European Maritime Safety Agency Compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention Ukraine, 10 - 20 April 2018 INSPECTION REPORT INSP .STCW.2017-AxX9874 Date: 19 September 2018 MASAEuropean Maritime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT Executive Summary This report presents the results of the inspection of the maritime education, training and cattification system of Ukraine carried out by inspectors from EMSA between 10 and 20 April 2018", in ine with the STCW Convention Countries whose cettificates are already recognised at European Union (EU) level must be reassessed on a five- year basis, This inspection was to enable the European Commission to carry out a reassessment of the Ukrainian system and included visits to the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Kherson State Maritime Academy, the Kherson Maritime Specialisations Training Centre, the National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ and Education and Training Complex ‘Admiral. Anumber of shortcomings were identified The Ukrainian regulations do not include provisions requiring instructors to have completed training in assessment methods and practice, to have received appropriate guidance in assessment methods and practice and to have gained practical assessment experience, as specified in the STCW Code. In addition, the Ukrainian administration did not specify training and criteria to ensure the implementation of the above requirements. The Ukrainian regulations do not require candidates for certification as COW to complete training in ECDIS and in ‘bridge resource management’, and candidates for certification as OEW to complete training in ‘engine-room resource management’, and to meet the relevant standards of competence specified in the STCW Code The Ukrainian regulations include provisions allowing approval of service on ships of between 80 GT and 500 GT as qualifying seagoing service completed by candidates for unlimited CoCs endorsed as deck officer or master capacities, as well as service on fishing ships, ships operating in inland waters and in port waters as qualifying seagoing service completed by candidates for unlimited CoCs for masters, deck officers and engineer officers. Such service as is allowed under Ukrainian Regulation, in fact, does not meet all the requirements for approval of seagoing service for certification, as provided for by the STCW Code, as well as the requirements for being categorised as relevant seagoing service for the qualfications applied for, as defined in STCW Convention. In addition, the Ukrainian legislation does not include criteria to ensure that such service is relevant to those qualifications Moreover, the Ministry of Infrastructure did not fully ensure that the training courses on Radar/ARPA at management level, in basic training in oil and chemical tanker cargo operations and in basic training in liquefied gas tanker cargo operations were structured and included the methods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as required by the STCW Code, as those training courses did not cover the specific knowledge required by the relevant standards of competence and did not require the candidates to conduct practical instruction and demonstration of competence in carrying out firefighting operations. The Ministry of Education of Ukraine did not ensure that the on-board training that was part of the accredited MET programmes enabled the students to receive systematic practical training and experience in the tasks, duties and responsibilities of a deck officer, engineer officer or electro-technical officer and to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as required by the STCW Code, since the accredited MET programmes allowed the MET institutions to accept on-board training performed by students while serving on board as ordinary seaman or wiper. Eleven shortcomings were also identified in Maritime Education and Training institution activities. Four shortcomings were identified in the area of quality management. Three shortcomings were identified in the process of programme and course design, review and approval and another three shortcomings were identified in the training facilities. Finally, a shortcoming was established in relation to the use of simulators. A detailed description of all the shortcomings and observations identified during the inspection is included in section 7, together with references to the full text within the report. Te EMSA tam compried Avot Hess Rocrywez (ead speci ata Ava] Bak tom te Sadat Wr Seat sect =e ava spectre 1150 InsP.sTow 2017-axa874INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency Acknowledgements The EMSA team would like thank the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine for the good co-operation and support of the institutions listed below who made available documents, planned the programme and organised the visit, which contributed to the successful completion of the mission. Kherson State Maritime Academy Kherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ Education and Training Complex ‘Admiral’ The Inspectorate for Training and Certification of Seafarers 2150 INSP stow 2017-4x0873European Marie Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Mathodoiogy ime adi 9 The Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine and the Inspectorate for Training and Certification of Seafarers istration, structure and responsi Responsibilties of other ministries and administrative bodies on maritime education and training... 10 3 ime education, training and certification 10 Educational system 10 3.2 Maritime education and training institutions and programmes 10 3.21 Kherson State Maritime Academy 10 3.22 — Kherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre 1 3.23 National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ a 3.24 Education and Training Complex ‘Admiral 12 33 Cettificates and schemes of maritime education, training and certification. 12 4. National provisions 18 4.4 Review of national provisions, 18 4.2. Requitements for certfication - Articles |, VI and IX and chapters |, Il Il, IV, Vand Vil 18 5. _ Inspection of maritime administration 19 5.1 Quality management - Regulation /8 19 5.2 Programme and course approval - Article IX and regulations 12, 6,18, 1/11, 1/12 and 1/15 20 5.3 Monitoring and evaluation of training and assessment - Article IX and regulations U6 and I/B 24 5.4 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations I/6 and 8 2 55 Assessment of competence - Regulations I, 18, 1/12 and 1/15 2 56 On-board training - Regulations V6 and 1/8 23 57 Certification and endorsement - Article VI and regulations 2, 18, V8 and 1/15 23 5.8 Registration - Regulations 1/2 and 8 24 59 Revalidation - Regulations V8, 1/11, 1/14, 1/15, V2, VIN, Mi2 and iB 24 5.10 Medical standards - Regulations 1/8 and 9. 24 5.11 Incompetence and fraud prevention - Regulation li 25 6. _ Inspection of maritime education and training insti 25 6.1 Kherson State Maritime Academy. 25 6.1.1 Quality management-Regulation 18 25 6.1.2 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 1/2, il, 1/12 and 1/15 ....25 6.1.3 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations I, l/Band 1/12 26 6.1.4 Training facilities - Regulations 1/5, and 1/12 26 6.1.5 Monitoring and supervision of training - Regulations V6 and lB 27 6.1.6 Use of simulators - Regulations /8 and 1/12 27 6.1.7 Examination - Regulations 6, V8 and 1/12 2 6.1.8 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 12 and IB 28 62 Kherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre 28 621 Quality management - Regulation 1 28 6.22 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations (2, i, l/, 1/12 and 1/15 .....28 6.23 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations I/6, Band 1/12 29 6.24 Training facilities - Regulations 1/5, and 1/12 23 6.25 Monitoring and supervision of training - Regulations 6 and lB 30 6.26 Use of simulators - Regulations V8 and 1/12 30 6.27 Examination - Regulations 6, V8 and 1/12 30 6.28 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 12 and IB 31 63 National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ 31 63.1 Quality management - Regulation 18 31 INsP.sTow.2017-4x0878 3150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency 63.2 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 1/2, 1/6, 1/8, 1/12 and 1/15...31 63.3 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations V6, V8 and 1/12 32 63.4 Training facilities - Regulations V6, 8 and 1/12 2 63.5 Monitoring and supervision of training- Regulations 6 and 8 33 63.6 Use of simulators- Regulations 8 and 1/12. 34 637 Examination - Regulations 1/5, I and 1/12 34 63.8 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 2 and 18 34 6.4 Education and Training Complex “Admiral”. 35 64.1 Quality management - Regulation 1/8 35 64.2 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 1/2, 1/6, V8, 1/12 and 1/15.....35 64.3 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations V6, V8 and 1/1236 64.4 Training facilities - Regulations V6, 8 and 1/12 36 64.5 Monitoring and supervision of training- Regulations 6 and V8 37 64.6 Use of simulators- Regulations 8 and 1/12. 37 647 Examination - Regulations 1/5, V8 and 1/12 38 6.4.8 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 2 and 18 38 7._ Summary of findings 38 7.4 Review of national provisions 38 7.2 Review of requirements for certification. 