Ice Navigation Training..it takes effort

CMS recently completed a gap analysis of our current ice navigation training program and what we need to amend in order to align with the new course outlines of both basic and advanced ice navigation training programs required under the Polar Code. While our facility is certainly experienced in the delivery of this training, and well equipped in terms of material and simulation capacity, the analysis has given me a cause to consider how much work should actually be done by schools or colleges with no previous experience who plan on deliver this important training, especially when you consider the ramification of getting it wrong.

I should point out that CMS led the IMO working group tasked with developing the course outlines for both basic and advanced ice navigation, and we used our existing Fundamentals of Ice Navigation course as the basis to create both. The excellent work by the working group members and NGOs representing Arctic and Antarctic nations as well industry ensured that we reflected all necessary legislation and regulation and followed the KUP ( Knowledge , Understanding, and Proficiency ) matrixes established for both the Basic and Advanced courses at a previous session at IMO.

The ice navigation training we deliver at CMS involves simulation in order to allow candidates the “practical” experience of actual maneuvering in ice.  The theory on ice type and formation, information on ships construction and voyage planning using various resources all builds to allow teams to plan and execute elements of a voyage with the simulator providing a forum to try their plan and modify as conditions change. Entering ice, maneuvering in ice, docking operations, coming under ice breaker escort, action taken to avoid ice or navigating an night are all scenarios that can be delivered and then a debrief carried out to analyze performance to help understand what went right or wrong. This where experienced instructors really shine, in advising individuals and provide insightful anecdotes that help reinforce a lesson.

Simulation is recommended for use in the delivery of training, but it’s not mandatory and I can understand the underlying reasons at least from a regulatory point of view when you get into discussion of performance standards, design, as well as technology costs. However it should be pointed out that the facilities that have been in involved in ice navigation training for many years all make extensive use of simulation. These facilities have the wealth of experience in terms of delivering the training that helps to prepare inexperienced people for operating in ice. And given the fact that not all polar waters have the same challenges in terms of types of ice, available resources, navigational information or even search and rescue, there is a lot of effort to ensure the training is delivered right, with update to date curriculum that reflects the area people will be sailing in.

2018 will see the competency requirements for ice navigation raining confirmed through the IMO as the last piece of the Polar Code. Reflecting on the gap analysis and the details we need to include, I have a concern that in the drive the get into this market training providers who have not previously been involved in ice navigation training may miss out on some aspects of preparing for an effective delivery. This situation could be made worse by oversight or approval on the part of flag states administrations who have little to no expertise in polar water operations or ships sailing in ice, apart from some of their seafarers. There are shipping companies, organizations and institutions that can bring together much knowledge and expertise in this area, perhaps a resource to help people get themselves organized and provide some level of assurance to countries who are border on the Arctic or Antarctic, or whose coast lines do have ice and ships sailing there. We owe it to ourselves as an industry and to the public to ensure that people on board have had the best training available.