That is incorrect.
See IMO STCW.7-Circ.24, page 4:
USCG NVIC 01-16 mentions ECDIS training in Enclosure 1, paragraph D:
NVIC 01-16 change 1 (2017), 2 (2020) and 3 (2025) dropped the training paragraph!
So I didn’t see anywhere in there that says anything about type specific training. What do you interpret this NVIC to do? It says not required to show proof of training right? How does that jive with ISM code 6.3 and STCW I/14 that states you must have formal type specific training? The IMO put out this in regards to ECDIS training…it references stcw and ISM.
msc1-circ1503-rev1 ecdis.pdf (484.0 KB)
Our ECDIS was Kongsberg the only course was in Norway for a week . We sent a few people they had certs came back and did the training . We did a list of items covered in training and had sign offs . It passed the type specific training when asked by Port State in a couple of counties . Our flag state sent a email saying it was allowed .
Great others provided some more input here and it looks opinions vary.
My point is to err on the safe side.
ISM:
I think what is below item 1) is self explanatory. . Codes , guidelines, standards recommended by so and so.
There is a whole body of literature/guidelines/advise generated by the 12 top P&I Clubs , H&M and Court rullings if available on line or by other means and as a whole it is refered to as industry standards.
And all of them point to the fact that having type specific training in ECDIS prior boarding the ship is a lot better /safer for the company/manager/employer then not having it .
It is also true as per below:
| It is no longer strictly mandatory. That means that all depends on the procedure which is contained in company SMS. I have not seen the procedure of your company. But i have seen others and not all were the same So it is difficult to guess if your is the best and it does contain among many other things the one which can not be disputed . CBT. I have been there and done that and printouts from such CBT were not questioned by PSC and auditors in other ports i visited with my ship. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| @McGourthyClone Mentioned Nautical table. Indeed this table was used as a matrix/model in many SMS when such developed but it was in 2012. Same Nautical Institute has a tab on its page regarding ECDIS assisted groundings and reasons which boil down to insufficient knowledge of the system by the users. |
Have seen also AMSA requirement:
" Trickle-down-familiarisation (e.g. one crew member training another) is not acceptable. It is unstructured, and leads to incomplete knowledge of the equipment capabilities, especially the lesser used functions.
The Nautical Institute has developed a useful check list on ECDIS familiarisation that lists the key tasks for using ECDIS as a means of navigation. It can be found here.
" AMSA’s port State control inspectors expect to see documented evidence for generic ECDIS training. They do not expect type specific approved training certificates for the purpose of meeting familiarisation requirements. Our port State control inspectors may request the master and officers to demonstrate their competence in the use of the equipment installed onboard."
Australia has very high standards so does the USCG. But note that there are many countries with standards and with PSC .
Your ship is in the territorial waters or navigable waters of a littoral state that is a signatory to STCW ( minimum standards) it does not prevent those states to have higher standards then STCW .
Your ship by entering their zone voluntarily succumbs to their legal regime and requirements . What you gonna do if their auditor and PSC would require manufacturer type specific certificate of all natical staff??
Argue with them about your point of view and interpretations |??? Be my guest.
I understand that some auditors and PSC may have some other idea how things should be.
Your example with lifeboats is a good one. I do not know what is your position /role on the ship but if you are an officer you just report the issue to the master and he is paid to handle this. Asking politely the Auditor/PSC to provide normative refference to his observation or ship nonconformity is a first good step .
If still it is not solved then during closing meeting the master can put his remarks quoting his known normative reference that are contrary to Auditor /PSC opinion.
The papers are sent to managers /flag and let them handle the dispute .End of story. What is your problem ??
Would be good to see you arguing in Africa or South America .
Is it difficult to immagine joining a huge container vessel and having 3 hrs for handover in all it’s fury of activities there , then departing , 7 hrs sailing with you on watch to next port , rivers , locks and meeting with PSC inspector on arrival next port ?. What are you going to show him ?? Your ECDIS faminiarisation check list and company procedure with done allegedly by you CBT printout with result ???
He will lough to death and check immediately your rest hrs.
Same scenario as above but you did not reach next port as on your watch your vessl grounded and collided. Immagine what would happen next and for what purpose your SMS printed procedure ,check lists and CBT results will be used.
Err on the safe side.
A practical note about doing CBT onboard a vessel…
In the days between joining one and departing port with it, I had to complete the type specific - in this case Sperry. Vessel had Starlink connection, which was quite fast enough for the training. Not so for the online test/assessment which is a 'multipath" exchange between your screen & controls and a simulator on the “SafeBridge” training servers.
1st attempt, I barely completed the first question in the time allotted…
2nd attempt with different browser, almost completed 2 questions!
24hour delay mandatory before next attempt.
On the morning of departure. I took my laptop to a cafe ashore for a faster connection, sat my 3rd attempt at the test - all complete in a little over 50% of allowed time!
