So my company recently started sending all deck officers to manufacturer type specific training for ECDIS. We have sperry so they say we are required to take the sperry course. Our SMS says that our type specific training is our SMS ECDIS familiarization checklist/training. Are these both satisfying the same requirement or is it now a new requirement to do both? From every STCW code and ISM code I read about ECDIS I don’t see anything that says it must be both. It just says type specific whether it’s onboard familiarization by a knowledgeable person or manufacturer led online course. Anyone have an answer? ABS/and internal/external auditors always say we need to have the certificate from the manufacturer, but what I read in the codes says otherwise. Thanks for any input.
Not sure, but what I do know is that respectfully asking the auditor where the regulation or guidance is located often is helpful. On several occasions through this process the auditors discovered that it wasn’t really a rule.
Requirements for generic and type-specific training primarily stem from international maritime regulations designed to ensure safety, competency, and operational familiarity with complex technology.
In the maritime industry, this is driven by the IMO (International Maritime Organization), STCW (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping), and the ISM Code.
Generic Training Requirements
-
Purpose: Provides a foundation in the principles of a system, such as Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS)
-
Stemming From: IMO Model Course 1.27 (for ECDIS) and STCW regulations, which mandate that officers must possess competency in navigating using electronic aids. It is a mandatory part of the Certificate of Competency (CoC) for maritime officers.
Type-Specific Training Requirements
-
Purpose: Focuses on the specific make and model of equipment installed on board (e.g., Furuno, JRC, Transas), covering unique interfaces, menus, and safety alarms.
-
Stemming From: ISM Code (Section 6.3 & 6.5) and STCW Convention Regulation I/14, which require companies to ensure personnel receive proper familiarization with their specific duties and equipment. This is often called “familiarization training” or “ship-specific training”.
Summary of Key Requirements
-
Mandatory Training: As of January 2017, all officers using ECDIS must have completed both generic and type-specific (familiarization) training.
-
Responsibility: While generic training is provided by maritime schools, type-specific training is often provided by manufacturers or authorized agents, and documented within the company’s Safety Management System (SMS).
-
Port State Control (PSC): PSC inspectors, particularly under the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), require evidence of both types of training.
The SMS you are quoting may be the so called off the shelve publication adopted by owners/operators for their own specific needs. Hence the advise of @API to consult politely the auditor is strongly recommended.
The above statement in the SMS is very minimalistic if not absurd. The time alloted in handover is frequenytly very short and sometimes non existant. Type specific training is a logical sollution although costly for owners or individuals. 8-12 hrs during such trainig if paid by owners is surely more educating then 1 hr during hasty handover. Filling a checklist can not be even compared with the amount of knowledge /skills acquired during type specific training. The rest what is contained in 700-800 pages of user manual on board you will learn as you go.
The requirements for both generic and type specific training has been introduced under the tremendous pressure of insurance companies who are unwilling to pay for crew/officers/owners mistakes .
Here is why :
A lack of proper crew training can lead to claims of unseaworthiness
. Under maritime law, a vessel must not only be structurally sound and properly equipped, but it must also be manned by a competent crew that is adequately trained to handle their tasks safely and respond to emergencies.
Untrained or inadequately trained crew members, or a crew that has not been properly trained in safety procedures, can render a vessel “unfit” and therefore unseaworthy.
Here is a breakdown of how lack of training constitutes unseaworthiness:
-
Incompetence vs. Negligence: Recent legal precedents, such as The “Happy Aras” (2026), distinguish between a one-off negligent act and true incompetence caused by lack of skill or training. If a crew member lacks the training necessary to perform their role, the vessel is considered unseaworthy.
-
Mandatory Training Compliance: Shipowners are required to comply with safety regulations, including those from the IMO (International Maritime Organization), OSHA, and the Coast Guard. Failure to provide training mandated by these bodies—such as in firefighting, emergency response, or equipment operation—can form the basis of a claim.
-
Specific Training Gaps: A vessel may be deemed unseaworthy if the crew is not trained in specific procedures, such as:
-
Operating emergency equipment (e.g., lifeboats, firefighting tools).
-
Using specialized work equipment.
-
Implementing safety protocols, such as passage planning.
-
-
Strict Liability: Unseaworthiness claims operate under a standard of “strict liability,” meaning that if an untrained crew causes an injury, the shipowner can be held liable regardless of whether they were negligent in the hiring process.
If a crew is incompetent, unskilled, or untrained to the point that a “prudent owner” would not have allowed the vessel to sail with them, the ship is deemed unseaworthy.
