New DPO Training Scheme - Alternative to the Nautical Institute scheme

Not as hard as you think

before we go any further with this lot. since when does the nmd have any say in anything but norwegian flagged vessels. (check their website) bear in mind that ‘supposedly’ only norwegian certificated officers can be actual officers on norwegian flagged vessels. quite insular if you ask me. who also in their right mind would want to work on a norwegian flagged vessel and get taxed to the hilt without having recourse to some form of refund or benefits. i also note that dnv etc would ‘continue to recognise certificates issued by the nautical institute’ the other way around me thinks. let us not forget either that the norwegians are relatively ‘young’ when it comes to the offshore business. this is not a rant against the norwegian maritime bodies but to come out with statements as i previously mentioned does not sit very well. i have personally some 29+ years dp experience under my belt, and trust me when i say every minute, hour and day spent operating a dp control system is a learning period of time even with my experience. my unlimited dp certificate was issued by the nautical institute and it only to them i would answer. i replied to the original post about ‘alternative to the nautical institute scheme’ and again i would say consolidation not division is the answer. do not get me wrong, any form of training which will prepare a person to be a better dp operator would be a blessing but personally i do not believe in this alternative as it stands on paper. if it comes to the case that i have to sit exams or conform to any other form of regulatory and compulsory legislation which requires me to operate a dp control system then it is time to hang up my boots and uninsure my ‘dp fingers’

You do know there is NO legal requirement to have any DPO on a DP vessel ( yet )
The IMO and the USCG dont know DP exists

[QUOTE=“powerabout;97584”]You do know there is NO legal requirement to have any DPO on a DP vessel ( yet )
The IMO and the USCG dont know DP exists[/QUOTE]

But the client gets what they ask for

[QUOTE=powerabout;97584]You do know there is NO legal requirement to have any DPO on a DP vessel ( yet )
The IMO and the USCG dont know DP exists[/QUOTE]

See IMO circulars 645 and 738. But transition from a circular (“Recommendations…” or Guidelines for…") may take time. The circular would either be part of an amendment to an existing convention (e.g. STCW) or a new one is drafted, and later ratified. The convention takes effect a few years after ratification, with a transition period to full implementation… So others are rtight, at present it’s insurance companies via their client companies driving the bus.

[QUOTE=tombon4675;97482]before we go any further with this lot. since when does the nmd have any say in anything but norwegian flagged vessels. (check their website) bear in mind that ‘supposedly’ only norwegian certificated officers can be actual officers on norwegian flagged vessels. quite insular if you ask me. who also in their right mind would want to work on a norwegian flagged vessel and get taxed to the hilt without having recourse to some form of refund or benefits. i also note that dnv etc would ‘continue to recognise certificates issued by the nautical institute’ the other way around me thinks. let us not forget either that the norwegians are relatively ‘young’ when it comes to the offshore business. this is not a rant against the norwegian maritime bodies but to come out with statements as i previously mentioned does not sit very well. i have personally some 29+ years dp experience under my belt, and trust me when i say every minute, hour and day spent operating a dp control system is a learning period of time even with my experience. my unlimited dp certificate was issued by the nautical institute and it only to them i would answer. i replied to the original post about ‘alternative to the nautical institute scheme’ and again i would say consolidation not division is the answer. do not get me wrong, any form of training which will prepare a person to be a better dp operator would be a blessing but personally i do not believe in this alternative as it stands on paper. if it comes to the case that i have to sit exams or conform to any other form of regulatory and compulsory legislation which requires me to operate a dp control system then it is time to hang up my boots and uninsure my ‘dp fingers’[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen some real fools who have a DP ticket. Similar to GMDSS, there should be some kind of written examination along with practical that has to be done before you get it, and again every 5 years.

Maybe instead the companies hiring should use the interview process to ask dp knowledge questions to see the scope of the persons dp knowlwdge. Or use onboard familiarization, to increase ones knowledge and or working ability, and if, hey dont meet the standard then you release them. More companies and onboard personnel need to be held more responsible for the hirings and people assigned to the vessels.