38 7.3 Inspection of the Maritime Administration 40 7.4 Inspection of Kherson State Maritime Academy a 75 Inspection of Kherson Maritime Specialized Training Centre at 7.6 __ Inspection of National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ 2 7.7 Inspection of Education and Training Centre ‘Admiral’ 4B Appendix A Maritime labour market 45 Appendix B Legislation and administrative instruments 46 4150 INSP stow 2017-4x0873European Marie Safety Agency List of Tables Table 3-1 Master and deck officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration. Table 3-2 Engineer officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration Table 3-3 Radio operator certificates issued by the Ukrainian Administration INsP.sTow.2017-4x0878 INSPECTION REPORT 13 13 14 5150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency List of Figures Figure 3-1 Master and deck officer CoC issued by the Ukrainian Administration 15 Figure 3-2 Engineer officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration 16 Figure 3-3. Electro-technical officer CoC issued by the Ukrainian Administration 17 e150 INSP stow 2017-4x0873European Marime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT List of Abbreviations ARPA [Automatic Radar Plotting Aids BV [Bureau Veritas Cot ICertficate of Competence CoP ICertficate of Proficienc) Eal [Endorsement attesting the issue of a Certificate of Competency ECDIS [Electronic Chart Display and Information System EMSA [European Maritime Safety Agenc, EPIRB lEmergency position-indicating radio beacon ETCA [Education and Training Complex ‘Admiral’ ETO [Electro-technical officer EU [European Union GMDSS [Global Maritime Distress and Safety System ct IGross Tonnage HMO Harbour Master Office IMO International Maritime Organization 'sO International Organization for Standardization Tes Inspectorate for Training and Certification of Seafarers KMSTC Ikherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre KSMA Ikherson State Maritime Academ KUP Knowledge. understanding and proficiency (as used in the tables of the STOW Code |specitying the minimum standards of competence) kW kilowatts MESU [Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine MET [Maritime Education and Training MAU [Ministry of Health of Ukraine MIU. [Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine NAHEGA INational Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance Nev INear-Coastal Voyage Nm INautical miles NUOMA [National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ oow lofficer in charge of a navigational watch oe lofficer in charge of an engineering watch in a manned engine-room or designated duty lfficer in a periodically unmanned engine-room os lordinary Seaman SART [Search and rescue transponder SCRSD [State Common Register of Seafarers’ Documents InsP. stow 2017-4x0074 7150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency EUSPA [State Enterprise ‘Ukrainian Seaports Authority’ ac [State Qualification Commission SUTS [State Service of Ukraine for Transport Safety MS lauality Management System SS laualty Standards System STCW Convention [The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for ISeafarers 1978, as amended sTCW Code [The Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code [RB [Training Record Book 2150 INSP sTCw.2017-4x0874European Marie Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the inspection of the maritime education, training and certification system of Ukraine carried out by inspectors from EMSA This is in accordance with the tasks assigned to the Agency by Regulation No. 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency and Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers. In line with these provisions, the Agency has been assigned the task of conducting inspections in third countries to compile all relevant information on the implementation of the STCW Convention. Inspections take place when a Member State notifies the European Commission of its intention to recognise certificates of a third country. When a country has previously been recognised at EU level, inspections are conducted regularly on a five-year basis or ad hoc in case of complaints about the implementation of the STCW Convention. Ukraine is included in the ‘List of third countries recognised as regards the systems for training and certification of seafarers for the purposes of Directive 2008/106/EC® 1.1 Methodology A standard methodology for conducting these inspections was adopted and involves consideration of 19 functional processes to inspect effectively the maritime education, training and certification system. Each functional process constitutes a set of interactive and interrelated activities of which 11 describe those activities of the administration linked to the implementation of the STCW Convention. The remaining eight functional processes relate to the activities of the MET institutions, The articles and the Chapter | provisions of the STCW Convention form the basis of the criteria used to conduct the inspection. In addition to the process-based inspection, the mandatory requirements for certification were verified through the country's national legislation. The inspection also included the verification of the programmes offered by the MET. institutions in accordance with the requirements of chapters Il to VIl of the STCW Convention and the relevant sections of Part A of the STCW Code The inspection comprised three stages: desk study, fieldwork and report drafting The findings are presented as shortcomings and observations. The terms ‘shortcoming’ and ‘observation’ as used in this report should be understood as indicated below. Nevertheless, the European Commission will take a final decision on non-compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention, following its assessment Shortcoming: “Full or partial failure to implement, or inadequate implementation of, a particular requirement of the STCW Convention’ Observation: “A remark about something identified in relation to the implementation of the STCW Convention that may lead to a shortcoming if not addressed” 2. Maritime administration, structure and responsibilities 2.1. The Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine and the Inspectorate for Training and Certification of Seafarers The Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine (MIU) is responsible for supervising the implementation of most of the provisions of the STCW Convention and Code in Ukraine. The MIU is supported by the Inspectorate for Training and Certification of Seafarers (ITCS), which is a governmental body under the supervision of the MIU responsible for enforcing the provisions of the national legislation concerning the assessment of seafarers’ competence, the issue and registration of certificates for seafarers, as well as for proposing technical provisions on qualification of seafarers INsP.sTow.2017-4x0878 2150INSPECTION REPORT European Marie Safety Agency In addition, the State Service of Ukraine for Transport Safety (SSUTS), which is subordinated to the MIU, approves and monitors short training courses in specific competences defined in Chapters III, IV, V and VI of the STCW Convention and provides regulatory proposals on these specific competence areas. Moreover, the Harbour Master Offices (HMOs), which report to the State Service ‘Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority’ (SEUSPA), a State enterprise Under the supervision of the MIU, provide support to the activities concerning the issue of seafarers’ CoCs and CoPs 2.2 Responsibilities of other ministries and administrative bodies on maritime education and training The Ministry of Education and Science (MESU) is responsible for ensuring the standards for maritime higher education programmes, as well as for maritime professional vocational education, through the accreditation and monitoring of MET institutions. The National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAHEQA) was legally established in 2015, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Law on Higher Education. The objectives of NAHEQA include the development of requirements for a higher education quality assurance system, as well as the accreditation of higher education programmes. At the time of the inspection, as the NAHEQA members had not yet been appointed, NAHEQA had not yet started its activities, which were still being conducted by the MESU. The Ministry of Health (MHU) is responsible for seafarer medical fitness examination and certification by means of licensing of medical practitioners and establishments. 3. Maritime education, training and certification 3.1 Educational system The compulsory education system in Ukraine consists of a four-year cycle of elementary school followed by a five- year cycle of lower secondary school. Graduates can choose to follow two years of higher secondary education or three years of higher vocational education. Access to Junior Specialist’s’ programmes offered at higher vocational education colleges is open to graduates of lower secondary schools (grade nine). Access to higher education, offered by higher education institutions licensed by the MESU, is open to graduates of higher secondary schools (grade eleven) and to those having completed higher vocational education programmes. Higher education begins with ‘Bachelor's’ programmes and continues through ‘Specialis’s’, Master's’ and PhD programmes. 3.2 Maritime education and training institutions and programmes Matitime education and training leading to the issue of CoCs at both management and operational levels is offered through ‘Bachelor's’, 'Specialist’s' and ‘Master's’ programmes meeting the requirements for higher education. In addition, maritime education and training qualifying candidates for the issue of officer CoC only at operational level is offered through ‘Junior Specialist's’ programmes, which meet the requirements for higher vocational education. In addition, training in several specific competences is offered through courses of short duration developed in accordance with the relevant national provisions on professional training. 