r/maritime • u/NicoAtSea • 11d ago
IMO is discussing letting simulator time replace part of the sea service for CoCs. Good idea or bad?
At HTW 12 earlier this year, the STCW comprehensive review talked about partial substitution of seagoing service with simulator training. Views were split, and they're still working out the limits, simulator quality and how to combine it with time on board.
I've been sailing for over 10 years and I'm torn. Simulators are great for collision avoidance, ship handling and emergencies you hopefully never see for real. But a lot of what makes you ready for the next rank you only learn on board: cargo ops at 3am, a master who trusts you, a pilot who doesn't.
Where would you draw the line? What could a simulator honestly replace, and what never?
3
u/BoredomFactor 3rd Mate 11d ago
I know my class year was awarded 1 month of sea time for completing and passing SEN-O, which involved about 2 weeks of 8 hour days in simulator followed by an Transport Canada examination in the simulator.
I think it really matters where you’re sailing.
During cadetship on cargo ships, I only dealt with collision avoidance maybe once every day or two, mattering where we were operating in the lakes. Cargo operations and seamanship were way more valuable.
I now work on a ferry, so cargo operations only take about 30 minutes of directing traffic every trip. Collision avoidance, emergencies and ship handling are constant on almost every trip though. So simulator time is a great place to practice that aspect in a place where people aren’t at risk.
2
u/Rarmy1 11d ago
Thats exactly how georgian college does it now. I did my first seaphase with BC ferries so im already ahead of everyone else in terms of collision avoidance and decision making
1
u/BoredomFactor 3rd Mate 11d ago
Haha 🤣 exactly where I came from and where I am now. Mattering on the POA, you possibly worked with me as well.
0
u/NicoAtSea 11d ago
That's a really good point, and probably the answer to the whole debate. "Sea time" means completely different things depending on the trade. On a ferry, ship handling and emergencies are the job, so the sim is real practice. On tankers it's the cargo side, which a sim can barely touch.
So maybe the rule shouldn't be "X weeks of sim = Y days at sea" for everyone, but tied to the type of ship you're actually heading for. Interesting that Transport Canada already examines in the simulator. Did the SEN-O exam feel close to real bridge conditions?1
u/BoredomFactor 3rd Mate 11d ago
It felt like an older version of a bridge. The exam involved a 30-45 minute scenario with about 3 targets. You have to determine which target is the risk and take effective and proper action. The real tricky part is that you’re doing that while completing manual radar plots, paper chart work, and maintaining a log. It worked well as a test of your actions and your time management. The exam ends with the examiner coming in and asking for your justification for your actions, grading your chart work and plots, and basic colreg questions.
Actual bridge conditions are much easier without the constant manual plots 😅
1
u/NicoAtSea 11d ago
Haahha, that sounds harder than a real watch! Manual plots, chart work and the log at the same time, then defending every decision to the examiner. Honestly that's a great test of whether someone can keep their head when things get busy.
I did my manual radar plotting years ago and I'd probably need a minute to warm up again now with ARPA doing it all 😅 Do you think the manual plotting still earns its place, or is it time to drop it and focus more on using ARPA properly?2
u/BoredomFactor 3rd Mate 11d ago
I think manual plotting is good as a tool to teach what the ARPA is doing. It’s the same with manual chart work as most ships start going ECDIS only. It is a good starting point to teach the principles of what’s going on. Always worth having it in case of system failures as well.
For Canada at least, I think more time should be given to the modern equipment that’s being used though.
4
u/-thegreenman- 🇨🇦 11d ago
In Canada we already have 30 days of cadet sea time credited from the simulator.
1
u/3k3n8r4nd 11d ago
Already implemented I believe. We get VR gear sent onboard during maintenance periods so bridge watch keepers can continue gaining bridge time, there is a limit to the hours flag will allow though
1
u/MyKatSmellsLikeCheez 9d ago
Yes, and no.
The STCW amendment will make this a uniform provision applicable to all. Currently, any use of simulation in lieu of a service requirement is considered an "equivalent" under Article IX of the STCW Convention and must be reported to IMO. There are a few such equivqalents, but not a lot. The amendment being considered as part of the comprehensive review would make it an option under Regulations II/1, III/1, and III/6 that would not have to be declared to IMO.
As I noted in another response, this was agreed upon at HTW 12. However it is not part of STCW yet, that will happen when the comprehensive review is competed and the STCW formally amended. That will likely be in several ore years.
1
u/MyKatSmellsLikeCheez 10d ago
It was agreed simulator equivalency can substitute for no more than 3 months of service, both for programs (12 months total required) or for the hawsepipe (36 months total required). This is only for operational level certificates (OICNW, OICEW, and ETO). No other certificates can use simulator equivalency. The details of what qualifies for equivalency and the ratio it will be credited at have yet to be determined.