[QUOTE=PDCMATE;97676]Maybe instead the companies hiring should use the interview process to ask dp knowledge questions to see the scope of the persons dp knowlwdge. Or use onboard familiarization, to increase ones knowledge and or working ability, and if, hey dont meet the standard then you release them. More companies and onboard personnel need to be held more responsible for the hirings and people assigned to the vessels.[/QUOTE]
cant do that the industry would collapse
That would mean no more crew sent to me with skill sets so poor clearly fake tickets, no more color blind ones that clearly have fake medicals…total anarchy

[QUOTE=powerabout;97692]cant do that the industry would collapse
That would mean no more crew sent to me with skill sets so poor clearly fake tickets, no more color blind ones that clearly have fake medicals…total anarchy[/QUOTE]

Look, we can go around all day and debate about this and point fingers towards the NI, NMD, USCG, etc, etc, etc. But until we as mariners take more control and stop pencil whipping evaluations, sign offs, DP logbooks, so on and so on, this problem will always be an issue. Its not the initial training that is a problem, its us and our problem for allowing these unqualified, or under-qualified people to continue to operate and move up because we are too scared to write a negative evaluation or refuse to sign off control sheets. Its on us guys!!

[QUOTE=PDCMATE;97757]Look, we can go around all day and debate about this and point fingers towards the NI, NMD, USCG, etc, etc, etc. But until we as mariners take more control and stop pencil whipping evaluations, sign offs, DP logbooks, so on and so on, this problem will always be an issue. Its not the initial training that is a problem, its us and our problem for allowing these unqualified, or under-qualified people to continue to operate and move up because we are too scared to write a negative evaluation or refuse to sign off control sheets. Its on us guys!![/QUOTE]
There are more than one company that operates or manages vessels that makes more from the crewing than the job.
One of my buddies who had a long history as an AHTS captain refused to leave the dock with a mate they sent who couldn’t speak english or actually do anything.
They changed him out and not the mate but the next captain said the same thing…how could such a useless crew person be so invincible…vessel operator owned the crew agency but the captains employed directly.
The color blind guy who worked for me even though I told everyone in the office was still there long after I left.
I caught him doing a chart update with a black pen on a magenta shading, he says to me ‘its black isnt it’

i think we are going off the initial subject here. what is being discussed is an alternative to the recognised (by agencies, companies and clients alike) training and verification scheme as set out by the nautical institute. discussing singular cases of colour blindness etc is a matter for agencies (who mostly do the hiring nowadays), companies and the clients themselves. stricter policing is the key to this. enough said on those matters. i am sure that most ‘experienced’ dpo’s have had experience of other dpo’s who are either medically or mentally deficient when it comes down to operating a dp control system. we could go on forever. just glance over the dp incident stats. the largest percentage of incidents are ‘operatot error’. one thread to this discussion mentions ‘it is upto us guys’ there is a recognised chain of command on any dp unit. use it. in the end it is the master or oim who carries the can not us dpo’s.now, just who polices the organisation(s) who issue dp certification whether it be full or restricted. i cannot for the life of me think of any government agency which has its’ fingers in this particular pie. the government (uk) are quite willing to take the taxation from the oil companies and so on down the food chain so to speak. it was only hmrc which got involved regarding what constitutes a ship etc a while ago now. if the government or any other maritime organisation affiliated to the government are not seemingly interested then it is left to the agencies, companies and clients to ensure that ALL dp operators are properly prepared, trained and mentored. do we really want the government involved though. a whole new can of worms would surely be opened there i think. do we really need another organisation stating what and what is not acceptable for a person to become a qualified dpo. different organisations + different standards = confusion. back to basics i am afraid. i am getting the strangest feeling we are chasing our tails. if the nmd etc wish to introduce an alternative training scheme then what is this scheme based on? oh, just a minute, i know, it is the nautical institute scheme with their own embellishments.