324 Kherson State Maritime Academy The Kherson State Matitime Academy (KSMA) is a State-owned MET institution located in the city of Kherson, The KSMA is organised in two faculties, namely the Navigation Faculty and the Marine Engineering Faculty, which are responsible for delivering the following higher education programmes: Bachelor's. Specialist's and Master's programmes in “Navigation m= The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Sections A-I/t and AvIN2 of the STCW Code. It includes 7,200 contact hours, on-board training with 12 months’ seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections AIIM, Acl/2 A-IVI2, A-VI/1, AVI2 and A-VI of the STCW Code, which are delivered through short courses by the KMSTC. The Specialist’s and Master's programmes include 3,240 and 2,700 contact hours, respectively, on subjects addressing competences of Section AlI2 of the STCW Code. 10750 INSP STeW 2017-Ax08 74European Marie Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT Bachelor's, Specialist’s and Master's programmes in “Ship Power Plant Operatio m The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Sections A-lI/1 and AulII2 of the STCW Code. It includes 7 200 contact hours, workshop skills training, on-board training with 12 months’ seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections AVlIlt, Alli, A-VI/1 , A-VI2 and AVIB of the STCW Code, which are delivered through short courses by the KMSTC. The Specialist’s and Master's programmes include 3.240 and 2,700 contact hours, respectively, and include subjects addressing competences of Section A-II/2 of the STCW Code Bachelor's, Specialist’s and Master's programmes in "Ship Electrical Equipment and Automation Operation = The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Section A-III6 of the STCW Code. It includes 7200 contact hours, workshop skis training, on-board training with 12 months’ seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections A-VI/I, A-VI2 and A-VI3 of the STCW Code, which are delivered through short courses by the KMSTC. The Specialist's and Master's programmes include 3.240 and 2.700 contact hours, respectively, and include subjects addressing competences of Section A-lII6 of the STCW Code. In addition, the KSMA includes the ‘Maritime College of Kherson State Maritime Academy’, which is a MET higher secondary education institution. This institution offers “Junior Specialist’s’ programmes in "Navigation at Sea’, “Ship Power Plants Operation’and “Ship Electrical Equipment’, which address the competence standards laid down in Sections At, All and AVIIIG of the STCW Code, respectively. 322 Kherson Mar The Kherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre (KMSTC) is a privately-funded MET institution located in the campus of the KSMA in Kherson. The KMSTC offers the following training courses addressing specific competences of chapters I, Il 1Vand VI of the STCW Code: = Chapter I: operational use of ECDIS; Radar navigation, plotting and use of ARPA at operational level; Radar navigation and use of ARPA at management level, bridge teamwork and Search and Rescue; bridge resource management, = Chapter Ill: engine-room resource management. Chapter IV: GMDSS general operator's certificate. = Chapter Vi: basic safety; proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats; advanced fire-fighting; medical frst aid; ship secutity officer, seafarers with designated security duties; security awareness, 3.23 N ional University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ The National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy’ (NUOMA) is a State-owned MET institution located in Odesa. NUOMA is made up of five faculties, namely the ‘Navigation Faculty’, the ‘Marine Transportation and Technologies Faculty’, the ‘Marine Engineering Faculty’ the ‘Electrical Engineering and Radio Electronics Faculty’ and the ‘Automation Faculty. NUOMA offers the following MET higher education programmes: Bachelor's, Specialist’s and Master's programmes in “Navigation The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Sections A-lI/1 and A-lI2 of the STCW Code. It includes 7 200 contact hours, on-board training with 12 months’ seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections AIVI2, AVI/1, AVI2 and A-VIB of the STCW Code. The Specialist’s and Master's programmes include 2,700 contact hours on subjects addressing competences of Section All of the STCW Code. INsP.sTow.2017-4x0878 11180INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency Bachelor's, Specialist’s and Master's programmes in "Marine Power Plants Operation and Maintenance” 1m The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Sections A-lI/1 and AulII2 of the STCW Code. It includes 7,200 contact hours, workshop skills training, on-board training with 12 months seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections A-Vi/I, A-Vi2 and A-VIP3 of the STCW Code. The Specialists and Master's programmes include 3,000 and 2,700 contact hours, respectively, and include subjects addressing competences of Section A-III2 of the STCW Code. Bachelor's. Specialist’s and Master's programmes in “Operation and Maintenance of Marine Electrical Equipment and Means of Automation’ The Bachelor's programme addresses the requirements of Section A-III6 of the STCW Code. It includes 7,200 contact hours, workshop skills training, on-board training with 12 months’ seagoing service, as well as training in specific competences of Sections A-Vi/1, A-VI2 and A-VIG of the STCW Code. The Specialist’s and Master's programmes include 2,700 contact hours and include subjects addressing competences of Section A- IV of the STCW Code. In addition, NUOMA's ‘Maritime College of Technical Fleet’, which is a MET higher secondary education institution, offers Junior Specialist's' programmes ‘Navigation on Sea Routes’, "Marine Power Plants Operation” and “Operation of Ship's Electric and Automated Equipment’. These programmes address the competence standards laid down in Sections AVI, A-Il/1 and A-III of the STCW Code, respectively Moreover, NUOMA maintains the Training Centre of Survival at Sea Under Extreme Conditions’, which offers training courses addressing specific competences laid down in Sections A-Vi/1 to A-VMI6 of the STCW Code, and the ‘GMDSS Training Centre’, which delivers training addressing the competences specified in Section A-IV/2 of the STCW Code. Furthermore, NUOMA delivers refresher and updating training for deck officers, engineer officers and ETOs designed to satisfy the revalidation requirements of Regulation 1/11 of the STCW Convention, as well as courses addressing the qualification requirements established by Regulations IV/2,l1/4 and lil of the STCW Convention through its Training and Certification Centre for Seafarers 324 Education and Trai 1g Complex ‘Admiral’ The Education and Training Complex ‘Admiral’ (ETCA) is a private MET institution located in the Odesa region and founded in 2011. The ETCA offers the following training courses addressing specific competences specified in the sections of chapters Il, Il, IV, V and VI of the STCW Code: = Chapter Il: Radar navigation and plotting (operational level); Radar navigation, plotting and use of ARPA (operational level); Radar navigation and use of ARPA at management level, bridge teamwork and Search and Rescue: bridge resource management; ship handling and manoeuvring; operational use of ECDIS; = Chapter Ill: engine-room resource management (operational level); engine-room resource management (management level) = Chapter IV: GMDSS general operator's certificate; GMDSS restricted operator's certificate. m= Chapter V: basic and advanced training in oil tanker, chemical tanker and liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, training for passenger ships (crowd management; personnel providing direct services to passengers; passenger safety, cargo safety and hull integrity; crisis management and human behaviour): training for officers and ratings responsible for cargo handling on ships carrying dangerous and hazardous substances in solid form in bulk and in packaged form; = Chapter Vi: basic safety; proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats; proficiency in fast rescue boats; advanced fire-fighting; medical first aid; medical care; ship security officer, seafarers with designated security duties; security awareness, 33 Certificates and schemes of maritime education, training and certification The tables below list the CoCs issued by the maritime administration and the relationship between the Ukrainian categories for officers and the STCW regulations (Chapters Il Ill and IV). Based on the information provided by the Ukrainian Administration on 7 March 2018 in the pre-inspection questionnaire, the total number of CoCs and 12/50 InsP stew 2017-ax0074European Maritime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT endorsements issued by Ukraine between 2014 and 2017 was 67 404 (see Appendix A). Based on the information provided by the Member States, in 2015 23,1923 Ukrainian officers held valid endorsements of recognition issued by EU Member States. Table 3-1 Master and deck officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration coc. [Endorsed as ions ISTCW regulation favigator [COW on ships of 500 GT or more jone frat IChief mate on ships of less than 500 GT {if served not less than 12 months as loow fips OF Tess Than SUU GT 5 [chief