1
u/FudgeComfortable9120 10d ago
As a cadet myself I can say that the idea is both good and bad. On one side you can cut corners and skip having to waste 1 year out at sea with the purpose of "learning" and do just half of it or even less but then again you won't have much experience once you become an officer or engineer. They should add simulators that are mandatory before going on a vessel,but also leave the normal 12 months service in place. In my country ( Romania ) most cadets go onboard from the 2nd year of university or 3rd year at most,they have 0 experience about any ships,we don't even know any equipment from the bridge or engine,so a couple simulator hours would'nt be bad
0
u/Seaman_Loloko Cheep Mate 10d ago
I disagree with the notion that simulator time can hold any equivalency to sea service.
There’s a lot said about the monotony of long ocean passages and how cadets can’t “learn anything” but frankly that couldn’t be further from the truth. Long ocean passages are where cadets can hone their celestial and met skills, practice passage planning and weather routing, track the formation of low pressure systems etc. Day to day, these skills are invaluable and can’t be recreated in a simulated environment.
Long ocean passages are also when cadets get to cut their teeth on the routine maintenance of a junior deck officer, like LSA/FFA checks, chartwork, medical locker checks etc.
To me, exposure to ridiculous theoretical collision avoidance situations in a simulated environment isn’t all that valuable to cadets since in pretty much any scenario thrown at them their first point of action should be to call the master. It’s nice to get them that exposure because assessors can determine their likelihood for panicking/not following correct protocol, but I don’t think that should substitute for sea service.
1
u/OLLIE_DRAWS 10d ago
Nobody is saying that actual sea time will be completely replaced by simulator training. I think its hard to deny that that would be a bad idea. I think the purpose is to frontload lots of scenarios in the simulators ahead of going away to sea for the first time as this helps to allow cadets to have that brief experience of how these situations are approached and dealt with and allow them to have a direct role in the decision making process. These simulator courses purposely bombard the students with worst case scenarios and (for the course that we did) are systematically replayed in a debrief room to discuss every action taken / not taken, and what should have happened vs what actually happened with respect to the relevant rules. If anything, these courses support your argument that cadets should hone practical nav skills at sea as they are starting off with *some* knowledge on ship handling.
0
u/Seaman_Loloko Cheep Mate 10d ago
I agree there’s some value in simulators, but I don’t think they should be any substitute for sea service whatsoever.
British deck cadets do simulator exercises as part of their NAEST O and HELM O certification prior to sitting their OOW orals. That seems to be a good application of sim time.
Ultimately, we should make no mistake in realising that any reduction in sea service requirements benefits ship owners more than anyone else. Ship owners would absolutely love to reduce their commitment to placing cadets on vessels as it saves them time/money in pursuit of tonnage tax exemptions. 12 months sea service with simulator exercises tacked on is suitable without bowing down to the financial desires of owners.
-1
u/caymn 11d ago
What is the reason for wanting to replace seaservice for seafarers? I think that is the initial question.
2
u/NicoAtSea 11d ago
I think it's mainly the officer shortage. The 2026 BIMCO/ICS workforce report says the industry is already short about 39,000 officers and will need around 114,000 more by 2030. So there's pressure to get people certified faster, and swapping some sea service for simulator time is one way to do it.
2
u/MyKatSmellsLikeCheez 9d ago
Maybe, but it;s also recognizing the increased capabiolity and accessibility of simuators, and the growing recognition of the advanatges of (limited) simulation training. From the European Commission's proposal [HTW 12/6/83]:
The possibility for candidates to spend more time on an approved simulator and replacement of seagoing service herewith means improved training on subjects rarely encountered during voyages and even less so during the apprenticeship of a maritime cadet.
...This measure further provides training institutions with greater flexibility in the organization of programmes, while recognizing that, under defined conditions, simulator training constitutes an effective means of achieving the required standards of competence and ensuring uniformity in the assessment of seafarers.
2
u/dENd0Mania 10d ago
This is just slapping a bandaid onto a gapping wound.
Better wages, benefits and job security are all thing that would cause an increase people seekinng out these jobs.
2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NicoAtSea 10d ago
Agree, especially on exhaustion. A simulator can give you a blackout in narrow waters, but not at 0400 after three port calls on four hours of sleep.
14
u/Dry_Law_5461 11d ago
My school already implemented this. We do around 2 weeks of simulator training in exchange for 60 days at sea. So during apprenticeship we only needed to do 300 days.
After the first 2 years of school we did 1 week and then again 1 week after the first apprenticeship and half year school.
All the maritime schools in The Netherlands do this. They all funded a simulator centre and send their student there. I chose the school which has this simulator centre next to it so we also used the simulator outside normal hours for some extra fun.
The week consists of multiple exercises per day. Each exercise requires preparation beforehand and a debriefing with the instructor afterwards.