It is almost always “operator error” because it is easier/cheaper to say that and “retrain” or fire the operator than to admit equipment fucked up.

[QUOTE=“tombon4675;98398”]i think we are going off the initial subject here. what is being discussed is an alternative to the recognised (by agencies, companies and clients alike) training and verification scheme as set out by the nautical institute. discussing singular cases of colour blindness etc is a matter for agencies (who mostly do the hiring nowadays), companies and the clients themselves. stricter policing is the key to this. enough said on those matters. i am sure that most ‘experienced’ dpo’s have had experience of other dpo’s who are either medically or mentally deficient when it comes down to operating a dp control system. we could go on forever. just glance over the dp incident stats. the largest percentage of incidents are ‘operatot error’. one thread to this discussion mentions ‘it is upto us guys’ there is a recognised chain of command on any dp unit. use it. in the end it is the master or oim who carries the can not us dpo’s.now, just who polices the organisation(s) who issue dp certification whether it be full or restricted. i cannot for the life of me think of any government agency which has its’ fingers in this particular pie. the government (uk) are quite willing to take the taxation from the oil companies and so on down the food chain so to speak. it was only hmrc which got involved regarding what constitutes a ship etc a while ago now. if the government or any other maritime organisation affiliated to the government are not seemingly interested then it is left to the agencies, companies and clients to ensure that ALL dp operators are properly prepared, trained and mentored. do we really want the government involved though. a whole new can of worms would surely be opened there i think. do we really need another organisation stating what and what is not acceptable for a person to become a qualified dpo. different organisations + different standards = confusion. back to basics i am afraid. i am getting the strangest feeling we are chasing our tails. if the nmd etc wish to introduce an alternative training scheme then what is this scheme based on? oh, just a minute, i know, it is the nautical institute scheme with their own embellishments.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;98436]It is almost always “operator error” because it is easier/cheaper to say that and “retrain” or fire the operator than to [B]admit equipment fucked up[/B].[/QUOTE]
Until the Bibby Topaz and why the Independent Joystick didnt/couldnt/wouldnt work???

I wonder if DNV classed a vessel that actually wasn’t class legal in its DP design meaning the independent joystick wasn’t independent??
Sorry hijacked the thread again.

OK so when the USCG/ABS DP training programme comes out it will be better then both.
( oops was that a secret?)

From the IDPOA website:

DNV FINALLY LAUNCHES NEW DP SCHEME

DNV has finally launched its new training certification scheme for Dynamic Positioning Operatives to training providers in the U.K. The new program was rolled out in Aberdeen and London on May 21 and 23 respectively and will provide a faster, more tailored, course option in this field.
To develop and implement a new training system, a pilot project together with the Ship Modeling and Simulation Center AS (SMSC) in Trondheim, Norway, was established. As a result, a new standard, Test Center for Certification of Personnel has been developed. This new standard covers the area of obtaining a DNV approved DP Test Center certificate that permits the approved center to issue DPO certificates.
The test center standard is independent of the course and training activities. “It is important to point out the difference between the training and a test center,” said Master Mariner Aksel David Nordholm at DNV Seaskill. “The training center is where DPO personnel go for training and that is accredited according to our training quality management certification program. The test center is where theory and practice is assessed. The test centers are the ones that issue the DPO certificates, not DNV.”
According to the requirements given by DNV, qualified candidates will be allowed to take the exams needed to obtain a DNV DPO certificate.
Another new element that is introduced with the DNV DPO initiative is that both the training and the following exams are specialized toward functionality on the DP, fit for distinguishable groups of operations. Therefore, certificates issued will be valid only for the DP functionality covered by that particular course or exam. In addition, the DNV DPO initiative makes it possible to achieve a valid DPO certificate in significantly shorter time than before, without compromising on quality.
Martin Crawford-Brunt, Manager for DNV classification in the U.K. and Ireland said, “The scheme has been developed to satisfy the demand within the industry for alternatives to the existing regime.” He added, “While investigating the possibilities, DNV gained vital feedback so that we could develop a safe and relevant training experience for all prospective students.”