mate on ships of less than 600 GT [Ship S oj ess than 600 GT lon NCV (i candidate holds a relevant Bachelor qualification and served not Jess than 18 months as OOW on ships of (00 GT or more) or G ‘avigator Fong Voyag?S niet mate on ships of 500 GT or more None liz [Master on any ship on short voyages (it PVPS em Shor voyages lerved not lass than 12 months as Chief fnate on ships of 500 GT or more) Master on any ship on NCV(ifserved PPS ONNC hot less than 12 months as Chief Mate lon ships of 500 GT or more) [Captain Coastal Voyages P ¥799°5 Waster on ships of less than 500 GT —_Ships of less than 500GT 3 n NOV [SOW on ships of 600 GT or more one a apTany SHOT Voyages Master on ships of 500 GT or more hips on short voyages and |/2 n NOV one 7 [chiet mate (if served not less than 12 fnonths as OW on ships of 500 GT or lnore in deep sea voyages) [captain Long Voyages [Master on ships of 500 GT or more___None lw Table 3-2 Engineer officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration coc Endorsed as Limitations sTCW regulation Third Category ENgMEeT [oy hone 114 [Second engineer officer (if served not jess than 12 months as of OEW on ships powered by main propulsion machinery lof 750 kW propulsion power or more) [Ships powered by main propulsion machinery of between 750 kW and 3000 kW propulsion power 17S Mpeuporalenea s4npa saMepetaocmnevt Sean States ie EU-Statrteal nib 2016 STOW dt Iw sp. STOW. 2017-AK08 74 180INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency \Second Category [Engineer \Second engineer officer on ships powered by main propulsion machinery lof 3000 kW propulsion power or more lone ISecond engineer officer (if served on Iships powered by main propulsion Inachinery of between 750 KW and 3000 kW propulsion power) hips powered by main ropulsion machinery of jetween 750 kW and 3000 .W propulsion power IChief engineer officer (if served not less than 12 months as second engineer on Iships powered by main propulsion Inachinery of 750 kW propulsion power lor more) hips powered by main ropulsion machinery of jetween 750 kW and 3000 .W propulsion power Tet Category Engineer IChief engineer officer on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of 3000 kW propulsion power or more lone {Chief engineer officer (if served on ships powered by main propulsion machinery lof between 750 kW and 3000 kW ropulsion power) hips powered by main ropulsion machinery of jetween 750 kW and 3000 .W propulsion power First Category Electro [Engineer [Third Category Electro- [Electrical engineer officer Any self-propelled vessel |mi6 [Engineer lsecond Category [Electrical engineer officer [any self-propelled vessel_ m6 [Electro-Engineer [Senior electrical engineer officer hips with no electrical five ropulsion machinery pie hips with electrical ropulsion machinery of jess than 3000 kW ropulsion power SnIOT STSCTCAT SAgIVBET OICET fone pie Table 3-3 Radio operator certificates issued by the Ukrainian Administration ICertificate Limitations ISTCW regulation First class radio-electronic GMDSS None Iwo |Second class radio-electronic GMDSS None Iwo IGMDSS general operator's certificate None Ivo |GMDSS restricted operator's certificate [Sea area Al Ive The figures below show the schemes of the maritime education, training and cettification systems 14150 INSP stew 2017-ax0874— £3 = ee ee ES) a! “it wis Navigator Nowgator “nor Speci eve wie wis 4 elements of 2 Mane nigher edventon ws 12 arma nghe soveaton Figure 3-1 Master and deck officer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration INSP.STew 2017-Axa674 15160WwsPEcTiOn REPORT AL, esropean wartime ate Agenoy Masters programme a2 Mastime higher education, “Juior Speci evel Wt + V2 Martine ngher eaveaton, iw ew Martine higher ecucaton Figure 3-2 Engineer offcer CoCs issued by the Ukrainian Administration 16/80 INSP stew 2017-ax0874Martine niger edveabon “Juner Specs! ove wml ir Higher eaueaton Figure 3-3 Electro-technical officer CoC issued by the Ukrainian Administration INSP.STCW.2017-4x0874 17180INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency 4. National provisions 4.1 Review of national provisions Appendix B lists the legislation and administrative instruments adopted by Ukraine with the aim of giving effect to the provisions of the STCW Convention and made available for inspection. The review of national provisions established the following findings: Order 491 stipulates the requirements for instructors for training courses covering the minimum standards of competence specified in Sections lV, V, and VI of the STCW Code and for training courses addressing specific KUP items required under the standards of competence of Sections All, AlU2, All, Avlllt and A-llV2. However, Order 491 does not require instructors to have completed training in assessment methods and practice, as required by Section A-I6.7 of the STCW Code. In addition, the same Order does not require instructors to have received appropriate guidance in assessment methods and practice and to have gained practical assessment experience, as specified in Section A-U6.3 and 4 (Shortcoming: Regulation /6.2 of the STCW Convention). 4.2 Requirements for certification - Articles |, VI and IX and chapters |, II, III, IV, V and VII The review of the requirements for certification established by the legislation of Ukraine established the following shortcomings and observations: = Insufficient training and assessment required to achieve the specified standard of competence. According to the provisions of Order 567, appendix 1, candidates for CoCs that are endorsed for service in a capacity as OOW on ships of 500 GT or more, with no limitations, are not required to complete training and assessment in ECDIS and in ‘bridge resource management. Those provisions are not consistent with the minimum standard of competence specified in Section A-II1.2 for OOW on ships of 500 GT or more, which requires candidates for a CoC as COW on ships of 500 GT or more the knowledge, understanding and proficiency in ECDIS and ‘bridge resource management’ specified in Table A-II1 of the STCW Coda. In addition, the above provisions of Order 567 are not consistent with Sections A-Il1.1.1 and Ali 5, which require candidates for a CoC as OOW on ships of 500 GT or mare to demonstrate competence to undertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities associated with the competences listed in Table AIM relevant to knowledge, understanding and proficiency in ECDIS and ‘bridge resource management’ and to provide evidence of having achieved the required standard of competence in accordance with the methods for demonstrating competence and the criteria for evaluating competence as specified in Table AWW (Shortcoming: Regulation 11/1 of the STCW Convention). According to the provisions of Order 567, appendix 1, candidates for CoCs that are endorsed for service in a capacity as OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more are not required to complete training and assessment in ‘engine-room resource management’. Those provisions are not consistent with the minimum standard of competence specified in Section Alli 4 for OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of 750, KW propulsion power or more, which requires candidates for a CoC as OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more the knowledge, understanding and proficiency in ‘engine-room resource management’ specified in Table A-lll of the STCW Code. In addition, the above provisions of Order 567 are not consistent with Sections Avll.3 and All 9, which require candidates for a CoC as OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more to demonstrate ability to undertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities associated with the competences listed in Table A-IIN relevant to knowledge, understanding and proficiency in ‘engine-room resource management’ and to provide evidence of having achieved the required standard of competence in accordance with the methods for demonstrating competence and the criteria for evaluating competence as specified in Table A-II/1 (Shortcoming: Regulation 111/1 of the STCW Convention) . to ments for approval of seagoing service and no specific criter ensure relevance of seagoing service. Order 567 includes provisions allowing the ITCS and the State Qualification Commission (SQC) to approve service completed by candidates for certification on ships of between 80 GT and 500 GT as qualifying seagoing sevice for the issue of CoCs endorsed for service in a deck officer or master capacity on ships of 500 GT or more, as well as 18/50 INsP.STew 2017-Ax9674European Maritime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT to approve service completed by candidates for certification on ships powered by main propulsion machinery of between 55 kW and 750 kW propulsion power as qualifying seagoing service for the issue of CoCs endorsed for an engineer officer capacity on ships of main propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more. Also, Order 567 includes provisions by which the ITCS and the SQC approve service completed by candidates for certification on fishing ships, ships operating in intand waters and in port waters as qualifying seagoing service for the issue of CoCs for masters, deck officers and engineer officers. However, the service allowed by the above Ukrainian provisions by candidates for the issue of those CoCs and endorsed for the referred capacities does not meet the requirements for approval of seagoing service established by Section A-V2.5 of the STCW Code and is not consistent with the definition of ‘seagoing service’ provided in Regulation 1/1.26 of the STCW Convention. In