The problem was not Starlink’s nominal data speed up/down (appears fast on Speedtest), but the overall combination of up/down speeds, ping times, latencies of back&forward input/response/display, in multiple cycles in both directions for just one move of my cursor! All against the clock 
Well that’s certainly not true in this case. My vessel is a sovereign immune vessel that’s voluntarily compliant. Also it’s an ABS surveyor so it doesn’t have anything to do with port state control. You talk too much 
.
That term rhymes with “bull’s tit” or something like that
You may wish to check recent “concentrated inspection campaigns” by multiple PSC MoU organisations, and advice from relevant authorities and classes, including MCA, ABS, DNV, etc
Too many TLAs? Learn!
… unless, of course, your vessel doesn’t “go foreign”…
You may wish to learn what a public vessel is. It’s exempt from PSC inspections.
And you talk in riddles.
You have not communicated clearly to other viewers what the actual state of affairs is .You did not identify the flag, type/ purpose of your vsl.
You did not disclose your role on the said vessel or in your company.
It reflects deeply on your dishonesty and suggests you were sounding the community for opinions, which were given to you in good faith and to the best of their knowledge and experience thinking that you genuinely seek advise and clarification.
Was it a prank ? If so ,then of very poor quality .
And I concur fully with @Binbag_the_Saylore assessment adding too much talk to it of course:
There is an American saying about this and you are full of it. If you are in doubt ,then let me tell you .It is bullshit.
Now to yours:
Every vessel flying a state flag is sovereign territory of that state and it is run, operated with the rules,regs and laws of that state.
It may loose it’ s immunity upon entry into territorial or other waters of littoral state , which has jurisdiction over these waters if it is not complaying with rules of that state. Simple as that.
As to ABS it is a member of top group of classification societies IACS but It had in the past it’ s dark moments ( El Faro and I believe Prestige) what in conjunction with actions of USCG in relation to FOC ships regarding standards of inspections proved the existing double standards in US.
I am certain that ABS acting in capacity of RO on behalf of other flag states has some rules/regs and firm view on ECDIS type specific training and certificates. Why you did not deep dive in their rules instead? but sought opinions in forum.
Last by not least divulging much earlier the fact the vessel is state owned operated will end and shorten this thread by interrogation of SOLAS by even an ignorant what would reveal a fact written there and plain as a nose on your face that such vessels are or may be exempted from compliance.
Simple as that.
It’s quite clear. I asked one question. Do we need to provide ECDIS type specific training certificates to an auditor or does the onboard SMS ECDIS training and familiarization suffice. That’s quite a clear question. My position, my role, what ship, none of that matters. And to be quite honest all of the information you’ve provided has proven to be incorrect. So. Take that as you will.
My message was interrupted and I countinued later on.
I don’t really want to argue on here. But you’re completely wrong. Honestly quite incoherent as well. Do a quick search on what a public vessel is. Should put an end to your incoherent blabber..
As far as this goes. No. You are incorrect. It’s a sovereign immune vessel. It’s a public vessel. You are incorrect. Good day sir.
I have done a very deep dive into the rules. Hence why I am here asking why an auditor would be asking for something that is not a requirement. lol. Good grief man. The rules from STCW and ISM state that shippers shall ensure their crew are fully trained on the shipboard equipment before using it and that the sms has implemented a formal ECDIS familiarization process that is documented. It says nothing about this being manufacturer specific guided course by the manufacturer. Your input no longer required, thanks.
Proven by whom? You?? The person living and functioning in the bubble and cover of ABS & USCG double standards and JA environment .
Are you serious?
It is evident I was talking about cargo ships operating in ww environment of FOC having no knowledge you have in mind state/gov owned operated vessel US flagged.
Roll your dice Mr arrogant boy and try your luck with your " deep dive" thesis in above environment and we will see how it works for you.
Read with understanding , if in doubt ask questions but I understand your arrogance prevents such attributes of polite conversation.
Good grief man . That word shippers disqualifies you as a serious interlocutor on the issue proving i have wasted lot of time here talking to some rookie.
So now my advise is to deep dive to examine the difference between shippers , shipowners , ship operators ,nvocc, vocc and, charterers as your use of shippers in relation to crew and company ISM , STCW obligations regarding discussed issues amply proves your ignorance .
Byeeeeee.
You’re out over your skis on this one.
Plenty of ships of many flags are immune from PSC.
I know you are an Auditor hence your opinion is very valuable to me.
Therefore I would appreciate greatly if you could list all the items in my several posts under this thread that I am wrong about explaing why i am wrong .
I do not mind being wrong as I am of the opinion it is never too late to learn something from the expert presenting auditor view.
If you can make such an effort it would be very much appreciated.
Thx.
That is exactly what unlogged/ unregistered users told me via other then forum means. Yours confirm that nobody can open the links.
I will make pdfs or screens instead then.
Thx for your feedback.
I don’t think anyone is interested in your chat gpt garble. All of your points are extremely incoherent, irrelevant and incorrect. Give it a rest man. I’ll ask admin to remove you. Cheers