Authors : Svilen Velinov

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 1 - January

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/438yh58h

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2wzwktw6

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14792205

Abstract : The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established minimum standards of competence for seafarers to ensure safe shipping and reduce the negative impact of maritime transport activities. However, the current IMO standards for the education and training of deck officers do not adequately address the increased demand for familiarization with onboard loading computer systems (LCS). This study analyzes the effectiveness of the "Cargo stowage and handling" syllabus for bachelor degree nautical students at the Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy (NVNA) in Bulgaria. The syllabus was updated in 2020 to include familiarization with the IMO and International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) regulations concerning LCS and practical classes using loading software for different vessel types. An analysis of the effect of the applied contemporary syllabus on the quality of trainees' education in "Cargo stowage and handling" showed a significant improvement in students' final evaluation results. The study concludes that continuous improvement in maritime education and training is necessary, particularly in areas where technological advancements have outpaced the existing regulatory frameworks. The success of the NVNA's updated syllabus suggests that similar approaches could be beneficial if implemented more widely in maritime education institutions globally.

Keywords : Loading Instrument; Stability Instrument; Maritime training; STCW.

References :

1. L. Cret, M. Baudry, and F. Lantz, “How to implement the 2023 IMO GHG strategy? Insights on the importance of combining policy instruments and on the role of uncertainty,” Marine Policy, vol. 169, p. 106332, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106332.
2. I. Citaristi, “International Maritime Organization—IMO,” in The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2022, 24th ed., London: Routledge, 2022, pp. 349–353. doi: 10.4324/9781003292548-72.
3. International Maritime Organization, STCW: STCW Convention and STCW Code. International Maritime Organization, 2017. doi: 10.62454/KD938E.
4. P. Ghaforian Masodzadeh, R. Baumler, J. Gonzalez Celis, F. Ballini, and A. I. Ölçer, “STCW requirements in a regulatory and technology landscape change,” in Maritime Transport Conference, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Iniciativa Digital Politècnica, Jun. 2024. doi: 10.5821/mt.13158.
5. J. Ge, M. Zhu, M. Sha, T. Notteboom, W. Shi, and X. Wang, “Towards 25,000 TEU vessels? A comparative economic analysis of ultra-large containership sizes under different market and operational conditions,” Marit Econ Logist, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 587–614, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1057/s41278-019-00136-4.
6. L. Pie-Ya and C. Chien-Chang, “Standard operating procedure for loading/unloading operations and navigational safety of bulk carriers as per charter party requirements,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, vol. 234, no. 3, pp. 728–739, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1177/1475090219875860.
7. J. Cho and N. Ku, “Developing a Container Ship Loading-Planning Program Using Reinforcement Learning,” JMSE, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1832, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.3390/jmse12101832.
8. J. Shi and Z. Liu, “Accident Data-Driven Consequence Analysis in Maritime Industries,” JMSE, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 117, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/jmse13010117.
9. E. Chukwuemeka Albert, “Analysing the Impact of Human Factors on Marine Accidents,” IJRIAS, vol. IX, no. XI, pp. 272–279, 2024, doi: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2024.911024.
10. Earthy Sherwood, “Best practice for addressing human element issues in the shipping industry,” presented at the International conference on human performance at sea, Glasgow, 2010.
11. G. Cao-Feijóo, J. M. Pérez-Canosa, F. J. Pérez-Castelo, and J. A. Orosa, “Deep Learning Methods to Mitigate Human-Factor-Related Accidents in Maritime Transport,” JMSE, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1819, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.3390/jmse12101819.
12. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, “Loss of containers overboard  from YM Efficiency.” ATSB, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/5777329/mo-2018-008_final.pdf
13. J. O. Mandra, “Container ship capsizes at Ambarli port,” World Cargo News. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldcargonews.com/news/2024/12/container-ship-capsizes-at-ambarli-port/
14. Adis Ajdin, “Ship capsizes at Indian port,” Splash247. [Online]. Available: https://splash247.com/ship-capsizes-at-indian-port/
15. A. Frias, P. Água, and M. Simões-Marques, “Education as a maritime safety improvement factor,” presented at the 13th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2022), 2022. doi: 10.54941/ahfe1002134.
16. ISO, ISO 16155:2006 Ships and marine technology — Computer applications — Shipboard loading instruments. Switzerland.
17. International Maritime Organization and International Maritime Organization, Eds., Load lines convention 1966: including revised unified interpretations, 2021 Edition. in IMO-publication. London: International Maritime Organization, 2021.
18. International Maritime Organization, Ed., International code on intact stability 2008, 2020 edition, Fourth edition 2020. in IMO publication. London: IMO, 2020.
19. International Maritime Organization, Ed., Master and chief mate, Rev. ed. 2014. in Model course, no. 7.01. London: IMO, 2014.
20. International Maritime Organization, Ed., Officer in charge of a navigational watch, 2014 ed., rev. Ed. in Model course, no. 7.03. London: IMO, 2014.
21. Paul Szwed, Srđan Vujičić, Martina Hrnić, Michael Manuel, “Verifying Alignment of IMO (Simulation) Model Courses,” in Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) Conference 2024, in ISSN 2706-6738. Boston, 2024, pp. 283–290.
22. International Maritime Organization, The operational use of electronic chart display and information systems (ECDIS). in Model course / International Maritime Organization, no. 1.27. London: International Maritime Organization, 2012.
23. R. Sam, “Systematic review of inquiry-based learning: assessing impact and best practices in education,” F1000Res, vol. 13, p. 1045, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.155367.1.
24. S. Dorée and J. Quinn, “Building an Active Classroom Using the Active Learning Pedagogy Sequence,” PRIMUS, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 777–791, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1080/10511970.2024.2385824.
25. A. Qablan, “Active Learning: Strategies for Engaging Students and Enhancing Learning,” in Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, A. K. Abdallah, A. M. Alkaabi, and R. Al-Riyami, Eds., IGI Global, 2024, pp. 31–41. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-0880-6.ch003.
26. M. G. Jamil, N. Alam, N. Radclyffe-Thomas, M. A. Islam, A. K. M. Moniruzzaman Mollah, and A. A. Rasel, “Real World Learning and the Internationalisation of Higher Education: Approaches to Making Learning Real for Global Communities,” in Applied Pedagogies for Higher Education, D. A. Morley and M. G. Jamil, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 107–132. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-46951-1_6.