addition, the Ukrainian legislation does not include criteria to ensure that service on ships below the tonnage or propulsion power limits of the CoC to be issued, or on board vessels that are outside the scope of application of the Convention, is relevant to the qualification applied for, meats the requirements for being approved and enables the candidates to achieve the required competences. Section A-I2.5 of the STCW Code provides that the objective of the seagoing service to be approved and be completed by candidates for certification under the STCW Convention “is to allow the seafarers to be instructed in and to practice, under appropriate supervision, those safe and proper seagoing service practices, procedures and routines which are relevant to the qualtication applied for’. Regulation 1/1.26 of the STCW Convention establishes that ‘seagoing service’ means “service on board a ship relevant to the issue or revalidation of a certificate or other qualification” Service on board the ships referred to in the above provisions of Order 567 does not enable seafarers to be instructed in and to practise all the safe and proper seagoing practices, procedures and routines relevant to the qualifications required for those CoCs and capacities, as required by Section A-V2.5 of the STCW Code. This is because such ships do not provide all the conditions for the candidates for certification to complete a service that enables them to be instructed and to practise, as required by Section A-V2.5, because the operational and maintenance procedures of ships of the type and of the limited tonnage, propulsion power and area of operation referred to in Order 567 are significantly different to and technically not comparable with the manning, navigation, handling, equipment and cargo procedures, as well as with the operation and maintenance procedures of the main and auxiliary machinery of seagoing ships of unlimited tonnage, propulsion power and area of navigation for which the CoCsto be issued are valid Therefore, the Ukrainian legislation does not ensure that the seagoing service performed by candidates for cattification is relevant for certification as masters and deck officers and engineer officers under Regulations 11/1, 2, 1V3 11/1, IN/2 and IIV3, as appropriate (Shortcoming: Regulations 1/1.26 and 12 of the STCW Convention). Seagoing service: Explanation of the shortcoming presented above The ship on which the qualifying service is performed is an important factor in ensuring that the seagoing service is relevant for the capacities, functions and limitations covered by the CoC to be issued. This is because the manning, handling, equipment and cargo procedures and the operation and maintenance of the main and auxiliary machinery, vary significantly with the ship, its tonnage and propulsion power. Consequently, and particularly if the seagoing service is performed on ships below the tonnage or propulsion power limits of the CoC to be issued, or on board vessels that are outside the scope of application of the Convention, the Administration should ensure, through appropriate criteria and procedures, that this service is relevant to the qualification applied for and enables the candidates to achieve the required competences. This isin line with the definition of seagoing service in Regulation 1/1.26 of the STCW Convention and the provisions of Section A-V2.5 of the STCW Code. 5. Inspection of maritime administration 5.1 Quality management - Regulation 1/8 The ITCS implemented a QMS following the ISO 9001:2015 standard, for which it was certified by the Shipping Register of Ukraine until February 2021. The scope of the QMS covered all activities carried out by the ITCS. The QMS was documented by means of a quality manual, quality procedures and forms. The quality manual included a description of the quality policy adopted by the ITCS, which included an explicit commitment of the ITCS to ensure compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention and national legisiation in the field of training and cettification of seafarers while meeting the needs of seafarers, ship operators and interested parties through the INSP.sTew 2017-ax0974 10150INSPECTION REPORT European Maritime Safety Agency implementation of the QMS and continuously improving its services. The ITCS had defined several quality objectives relating to its activities, which were measurable and consistent with the quality policy. The ITCS established an annual work plan to ensure the achievement of the quality objectives. The ITCS had appointed a quality management representative who was responsible for maintaining the QMS in operation. In addition, the ITCS had established a Standing Quality Committee, which was responsible for identifying risks for the organisation's activities, carrying out risk assessments and proposing relevant actions for reducing those risks. Feedback from seafarers and from international shipowners and ship operators was collected and analysed. The ITCS conducted an annual internal audit, which covered all activities and ITCS departments. Internal audit plans, programmes and internal audit reports were available. The information provided by the internal audit reports showed that corrective actions were dealt with within 2 reasonable timeframe. The ITCS carried out an annual management review of the QMS. Minutes of the management review meetings were available. In addition, auditors from the Shipping Register of Ukraine audited the QMS annually. The ITCS made available a copy of the last report of the independent evaluation pursuant to Regulation 1/8.2 of the STCW Convention, which covered the period between 2009 and 2013, 5.2 Programme and course approval - Article IX and regulations /2, 1/6, V8, 1/11, 1/12 and 1/15 The MESU was, at the time of the inspection, temporarily responsible for the accreditation of the MET programmes at higher education level required for the issue of CoCs. According to the Law of Ukraine on Higher Education, the NAHEQA was responsible for implementing the accreditation process of MET programmes at higher education level, although it was not exercising its responsibilities since it was not yet in operation, ‘scientific and methodological committee" established by the MESU had developed draft national standards for MET programmes at higher education level in 2015. These draft national standards were developed taking into account the minimum standards of competence specified in the STCW Code, including the Manila amendments, as well as the relevant IMO model courses. The MIU verified the draft national standards for consistency with the provisions of the STCW Convention and Code. The MET institutions designed their programmes in accordance with these draft national standards and were required to submit to the MESU a written application and relevant documentation of the programme applied for accreditation. The MESU verified that the MET programmes were compliant with those standards and were implemented as designed and planned in accordance with the programme. In addition, the MESU verified that the MET programmes met the other requirements for accreditation of higher education programmes established in the relevant legislation The educational activities of higher education institutions implementing MET programmes were subject to a licensing process to ensure compliance with relevant requirements for academic personnel, facilities and other general conditions. This was required to be conducted every five years at the request of the higher education institution concerned. The MESU was also temporarily responsible for the licensing of the activities of higher education institutions replacing the NAHEQA in that role The MESU was also responsible for approving the MET programmes at higher secondary education level. The MESU verified the MET programmes for compliance with the established national standards at this level, which were developed between 2014 and 2016 by the Institute for Educational Development and approved by the MESU after having heard all interested parties The SSUTS was responsible for approving training courses designed to cover the standards of competence specified in chapters IV, Vand Vl of the STCW Code, as well as those covering several KUP items specified in Sections All, Acli2, Acl/1 and A-llV2 of the STCW Code (hereinafter referred to as ancillary training courses). The SSUTS ensured the approval of the ancillary training courses by means of a specific documented procedure, which covered the requirements of the national standards concerned. Order 491 of the MIU defined these national standards, which were developed at the initiative and under the supervision of the SSUTS by a group of experts appointed for this specific task. In particular, this Order required the courses to be developed in accordance with the standards of competence specified in the STCW Code and the relevant IMO model courses. In addition, it defined the requirements to be complied with by the training facilities and the equipment to be used to deliver the training, the training and assessment methods and the system for supervising the course. Moreover, it defined qualification requirements for instructors, The standards for some courses listed the tasks or skils to be practically demonstrated by the candidates during the course. However, the standards for the basic training in oil and chemical tanker cargo operations and for the basic training in liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, although providing that the training must cover Sections A-V/1-1.1 and A-VII-2.1 of the STCW Code, did not require the 2080 INSP Tew 2017-Ax9674European