Exactly 26 years ago, The Washington Post reported that increasing automation was threatening to overwhelm pilots and naval crews with what psychologists termed ‘glass cockpit syndrome’ in reference to the proliferation of computer screens.

The combination of a flood of technical information, poor communication and stress could lead to major errors in judgment, the article concluded.

Fast-forward a quarter of a century, and one former master, now managing a fleet of boxships and tankers, says he is dismayed to see crews ignoring bridge system alarms because they do not know what they are for, or believe they go off unnecessarily. “What happens when they ignore an alarm but there is a real problem?” he asks.

Meanwhile, at an LNG conference, owners and former seafarers tell of receiving an increasing barrage of emailed screen grabs asking what bridge control panel messages mean — from crew who sometimes don’t know what equipment the readouts relate to.

In 1988, Richard Pew, manager of the experimental psychology unit at computing research firm BBN Systems and Technologies, said the growing use of high-tech devices could have two apparently contradictory effects. One was to lull crews into a false sense of security: relying too heavily on technology that was regarded “as more authoritative than is warranted”. The other was falling victim to information overload and ignoring the data pouring from myriad systems.

Prescient stuff, but the technology fitted on ships has grown massively since then and will increase further as improved satellite communications allow more data to be passed between shore and ship, enabling more sophisticated, efficient, environmentally friendly and supposedly safety-enhancing equipment to be used.

However, it does not bode well for safety at sea if computer engineers are being regularly called out when ships arrive at ports, to deal with simple equipment problems that happened at sea but that crews do not understand.

So what is the answer? Do crews need to be trained in much more detail to handle and understand the equipment, or is there a need for a new breed of technology officers on ships?

The UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) definitely thought both options were necessary when it reported on why a Hapag-Lloyd 8,400-teu containership crashed into a berthed ferry and linkspan at Southampton, southern England, in 2005. The Savannah Express ploughed into the ferry after the crew failed to realise the importance of a series of engine sensor failures, which meant the newbuilding could not go astern after entering the terminal.

Nowadays, things are so complex, high-tech simulators have become an essential part of officer training ­(Photograph: Steve Hanna)

“The increasing levels of electrification of engine-control and propulsion systems require increased training requirements in the operation, maintenance and fault-finding of these technically complex and multi-discipline systems,” the MAIB concluded.

“The STCW [Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers] training standards for ships’ engineers have not been updated to account for modern system engineering requirements,” it added.

Supposedly, that lack was addressed by the Manila amendments to the International Convention on STCW. The Manila rules, which will be implemented from 1 January 2017, were agreed four years ago at a conference in the Philippines “aimed at ensuring that the necessary global standards will be in place to train and certify seafarers to operate technologically advanced ships for some time to come”.

But with just two years to go before the new rules are enforced, those trying to implement the training report confusion and slow progress.

Radio officers were employed on ships for some 100 years until 2000. Before they were made redundant by improvements in satellite communications, they would look after equipment such as the radar or echo sounder, while an engineering officer acted as the electrical specialist for the rest of the modest amount of electronic machinery on board.

When radio officers became superfluous, many retrained as electro-technical officers (ETOs) — a role devised to oversee the increasing number and sophistication of computerised systems appearing on ships. This particularly applied on cruiseships, which need passenger billing and entertainment systems, plus access to the internet, as well as high-tech navigation and propulsion equipment.

Claiming that an interesting new career path was opening up at sea, Bimco described the ETO as a seafarer “trained to be familiar with the vessel’s considerable array of automation systems, alarm, monitoring and control systems, navigation and nautical equipment, IT outfits, along with communication systems”.

“The ETO will be more of an electronics specialist than a conventional engineer, although he or she will be required to understand the principles of power generation and distribution,” the organisation said.

But one radio officer who converted to ETO a decade ago admits to TW+ that he gave up the new job because equipment was changing so fast, he could not keep pace.

However, ETO training is one of the main areas that was beefed up by the Manila rules.

John Roach, the head of senior marine engineering at the UK’s South Tyneside College, which has pioneered training courses for ETOs, says the industry is failing to drive their development.

He says individual seafarers who want to improve their competence and career prospects are making the running, but he warns that they are being held back by the authorities as the deadline for ETOs to be re-certified approaches. “I expect to see a big panic by the industry when it gets close to January 2017,” he says.