[QUOTE=dredgeboater;110817]From the IDPOA website:

DNV FINALLY LAUNCHES NEW DP SCHEME

DNV has finally launched its new training certification scheme for Dynamic Positioning Operatives to training providers in the U.K. The new program was rolled out in Aberdeen and London on May 21 and 23 respectively and will provide a faster, more tailored, course option in this field.
To develop and implement a new training system, a pilot project together with the Ship Modeling and Simulation Center AS (SMSC) in Trondheim, Norway, was established. As a result, a new standard, Test Center for Certification of Personnel has been developed. This new standard covers the area of obtaining a DNV approved DP Test Center certificate that permits the approved center to issue DPO certificates.
The test center standard is independent of the course and training activities. “It is important to point out the difference between the training and a test center,” said Master Mariner Aksel David Nordholm at DNV Seaskill. “The training center is where DPO personnel go for training and that is accredited according to our training quality management certification program. The test center is where theory and practice is assessed. The test centers are the ones that issue the DPO certificates, not DNV.”
According to the requirements given by DNV, qualified candidates will be allowed to take the exams needed to obtain a DNV DPO certificate.
Another new element that is introduced with the DNV DPO initiative is that both the training and the following exams are specialized toward functionality on the DP, fit for distinguishable groups of operations. Therefore, certificates issued will be valid only for the DP functionality covered by that particular course or exam. [B]In addition, the DNV DPO initiative makes it possible to achieve a valid DPO certificate in significantly shorter time than before, without compromising on quality.[/B]
Martin Crawford-Brunt, Manager for DNV classification in the U.K. and Ireland said, “The scheme has been developed to satisfy the demand within the industry for alternatives to the existing regime.” He added, “While investigating the possibilities, DNV gained vital feedback so that we could develop a safe and relevant training experience for all prospective students.”[/QUOTE]

[B]“In addition, the DNV DPO initiative makes it possible to achieve a valid DPO certificate in significantly shorter time than before, without compromising on quality”.[/B]
says who?

IMCA just put out an information note (IMCA M 10/13) Titled “Revision of the Nautical Institute (NI) Dynamic Positioning Operator (DPO) Training and Certification Scheme”. It appears that the NI is reducing the sea-time requirements, similar to the DNV scheme. This must have just came out, it doesn’t seem to be on the NI website yet. The most interesting point is after the simulator course, 60 days of sea time will be required instead of 180. I’m a bit confused on how they are going to roll this out to the folks already in the training process. It says under the Training Model: Induction Course (Basic) + Online Assessment + 60 days DP Sea Time + Simulator Course + 30 days DP Sea Time (which can be replaced by Sea Time Reduction Course) + 30 days DP Sea Time + Completion of Task Book + Section F Sign Off + Company Assessment.

Does anyone out there have any more info?

Its becoming a joke. Soon you will be able to get your DP cert from a crackerjack box.

[I]"Within the reduction of DP sea time required for training, the time to complete the DP training scheme will be 4 years instead of 5 as previous settings. In order to avoid gaps during the training period, the trainee shall:

 [B][U]Have to complete the simulator course and sea time within 12 months before applying for a DP certificate. [/U][/B]The 60 days DP sea time after the simulator course must be completed after this course. In cases where the trainee does the Sea Time Reduction course, this course, and remaining sea time also, must be completed within 12 months before applying for a DP certificate. All the phases must be within 4 years;"[/I]

So I guess that means that many people will have to retake the simulator course.