Marie Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT candidates to conduct practical exercises and instruction under approved and truly realistic conditions as a method to demonstrate competence in carrying out fire-fighting operations, as required by the above Sections of the STCW Code in Tables AVI -1 -1 and AVIt -2-1 In addition, the SSUTS was also responsible for keeping the national standards up to date. All standards required that the MET institutions offering approved training courses amend the approved courses whenever the corresponding IMO model courses were amended. However, this method did not fully ensure that the amendments to the minimum standards of competence specified in the STCW Code were covered after they were introduced in the Code and before they entered into force. This was found for the training in “Radar, ARPA, Bridge Teamwork and Search and Rescue (Radar Navigation at Management Level". The corresponding national standard required that the training must cover the relevant competences in accordance with Section A-IV2 of the STCW Code, although it does not specifically identify which competences they were. In addition, the national standard required the training courses to be designed in accordance with IMO model course 1.08. However, the KUPs associated with the competence concerned in Table A- IW2, namely “maintain safe navigation through the use of information from navigation equipment and systems to assist command decision making” and “establish watchkeeping arrangements and procedures”, were amended in 2010 while the version of the IMO model course 1.08 in use at the time of the inspection had been issued in 1999 and, obviously, could not cover the relevant standard of competence as it was amended in 2010, Therefore, the procedure for approving these training courses and for keeping them updated did not fully ensure that the training and assessment concerned was structured and included the methods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as required by Section A-I6.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I of the STCW Convention) 5.3 Monitoring and evaluation of training and assessment - Article IX and regulations V6 and V8 The higher education MET programmes were monitored through two activities, The first monitoring activity was the licensing process for educational activities to which the higher education institutions were submitted every five years. The NAHEQA was responsible for this licensing process. Through the licensing process, the MESU required higher education institutions to comply with the requirements for academic personnel, facilities and other general conditions established for the accredited programmes that were being implemented, This involved a documentary verification and physical inspection of facilties. The MESU required, if considered necessary, expert opinion from the MIU when licensing educational actwvities associated to MET programmes. The second monitoring activity was carried out by the Education Inspectorate, which inspected the MET institutions delivering programmes at higher education level and at higher secondary education level to verify the implementation of the accredited programmes. The Education Inspectorate inspected the MET institutions at least once every five years. The SSUTS monitored the ancillary training courses. It conducted monitoring inspections on the approved ancillary training courses following a procedure established by an Order of the former Ministry of Transport and Communications issued in 2004. The MET institutions were required to apply to the SSUTS for the monitoring inspection before the expiry date of the approval period given to the training course concemned, which was natmally two years. The MET institution had to submit to the SSUTS documentation on the training course, including its course programme and syllabus, as well as information on the facilities and equipment used, including proof that the MET institution owned these assets, and on the qualfication of the instructors imparting the course. The SSUTS carried out a physical inspection of the MET institution. In case the inspection revealed non-conformities, the SSUTS required the MET institution to implement corrective action within three months. After a successful inspection the SSUTS renewed the approval of the training courses. The SSUTS maintained a lst of MET institutions which offered approved training courses INSP.STCW.2017-4x0874 21150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency 5.4 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations 116 and 1/8 The MESU ensured that the qualification and training of lecturers lecturing at MET institutions implementing programmes at higher education level and higher secondary education level was in accordance with the requirements established in the relevant national legislation on education. This was done during the programme accreditation process and the process for licensing educational activities. The MESU required the different categories of lecturers and instructors to have a qualification at the same level or highar level of the diploma awarded after the programme. The MESU also required specific qualification and experience in line with the subjects that the lecturer was to be assigned to. New lecturers were required to complete a training programme in educational and evaluation techniques, which also included gaining teaching and assessment experience under the supervision of senior lecturers The SSUTS was responsible for the verification of the requirements for instructors that imparted ancillary training courses. Order 491 stipulated the requirements for instructors for those training courses, which included holding a diploma of completion of an MET programme relevant for the subject of the training course concerned and holding the relevant CoC or CoP, having seagoing experience in a capacity entitled by the CoC held and having experience as instructor at a MET institution The SSUTS verified compliance during the approval of such courses and during the inspection for renewing their approval. In accordance with the national provisions, the SSUTS required instructors to have experience in working at a MET institution offering the training concerned under the supervision of an instructor, although the type of work that was considered as meeting this requirement was not specified. In addition, the SSUTS required candidates for instructor positions to provide “documentary evidence of training in instructional techniques, methods and practice in accordance with the requirements of Section A-V6 and B-V6 of the STCW Code". Section A-UI6 of the STOW Code establishes that each Party to the Convention shall ensure that the qualification of instructors conducting training and assessment within an institution "incorporate training in instructional techniques and training in assessment methods and practice”, and Section B-V6 does not include any specific guidance to implement those requirements. However, the SSUTS neither specified such training nor defined criteria for accepting training as meeting those objectives in order to ensure the implementation of the above requirements (Shortcoming: Regulation 6.2 of the STCW Convention) The SSUTS required instructors for courses in which the training and assessment was conducted with the use of a simulator to have practical experience at a MET institution in training using a simulator related to the training course concerned during at least two complete courses under the supervision of an instructor and to have a positive appraisal from the Head of the MET institution in this regard. In addition, the instructors were required to provide evidence of having completed training in the operational procedures of the simulator concerned provided by the simulator manufacturer. 5.5 Assessment of competence - Regulations 1/6, \/8, 1/12 and 1/15 The ITCS was responsible for ensuring the implementation of the defined procedures for assessing the competence of candidates for certification as masters and officers. In accordance with these procedures, the ITCS supported and supervised the activities of the SQC, which implemented the assessment of competence procedures and administered the assessment sessions. The assessment of competence sessions were grouped according to the CoC concerned. The SQC was tasked with verifying that the candidates applying for assessment of competence were eligible for it. Therefore, the SQC checked relevant documents of the MET programme and the seagoing setvice completed by the candidates. In addition, the SQC prepared the assessment sessions in accordance to the relevant procedure. The assessment preparation activities included the design, validation and selection of examination questions by the SQC members and their approval by the SQC Chairman and the Head of the ITCS The type of assessment sessions included written and oral exams. The written questions required short answers from candidates about specific concepts, or required descriptions. The members of the SQC were responsible for evaluating the answers and kept relevant records of this activity. After conducting the assessment, the SAC prepared a statement, referred to as a ‘protocol’, confirming the result of the assessment of competence. The ‘protocols’ were kept in a computer system administered by the ITCS, which was also used for certification and registration purposes. 