Trust above explains
Taking an ECDIS type-specific training course is definately at thing. It is a long-standing thing. It started out as an oil tanker requirement and has become a standard requirement. There are several ways to get the training. You can go to a facility or do computer-based training.
Hey there , yeah I understand type specific training is a thing. My question is more about what satisfies that requirement. I guess all I want to know is does our sms ECDIS familiarization satisfy this type specific training. It seems to me people are misinterpreting the guidance. It clearly says
“STCW Convention, regulation I/14, paragraph 1.5, as well as section 6.3 of the ISM Code, requires companies to ensure seafarers are provided with familiarization. A ship safety management system should include familiarization with the ECDIS equipment fitted, including its backup arrangements, sensors and related peripherals. ECDIS manufacturers are encouraged to provide training resources including type-specific materials. These resources may form part of the ECDIS familiarization;”
So it’s unclear to me from reading this if SMS familiarization alone satisfies it or not.
Did you just copy and paste a bunch of chat gpt to me? lol.
This doesn’t sound like an audit question to me.
The type specific checklist would be a company minimum, if they’re paying to send you to a true type specific course that’s above and beyond.
Is the issue that you don’t want to go, or is an auditor telling you the course doesn’t meet the SMS requirement?
The issue is that the auditors are telling us that our SMS ECDIS familiarization does not meet the requirement and that they need to see a certificate from a manufacturer approved training course for type specific training. But when I do a deep dive into STCW I/14 and ISM 6.3 that is not what I read at all. I read that a company shall provide type specific training. It does not say it must be an outside course or certificate. I don’t know how to quote people on here anymore
The statement is not absurd as this statement is written in the STCW code I/14 specifically about type specific ECDIS training. Which states that a shipboard sms familiarization procedure that is documented and completed by a knowledgeable person is sufficient.
A: It does not if you are not having such training done by manufacturer or by his authorized representative.
And pls read @McGourthyClone post.
Chat gpt does not know more then is contained in relevant literature and rules or conventions. It simply finds it faster and presents it in a compact succinct way.
Suggest in your case the application of one of the colreg advise. " If you are in doubt if the risk exists assume it exists and act accordingly"
Meaning attend the dedicated type specific course.
One more thing: nothing gets lost in www. auditors are damn right .
Could you provide me with the guidance that you get this from? From what I read in the ISM and STCW regarding type specific training for ECDIS, this is not the case. Thanks
My advise to you is to write a letter of complaint to your employer advising them about your own interpretation of ISM & STCW and glorify the wording of their SMS what you understand differently then auditors with years of experience and adequate training.
You may quote even the content of this whole thread to support your argument.
A man has to do what a man has to do. If you think you are right then go ahead and do it .
But do not forget to let viewers here know about the result of your crusade. Byeeeeee
I’m genuinely asking to be shown the guidance. Auditors in fact are not always correct. I had an auditor the other day tell me we needed two oars for our lifeboats. That is not the case. I showed him the CFF where is says a lifeboat needs sufficient oars as stated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer manual stated the lifeboat needed one oar. Just one example. So can you sir share with me the guidance that you are referring to where it states type specific ecdis training must in fact be taught by the manufacturer and that a formal shipboard familiarization is not sufficient? If you can’t, than I’m not sure how you can state your words as truth. Thanks
Bottom line is that you need a manufacturer approved course that will provide you with a course certificate stating the course was manufacturer approved and, without verifying by looking through my certificates, based on a IMO model course number.
So this is the basis of my question. Could you show the guidance or part of any ISM or STCW code that says this? From what I read in ISM code 6.3 and STCW I/14 in reference to ECDIS type specific training, it states that a formally documented shipboard familiarization is sufficient. Where are you seeing this information?
External auditors?
I know for sure that at one of my prior stops the SMS required 40 hour generic cert and onboard, documented familiarization.
Do not recall ever taking hits at either external audits or PSC inspections but it’s been a while.
Yeah that’s what I’m familiar with. The generic cert and then an onboard type specific familiarization. The ABS guy is saying he needs manufacturer issued type specific training cert for all deck officers.
Guessing this is a US Flag vessel?
I’m 99% sure that there is a NVIC or Policy letter out there that says documented onboard familiarization meets the requirement.
Search Fast!
https://www.nautinst.org/static/uploaded/d644ad96-c4ac-4ecc-8fda9f15fef17a7f.pdf From 2012 but still on Nautical Institute website. I think this is what we built our onboard familiarization checklist from.
Even AMSA says type specific is familiarization and can be done onboard as long as you have the certified generic training.
ECDIS familiarisation | Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
Will answer tomorrow. Sea also @RetiredCap advise.