covered within the syllabus and the use of electronic resources throughout training will improve the seafarer’s computer skills. |
#N/A |
Thank you for your feedback, it has been noted. This is a topic which we are looking to introduce above an beyond the requirements of STCW, in order to future proof the skills of seafarers. It will be included as a UK recommendation as part of the IMO’s comprehensive review of STCW. |
Many thanks for your feedback. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. As per the suggested Human Element Factors section we are looking to provide seafarers with a contextualised understanding of the Human Element in the maritime industry, showing how they can put theory into practice in the work they carry out at sea. This should provide practical examples of how these can be implemented at sea. We are in agreement with your comment about data analysis and the appropriateness of data, this will be covered as part of the data science module. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Proposed Outcome |
#N/A |
As stated, I believe that it is important for future cadets to have a solid knowledge of ICT skills and Computer Science, especially with regards to networks and connectivity on board, as well as maintenance of both hardware and software on board. This could include software maintenance, recognising error messages and resolving issues on board. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
The current sea time requirements are very low (just 12 months). Feedback from sailing officers suggests that they find cadets and officers who have gone through this stream to be pretty poor in their practical knowledge and skills on board. 12 months is simply insufficient to get this in a profession as practical as the merchant navy. This is not because of the cadet’s mistake, but rather because the current system does not give them 18-24 months at sea to learn and assimilate diverse learning from different seafarers on board ships. Hence suggest that the current 12 months of sea time be changed to 18 months at sea. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Rationale for this outcome |
#N/A |
The role of computers and digital tools in the industry cannot be understated. It would be helpful from a perspective of operations and maintenance for seafarers themselves to be able to maintain their own systems instead of relying on shore-based contractors and facilities who may not be able to assist the vessel directly. At the very least, trained seafarers could assist these shore side facilities by correctly diagnosing the problem and providing accurate information about IT systems on board to allow them to resolve problems more efficiently. As matters stand, seafarers are not always able to provide the information that shore based help desks need to resolve IT issues on board ships. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
The current sea time requirements are very low (just 12 months). Feedback from sailing officers suggests that they find cadets and officers who have gone through this stream to be pretty poor in their practical knowledge and skills on board. 12 months is simply insufficient to get this in a profession as practical as the merchant navy. This is not because of the cadet’s mistake, but rather because the current system does not give them 18-24 months at sea to learn and assimilate diverse learning from different seafarers on board ships. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Action for this outcome |
#N/A |
The required knowledge could be introduced to the syllabus as another outcome linked to outcomes regarding the human element on board. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Current 12 months of sea time be changed to 18 months at sea. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. While we agree that IT skills are an important topic, and already included in the syllabus, we do not think it would be appropriate to require Deck Officers to be computer engineers as this would be covered within the Engineering/ ETO syllabuses. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. This review is looking only at the content of the syllabus and, as such, will not be able to influence the amount of seagoing service required. However, we are looking to ensure that all Cadet training is appropriately contextualised to the work on board ships, which we hope will help Cadets become an efficient member of the ship’s team. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Proposed Outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Use of alternative fuels should be added as a topic. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Rationale for this outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Due to the increasing number of ships being fitted with alternative / dual fuel systems |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Action for this outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Addition of this to the existing syllabus, or better, a 1 day course teaching this, made mandatory for all cadets and Masters and Chief mates. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. While we agree that alternative fuels are relevant to the modern seafarer, we do not feel that they are required to be covered within this module. These are covered in the Marine Engineering Systerms module. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Proposed Outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Suggest that once the consultations are over, a more detailed syllabus (similar to the IMO model course) with Data Science action verbs (define, analyse, explain, etc.) be published as a MIN or MGN notice. This will help guide teachers on what needs to be taught, in what detail, and will help standardise education in all colleges. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Rationale for this outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
To help guide teachers on what needs to be taught, in what detail. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Your Action for this outcome |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
This will help standardise education in all colleges. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Sub-Group 1.2 Response |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
Many thanks for your feedback. Following the compltion of the syllabus review the finalised modules will be converted into academic guidance documents and provided to colleges. |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |
#N/A |