[I]“The re-validation of DP certificates issued by the NI becomes mandatory from January 2014, following the conditions below:
a. If more than 150 days DP sea service is done within a period of 5 years, then the person needs to re-send the documents to the NI to replace the certificate with a new validity date.
b. If the DPO has less than 150 days of DP sea service within the preceding 5 years, then the person needs to do an advanced course and a minimum of 30 days DP sea service.
c. If no DP sea service is obtained within the period of the last 5 years, then the person would have to undertake an advanced course and do a minimum of 60 days DP sea time on a DP vessel to have his/her license re-validated.
d. If the DP professional has been engaged in an occupation the NI considers being equivalent to the sea service (i.e. DP lecturer /instructor, DP surveyor, DP consultant, DP auditor, DP superintendent, DP supervisor), it will be required for revalidation of his/her DP certificate a minimum of 150 days in the activity claimed of the preceding 5 years.
[B][U]The number of days is cumulative along the 5 years, but a minimum of 30 days are required per annum[/U].[/B] The entries to prove the activity shall be done on an NI or IMCA logbook and signed by the accredited training centre (in case of DP lecturer), vessel’s operations manager (in case of DP superintendent, DP consultant, or DP supervisor), where the person has performed the work/activity, or by the Nautical Institute’s authorised person (in case of DP auditor). If the person decides to apply with a mix of experience that involves criterion ‘d’ and criterion ‘a’ or ‘b’, then the sea time obtained during the last 5 years shall be counted towards the required cumulative 150 days. Example: 15 days as DP lecturer and 15 days DP sea service, totalling the minimum 30 days required per year.”[/I]

You have to do a minimum 30 DP days per year or you will loose the ticket.

Revision of the Nautical Institute (NI) Dynamic Positioning Operator (DPO) Training and Certification Scheme

In order for vessel owning/operating members to prepare for the changes to be implemented, as a result of review of the Nautical Institute DPO training and certification scheme, the following items have been extracted from the final report of the group reviewing this scheme.

It should be noted that this is not the entire document, as some changes should not affect vessel owning/operating members and that the language used in the original has on the whole been retained. It should be further noted that a separate DPO certification scheme is being developed for shuttle tankers.

1 Cadets

Prospective DPOs, who are in the process of training for an International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) certificate, can start the DP scheme and complete Induction (basic) course and 30 days DP sea time between the basic and simulator course only. The simulator (advanced) course, and the remaining DP sea time training, can only be completed after they hold an appropriate STCW certificate of competency.

2 Sea Time Prior to Basic Course

The 30 days DP sea time prior to the basic course shall not be acceptable anymore, due to the reduction of DP sea time along the training phases
.
3 Training Model

Induction Course (Basic) + Online Assessment + 60 days DP Sea Time + Simulator Course + 30 days DP Sea Time (which can be replaced by Sea Time Reduction Course) + 30 days DP Sea Time + Completion of Task Book + Section F Sign Off + Company Assessment.

4 Definition of DP Sea Time

One sea day can be counted if the trainee DPO is involved with active or passive DP training for a minimum of two (2) hours per day claimed. A maximum of 25% sea days can be ‘Passive’ sea days.

4.1 Active – with propulsion under the guidance by a certified DP Operator
 Using DP system to control ship;
 Setting up on DP;
 Completing task book combined with DP operations;
 FMEA, Annual, Class, Charterer, Field arrival and DP Proving trials;
 Emergency ship handling training using manual controls using ONLY the thrusters available after worst case failure.

4.2 Passive – without propulsion under the guidance by a certified DP Operator
 Maintenance of DP and associated system;
 Testing relative position reference system with targets on own ship;
 Verifying all DP inputs - all sensors and position reference system inputs;
 Training on in built ship based DP simulator;
 Task book assessments by Master/SDPO.

5 Time to Complete the Training Scheme

Within the reduction of DP sea time required for training, the time to complete the DP training scheme will be 4 years instead of 5 as previous settings. In order to avoid gaps during the training period, the trainee shall:

 Have to complete the simulator course and sea time within 12 months before applying for a DP certificate. The 60 days DP sea time after the simulator course must be completed after this course. In cases where the trainee does the Sea Time Reduction course, this course, and remaining sea time also, must be completed within 12 months before applying for a DP certificate. All the phases must be within 4 years;

 In case the trainee does not complete the requirements within 4 years’ time, he/she will have to repeat the simulator course and the 60 days DP sea time afterwards, to have the training accepted by the Nautical Institute.