Training programmes for certificates of competence that make ETOs compliant with the Manila updates are being run by South Tyneside College, which has collaborated with AMET University in Chennai, India. The Warsash Maritime Academy in Southampton has also set up cadet courses. But Roach says the UK’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has not yet issued the Notice of Eligibility that must be passed after experienced ETOs get the new college certificate. Without MCA examiners testing candidates and issuing pass notices, existing ETOs will no longer be classified as officers but downgraded to lower-qualified electro-technical ratings.

The MCA says it has produced interim guidance for ETO training covering all EU nationals, and will open up the qualifications to all comers after it has finished consultation on the STCW changes. But when contacted by TW+, it was unable to answer when it would start testing or issuing notices of eligibility for retrained foreign ETOs.

Roach believes this has prevented existing ETOs from requalifying to the higher levels of competence of the Manila rules. Some companies have been proactive in training, but Roach says it is mainly individuals who want to retain their officer status who have been taking the extra training. His college has made it easier by splitting courses into three-week chunks that can be taken in leave periods.

Safety and efficiency ought to be sufficient incentive for companies to train up their ETOs, but only a small number of vessels are actually required to have one on board to comply with a safe manning document, and InterManager secretary general Kuba Szymanski says many owners are doing away with the post.

The head of the shipmanagers’ association says that bringing in computer service engineers to deal with problems when vessels dock might work in major terminals, such as Rotterdam or Fujairah, but it can be impossible to find experts in specific pieces of technology in the vast majority of smaller ports — and is no help if a problem occurs at sea.

But Szymanski warns that the biggest problem is the lack of standardised technologies developed for maritime use. “Why do we have 33 different types of Electronic Chart Display & Information System?” he asks, claiming that IMO should have sought to set one standard type for the equipment, rather than approving so many different manufacturers.

Admitting that it is not uncommon for more than 200 alarms to be installed on a ship’s bridge (and by implication that even the best training cannot overcome such a Tower of Babel), IMO itself argued in a 2003 paper that: “Standardization of designs is necessary to create an environment where seafarers and pilots can operate the systems safely and effectively.”

Szymanski also cites the problem of bridge alarms. “There is no standard approach. How do I know if an alarm is trivial or if I should panic? And so we override them — but there will be one I should not ignore.”

InterManager is working with equipment manufacturers for greater standardisation, and he says: “It is easy to complain about seafarer standards, but ETOs are expected to be experts in many different types of systems and we are diluting their knowledge base day by day. How can you train for that?”

Eastern European technical officers used to do a degree in electronics and so could cope with wide ranges of equipment, but that makes them expensive to employ. Szymanski says the industry is trying to meet challenges on the cheap, but the technology is changing too fast.

Fared Khan, who was recently appointed fleet personnel director for seafarer recruitment and retention at Wallem Ship Management, says his company feeds operating experience into eight training centres, but does not see much evidence of poor skills causing accidents.

Khan says: “Training needs to be a continuous process with a transient seafarer workforce. A holistic approach is needed, integrating the captain to the engine room to the cooks.”

And although he says extra electronics training is important on vessels with high-voltage systems, he adds: “I am confident that we will take the challenges in our stride, and technology will help make seafaring a safer place.”

That is indeed the aim. But it appears more still needs to be done about standardisation of equipment and implementing the training to use it.

PLUS POINTS

Branko Berlan, ITF representative to IMO, says the Manila rules should help address discrepancies between different countries’ educational levels, but doesn’t think seafarers are struggling with the latest generation of IT. However, he agrees that some training may be too general: “Some specific equipment may require training on that equipment alone. Proper familiarisation with specific equipment before embarkation is the answer.”

Officers’ union Nautilus, which has long campaigned for better training and increased recruitment of ETOs, laments the lack of progress.

“This began with our members saying we have these problems on board,” says spokesman Andrew Linington. “We saw the need for a specific rank and recognised set of skills. IMO has developed the training and certification structure, but now we need the shipping companies to deliver — to recruit and train those people. So far the numbers are disappointing.”

CAPTIONS

01 For centuries, the seafarer’s basic ­technological aids were relatively simple... (Photograph: iStockphoto)

02 Nowadays, things are so complex, high-tech simulators have become an essential part of officer training ­(Photograph: Steve Hanna)

01 Look on the bright side: ships’ bridges aren’t yet as complicated as a spacecraft cockpit... (Photograph: Nasa