22150 INSP.STeWw 2017-Ax9674European Martime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT 5.6 On-board training - Regulations 1/6 and 1/8 According to the relevant national regulations, the on-board training was part of the MET programmes and, therefore, the MET institutions implementing the programmes concerned verified the completion of the on-board training as with any other subjects forming part of the programme. TRBs were prepared by each MET institution and approved within the process of accreditation of the MET programmes by the MESU. The MET institutions had agreed common specifications for the design of TRBs and this, agreement was communicated to the MESU However, the MESU did not establish provisions within the accreditation requirements for MET programmes to ensure that the on-board training ta be followed by the students during the required period of seagoing service as part of those MET programmes met the requirements for such on-board training established in the relevant provisions of the STCW Code. The MESU accredited MET programmes that allowed the MET institutions to accept, that the students followed the on-board training while performing seagoing service as ordinary seaman or wiper. However, seagoing service in such positions did not enable the students to receive systematic practical training and experience in the tasks, duties and responsibilities of an OOW, an OEW or an ETO, as required by Sections A- 11/1.6, AIG, Alll1.2 and AIIVB.2 of the STCW Code, and therefore, did not enable the students to achieve the on-board training objectives and meet the standards of competence required for certification as COW, OEW or ETO Therefore, the MESU did not ensure that the on-board training that was part of the accredited MET programmes enabled the students to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as required by Section A- 1/6.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention). The SQC also verified the completion of the on-board training completed by the candidates for CoC. According to the relevant procedure, the SQC checked the candidates’ TRBs as part of its activities relating to assessment of competence. The SQC verified whether the TRB was consistently completed and signatures of the ship's officer or master were stamped to confirm completion of the different training tasks. During the oral exam, the SQC members, questioned the candidates about their on-board training 5.7 Certification and endorsement - Article V| and regulations 1/2, 1/3, /8 and 1/15 The MIU ensured that all successful candidates for certification were issued a national CoC according to their category and capacities on board ship, an endorsement attesting the issue of the CoC (Eal) and CoPs concerning the completed ancillary training. The ITCS monitored and implemented the activities on the issue of certificates and endorsements under its responsibilty through several procedures. The SQC verified compliance of the candidates, for master and officers CoCs with the requirements concerning education and training, including on-board training, seagoing service, identity and medical fitness through the documents that the candidates were required to submit when applying for the corresponding assessment of competence. The SQC vatified the completion of seagoing setvice through the records kept in the seaman’s book and in the candidate's service book. According to the relevant national provisions, the SQC calculated the seagoing service time completed by the candidates taking into account the capacities on board, the types of ship, their gross tonnage and the power of their propulsion machinery. Concerning the workshop skills training required for candidates for capacities as OEW, the SQC relied on the accredited MET programme including such training. The SQC checked that the candidates for certification for capacities as OOW and OEW completed six months of bridge watchkeeping duties or six months of engine- room watchkeeping duties, respectively, by means of the entries recorded in the TRB in a table designed for this purpose, as well as completion of compulsory ancillary training courses The ‘protocol’ prepared by the SQC for each successful candidate after completing their competence assessment process included a ‘resolution of the SQC’, which specified the regulations of the STCW Convention, the functions Capacities and limitations of the CoC and Eal to be issued. According to the procedures, the SQC included the unique number required for endorsements attesting to the issue of certificates by Regulation 1/2 of the STCW Convention in the ‘protocols’ for the issue of Eals. The Chairman of the SQC approved the ‘protocols’, which ware recorded in the certification and registration computer system administered by the ITCS, called ‘State Common Register of Seafarers’ Documents’ (SCRSD). In addition, the SQC prepared a ‘protocol’ for each of the ancillary training courses completed by the candidate and also recorded them in the SCRSD. The HMOs were responsible for printing and delivering CoCs, Eals and CoPs. The national CoC included a translation into English. The format of the Eal followed the requirements for such documents laid down in Section A- U2 of the STCW Code. Following the provisions of the relevant national regulations, the HMOs were required to InsP. stow.2017-ax0874 29/80INSPECTION REPORT European Maritime Safety Agency issue the above documents upon receiving the application from the interested candidate within a maximum period often days. The candidates had to submit several documents, in particular thair seaman’s book, service book academic diploma, certficates of training, an identity document and a photograph, as well as a valid medical fitness cettificate. The HMOs checked those documents and proceeded to issue the national CoC and the endorsement with the information included in the protocol’ issued by the SQC. The certification statements were available to the HMOs through the SCRSD. The date of issue of the national CoC and the corresponding Eal was the date of the SQC ‘protocol’ and the date of expiry, which was no longer than five years after the date of issue, was assigned automatically by the computer application integrated into the SCRSD. All the details that were requited to be on the national CoC, Eal and CoPs were transferred from the corresponding ‘protocol’ recorded in the SCRSD to the formats of those documents with a minimum intervention of the HMO personnel in order to avoid typing errors. The HMOs printed the national CoCs, Eals and CoPs on special paper, which was manufactured by a print house licensed by the Ukrainian administration and incorporated several features to prevent counterfeiting. Candidates were required to sign these documents in the presence of an HMO official prior to their lamination with a transparent plastic film and delivery to them 5.8 Registration - Regulations 1/2 and 1/8 National CoCs, Eals and CoPs were registered in the SCRSD automatically when the HMO personnel issued the documents using the relevant SCRSD computer application. The SCRSD, which was managed and administered by the ITCS, kept records of CoCs, Eals and CoPs issued for masters and officers, as well as those expired, revalidated, cancelled, suspended and reported lost or destroyed. In addition, the ITCS maintained a computer application that retrieved relevant data from the SCRSD and made available the status of CoC, Eals and CoPs through an Internet portal to those interested in verifying the authenticity and validity of those documents, The ITCS. also provided the verification of certificates and endorsements through email and fax by request following an established procedure. 5.9 Revalidation - Regulations 1/8, 1/11, 1/14, 1/15, W/2, VIM, VI/2 and VI/3. Based on the national regulations, candidates for revalidation of their CoCs had to demonstrate their continued professional competence by completing twelve months’ seagoing service in the previous five years before the application for revalidation was introduced. The SQC, under the authority of the ITCS, verified that candidates met the requirements by examining the candidates’ seaman’s book and service book. Any candidates who did nat meet, the requirements were required by the ITCS to complete a re-training course and to undergo an assessment of competence session managed by the SQC. The ITCS, following the relevant national provisions, required candidates for revalidation of their CoPs concerning training required under chapter VI of the STCW Convention to have completed an approved re-training course. In addition, the ITCS required masters and officers wishing to revalidate their CoPs for tankers either to have not less than twelve months’ seagoing service in the previous five years before applying for revalidation or to have completed an approved re-training course. The SQC prepared a ‘protocol’ for the issue of the CoC, Eal and CoP concerned after having verified the seagoing service, the successful completion of the re-training course and the assessment of competence session, as applicable. The SQC registered the ‘protocols’ in the SCRSD. The HMOs were responsible for printing and delivering the revalidated CoCs, Eals and CoPs following a similar procedure as for the issue of CoCs, Eals and CoPs for the first time. 5.10 Medical standards - Regulations 1/8 and 1/9 The Ministry of Health of Ukraine (MHU) was responsible for ensuring the implementation of the provisions relating to the medical fitness of seafarers. The MHU approved the medical practitioners that conducted medical fitness examinations for seafarers subject to meeting relevant requirements, ie. specific training on seafarer medical fitness and standards, availability of the necessary equipment - normally through a medical establishment, English language skills in addition to Ukrainian, knowledge of the national legislation on