6 Final DP Certificate

It was found that there was a need to split the certification between shuttle tanker and offshore industry, as they have such different needs for DP training, and it has proved impossible to reconcile them without detracting from the training required for the rest of the offshore industry; as a result:

 The Nautical Institute will remove the word LIMITED and UNLIMITED from the DP certificates, creating a general training certificate for offshore industry. Further training can be provided by companies following IMCA guidelines;

 There will be a separate training scheme for shuttle tanker industry, where the DP certificates will have the restriction to be valid to use in shuttle tanker only (restricted to shuttle tanker). The shuttle tanker training scheme can be found later in the body of this document;

 It will be possible to remove the restriction from shuttle tanker certificates as far as the applicant completes further 60 days DP sea time training on board of other types of vessel and re-apply the documents to the Nautical Institute for verification.

7 Reduction of DP Sea Time

 The maximum allowed to be reduced in terms of DP sea time will be 30 days, as per the new training module. The Sea Time Reduction course can be done straight after the simulator course, i.e. back-to-back, but the trainee will be required to undertake a minimum of 30 days DP sea time onboard of a DP vessel class 1, 2 or 3 after this course, being at least 15 days (out of 30 DP sea time) on active mode, in order to have the training validated by the NI;

 This course cannot be used to reduce the 60 days DP sea time required, as further training to remove the restriction from shuttle tanker certificate towards the general DP certificate.

DPCAP will be removed from the NI DP training scheme.

OFFSHORE LOADING COURSES remain recognised by the NI (course not accredited) and shall be valid only for shuttle tanker training with the maximum reduction of 30 days DP sea time.

8 Re-validation of DP Certificates

The re-validation of DP certificates issued by the NI becomes mandatory from January 2014, following the conditions below:

a. If more than 150 days DP sea service is done within a period of 5 years, then the person needs to re-send the documents to the NI to replace the certificate with a new validity date.

b. If the DPO has less than 150 days of DP sea service within the preceding 5 years, then the person needs to do an advanced course and a minimum of 30 days DP sea service.

c. If no DP sea service is obtained within the period of the last 5 years, then the person would have to undertake an advanced course and do a minimum of 60 days DP sea time on a DP vessel to have his/her license re-validated.

d. If the DP professional has been engaged in an occupation the NI considers being equivalent to the sea service (i.e. DP lecturer /instructor, DP surveyor, DP consultant, DP auditor, DP superintendent, DP supervisor), it will be required for revalidation of his/her DP certificate a minimum of 150 days in the activity claimed of the preceding 5 years.

The number of days is cumulative along the 5 years, but a minimum of 30 days are required per annum. The entries to prove the activity shall be done on an NI or IMCA logbook and signed by the accredited training centre (in case of DP lecturer), vessel’s operations manager (in case of DP superintendent, DP consultant, or DP supervisor), where the person has performed the work/activity, or by the Nautical Institute’s authorised person (in case of DP auditor). If the person decides to apply with a mix of experience that involves criterion ‘d’ and criterion ‘a’ or ‘b’, then the sea time obtained during the last 5 years shall be counted towards the required cumulative 150 days. Example: 15 days as DP lecturer and 15 days DP sea service, totalling the minimum 30 days required per year.

POSMOOR: The time onboard of a vessel with the classification of POSMOOR ATA can be counted towards the DP sea time obtained for re-validation purposes only. The DP class for POSMOOR ATA is not acceptable for DP initial training

For more details, please contact:
Ian.Giddings@imca-int.com
Issue date:
June 2013
Document reference(s):
Marine Division IMCA M 10/13
The information contained herein is given for guidance only and endeavours to reflect best industry practice. For the avoidance of doubt no legal liability shall attach to any guidance and/or recommendation and/or statement herein contained.

I want to see this posted on the NI website.