conference review vessel management
Further training is required to fill the competence gap
At the Annual Offshore Support Journal Conference, shipowners and class society Det Norske Veritas (DNV) discussed the challenges posed by the “competence gap” as regulation and client expectations change, and how onboard technology is altering requirements
T
he combination of a rapidly expanding fleet and a shortage of competent crew has created operational challenges for
many shipowners, not least Bourbon Offshore. The challenge is increased by rising client expectations and the tightening of seafarer training and competence regulations. Human resources are the most valuable asset of any ship operator. Competent personnel have always been a prime asset, but are not always easy to recruit or retain, said Endre Leine, Bourbon Offshore’s head of crewing. “There is a shortage of qualified personnel
with the right training. For competence, we look for three core elements – training, experience and the right application of skills. It is a challenge to have these synergies and to find the right people. “The competence gaps exist not only because there is a general shortage of seafarers worldwide, but also because the very nature of our industry demands a high level of both training and experience for our personnel in order to meet statutory and customer demands,” he told delegates. One challenge is the amount of time and money that should be spent on training to meet these demands. Mr Leine would like the whole OSV industry to consider more sustainable solutions to the competence gap, such as manning vessels for their actual operations and not just to meet statutory and client requirements. “Ships should be manned to operating requirements and not necessarily to the operating potential of the vessel, he said. “We can cause a competence gap by manning vessels to their potential and not for the actual operations; for example, having crew for DP3 operations when the vessel is doing a cargo run.”
The industry has to deal with changing
statutory requirements under the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) 2010 and Maritime Labour Convention
16 I Annual Offshore Support Journal Conference and Awards 2012
Bourbon Offshore’s Endre Leine explains how to deal with the competence gap
(MLC) 2006 regulations. OSV operators are less likely to be affected by the technical requirements of MLC 2006 because many have built new vessels in recent years, but STCW changes will have far-reaching effects, Mr Leine said. Some of the issues in STCW include: the redefinition of the electro-technical officer; new requirements for bridge and engineroom resource management; and the need for refresher safety training every five years, covering survival craft, advanced fire-fighting (FiFi) and medical training. There are also changes in training for ecdis and dynamic positioning (DP). There are changes to client-driven requirements including an update of the northwest European area guidance, expected in the third quarter, and the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) and Nautical Institute DP training requirements and OPITO crane training. Another solution to the competence gap is more simulator training, said Arnstein Eknes, head of specialised ships with Norwegian classification society DNV. “If owners get their priorities right they will get competent crew with imagination, energy and commitment. And competent people can make confident decisions.” Having competent crew may not be the end solution though, as employees may not be able to keep up with onboard technology changes quickly enough. Modern OSVs are becoming more technically advanced with systems such as DP3 becoming more popular and new bridge and crane controls being continually developed.
“The challenge for vessel operators is to
strike a balance between technology selection on the one side and training, awareness and competence building for operational excellence on the other. Innovation paves the way for new and sustainable solutions. But are ships and people fit for purpose?” he asked.
“The challenge is to create equipment that
makes life onboard safer. For example, an operator does not want electric or DP problems when operating close to oil platforms on DP mode. Technology delivers the greatest results and assurance when it is designed for the purpose for which it is intended and not only to satisfy the minimum requirements,” he concluded. Another important aspect to consider is the interaction between safety culture, crew management and situation awareness, and team communication when considering competence and skills. Tom Reader, lecturer in organisational and social psychology at the London School of Economics, said operators should consider all of these elements when looking to improve offshore safety. “Research shows that accidents often occur through a combination of active human factors, such as behaviours or mistakes that directly contribute to an accident, and latent human factors – aspects of an organisation that increase the likelihood of unsafe acts or situations occurring. Safety
interventions to improve
organisational safety must be based on analysis of both active and latent factors for them to be effective,” Dr Reader added. OSJ
www.osjonline.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40