Training should focus on outcome, not process

Training should focus on outcome, not process

The focus of all training, especially training for maritime officers, should be on ensuring the student has the necessary knowledge, proficiency and understanding, not on assuring a minimum number of hours or weeks are spent in the classroom.

These were among the remarks made by RTM STAR Center Director of Training Phil Shullo in a presentation to the Ship Operations Cooperative Program during a conference in November 2007.

Sponsored by the Maritime Administration, the Ship Operations Cooperative Program (SOCP) is an industry group composed of ship operators, ship managers, maritime labor organizations, government representatives, classification societies, educational and training institutions and other maritime organizations.

The SOCP met at RTM STAR Center in Dania Beach, Fla., for a conference specifically addressing maritime training. Attending the meeting were representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, including Capt. David Stalfort, the commanding officer of the Coast Guard's National Maritime Center (NMC).

The SOCP met as the maritime training professionals of STAR Center, as well as much of the U.S. maritime industry, await the Coast Guard's release of the STCW engineering training standards. Early reports indicate these standards could require as much as 30 weeks of classroom time for engineers seeking an original license, as well as extensive coursework prior to upgrading to a chief engineer's license--similar to the current deck officer upgrade requirements under the Coast Guard's interpretation of STCW.

In his remarks, Shullo emphasized the need for training institutions such as STAR Center to be given effective tools and more latitude by the Coast Guard to assess the individual maritime officer in order to determine how much classroom training he or she actually needs to reach the necessary level of knowledge, understanding and proficiency.

"We see a trend toward more required regulatory and professional training, requiring more mariners to spend more of their vacation time in schools," Shullo said. "The problem we see with some of this required training is that regulatory training appears to be more focused on meeting minimum classroom hours based on an assumed worldwide common entry level of knowledge, proficiency and understanding.

"Before we accept the argument that the amount of formal training we require of our mariners is the fault of the STCW Convention and blame the international community for the explosion of required lengthy courses, I think we need to remind ourselves again that the IMO goal of training was and continues to be ensuring that qualified mariners are manning the world's ships and operating them safely," Shullo said.

"The goal was not to ensure every mariner spent a minimum amount of time in a classroom," he said. "I would much prefer NMC efforts be focused on developing and/or approving valid assessments [rather] than on reviewing course content or course length.

"I represent a training school and you might expect me to be campaigning for more formal training to keep my staff busy," Shullo said. "I do believe in the value of good training and think that a quality training program can have a significant impact both on the mariner's quality of life and the company's bottom line.

"But I don't support training for its own sake, or of evaluating training based on its course length," he said. "I believe that the most valuable guidance and oversight a regulatory agency can provide is a set of quality assessment tools, such as exams, check lists and practical assessments.

"There will always be differences in the audience or class but, because we are training officers, we can take advantage of the baseline of knowledge and competence that a license implies," Shullo said.

"We would like to have the flexibility to certify a student as meeting the minimum levels of knowledge and competence to sit for his or her exam without being restricted to a set course outline with minimum class hours," he said.

Addressing the impending STCW engineering training standards, Shullo referred to the common argument that an "original license should require at least 30 weeks of formal school" because of the extensive knowledge an engineering officer needs and because "that is how long it has taken previous formal training programs" of this type.

"If that is the case for a new entry, then what provision should be made for the mariner who has sailed successfully for years but never attended formal training, or for the shore side engineer who wants to go to sea but, again, hasn't had the formal training?" Shullo asked.

He added: "Will we as a training institution have the ability to assess a prospective engineer's level of knowledge, understanding and proficiency against an approved criteria and determine how much training is needed to close the gap, or will experienced engineers be required to sit in a class for 30 weeks next to 18-year-olds who are just getting started?

"Training is resource intensive," Shullo said. "It is not only expensive to operate training centers, but the trend for continued certification and re-certification is very demanding on mariners who, by the nature of their jobs, spend long periods of time away from home.

"Any steps we can take to minimize perceived wasted time and effort on the part of the mariner and reduce his or her time away from family and rest are steps that make it easier to retain officers in the industry."

Front Page

Return To Section-Front