seafarers’ medical fitness examination and certification and the implementation in the medical establishment where they conducted the examination and certification of the medical fitness of seafarers of a QMS covering such activities. The approval of a medical practitioner was valid for five years and those medical practtioners who wished to continue providing seafarers’ medical fitness examination and certification services were subject to an evaluation by the MHU to ensure that they met the relevant requirements. The MHU published a ministerial order that included a list of authorised medical establishments in which the approved medical practitioners conducted medical examinations and cettification of seafarers. The MHU ensured that standards for the medical fitness of seafarers and procedures 24/60 Insp stew 2017-ax0074European Maritime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT for conducting medical examinations and certification were established and implemented. The medical standards were published through an Order of the MHU, which was kept up to date by its services, The format of the seafarer's medical fitness certficate included the information required by the relevant provisions of the STCW Code. The medical certificates for seafarers were valid for a maximum period of two years and the requirements for the extension of their validity were established and in line with the relevant provisions of the STCW Convention. A procedure for reviewing cases of seafarers declared unfit or to whom a limitation was imposed was established ‘The MHU conducted regular and unscheduled inspections of the medical establishments in which the approved medical practitioners conducted the seafarer medical fitness examination and certification activities. 5.11 Incompetence and fraud prevention - Regulation /5 The Ukrainian legislation included regulations for the investigation of cases of incompetence of seafarers holding Ukrainian CoCs, as well as provisions to prevent fraud and unlawful practices concerning seafarer certificates and endorsements. It also included disciplinary measures and penalties for cases of seafarers holding Ukrainian CoCs who did not comply with the national provisions giving effect to the STCW Convention. The ITCS implemented relevant procedures in case of incompetence. The national legislation provided for the withdrawal, suspension and cancellation of CoCs in case of incompetency or acts compromising the safety or security of the ship by holders of CoCs, by decision of the corresponding Court of Justice of Ukraine. 6. Inspection of maritime education and training institutions 61 Kherson State Maritime Academy 644 Quality management - Regulation 18 The KSMA implemented a QMS designed to comply with the ISO 9001:2008 standard. The QMS had been certified by the Shipping Register of Ukraine since 2011 and the existing certificate was valid until September 2018. The QMS covered all KSMA departments and units. The QMS was documented by means of a quality manual, which contained a description of all processes, procedures, instructions and forms. The KSMA had a quality department and its Head was appointed as quality representative. A quality policy was established. It included an explicit statement to comply with the provisions of the STCW Convention and expressed the commitment of the KSMA to implement the QMS to satisfy the policy in accordance with the national regulations and policies of the MIU. The QMS provided for procedures for communicating the quality policy to KSMA Heads of Department and all other staff. The KSMA had defined several quality objectives. However, these objectives were not measurable and, therefore, their achievement could not be determined. The KSMA conducted internal audits once a year following an annual activity plan. Corrective actions were defined and implemented for the identified nonconformities. Internal audit reports were available and included details of the corrective actions taken, their status and of the follow-up actions carried out The KSMA held a management meeting each year in which the results of internal audits were discussed and decisions were made for improving the QMS and its procedures, as stated by the KSMA managers. However, records of such management meetings, i. agenda, minutes of meetings or other records on decisions made, were not kept. This, together with the lack of measurable quality objectives, as described above, was not consistent with the provisions of Section A-VB.2 of the STCW Code, as the KSMA did not fully establish the systems and controls of its QMS to ensure achievement of the defined objactives (Shortcoming: Regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention) 612 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 12,1/6,1/8,1/12 and 1/15 The KSMA designed its Specialists, Bachelor's and Master's MET programmes following an established procedure, This procedure implemented the national standards for MET programmes formulated by the MESU. The programme design procedure required a working group to be established. This group was composed of the Deans and lecturers specialised in the relevant subjects and entailed successive stages of design and validation of the programme subjects. The KSMA Academic Council approved the programmes before their submission to the MESU for accreditation. In addition, the KSMA submitted information on the education and training facilities and equipment necessary for the delivery of the programmes as well as information relating to the academic staff INSP.STCW.2017-4x0874 25150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency responsible for the implementation of the programmes. The MET programmes included several ancillary training courses concerning specific competences defined in the STCW Code. These courses were designed and delivered by the KSMTC on behalf of the KSMA The programmes were structured in subjects and documented through lesson plans and subject syllabi, lecturers’ and instructors’ manuals, which contained methodological guidance for delivering the programme subjects. The syllabi and lesson plans described the learning objectives in relation to the specific competences and included the teaching hours assigned to each subject, examination criteria and examination objectives, which referred to subject, areas to be addressed through examination questions. The design working group considered both the tables of competence of the STCW Code and the relevant IMO model courses as input for structuring and developing the content of the programmes. However, the programme for ‘Bachelor in ‘Navigation’ did not include reference and content on "knowledge of blind pilotage techniques” concerning the competence “maintain a safe navigational watch’, and on “blind pilotage planning" relevant for the competence “maintain safe navigation through the use of information from navigation equipment systems to assist command decision making” as required by the minimum standards of competence specified in Sections A-lIN.1, Table All, and A-I2.1, Table A-ll2, of the STCW Code, respectively. Therefore, the KSMA did not fully ensure that its MET programme for ‘Bachelor’ in ‘Navigation’, which was designed to cover the minimum standards of competence specified in Sections AIIM and A-IV2 of the STCW Code, was structured and included the methods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve those standards of competence, as required by Section A-VB.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention) The KSMA ensured the programmes were reviewed each year, by means of a specific procedure. The procedure required the KSMA to establish working groups appointed by the Rector, which carried out the review of the programme subjects and made the amendments identified as necessary. The KSMA Academic Council approved the revised programmes 6.13 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations U6, V8 and 1/12 The KSMA implemented a procedure to ensure the qualification and training of the academic personnel and supervisors through which the regulatory requirements were applied. The KSMA had established specific qualification requirements for each lecturing position. The KSMA defined three categories of lecturers, namely assistants, lecturers and professors. The KSMA required all academic personnel to hold a higher education diploma either as ‘Specialist’ or ‘Master’. For lecturing positions for subjects associated with professional seagoing experience, the KSMA required the academic parsonnel to hold a CoC and to have seagoing experience in senior officer or master positions. Moreover, the KSMA required lecturing experience of not less than two years. However, those applying for lecturing positions without such experience could be hired as assistants and were required to follow a training process on instructional techniques, assessment methods and practice through training delivered at the KSMA, which was based on the IMO model courses 6.09 Training Course for Instructors’ and 3.12 ‘Assessment, Examination and Certification of Seafarers’ In addition, those who were to be assigned to subjects that required the use of simulators for training and assessment were required to follow training based on the IMO model course 6.10 ‘Training for Simulator Instructors’, which was dalivered at the KSMA by senior simulator instructors, and to attend training on the operational use of the specific simulator delivered by personnel from the simulator manufacturer. Assistants were assigned to support the duties of a lecturer and gained lecturing experience in this period. The Academic Board of the KSMA monitored this process and decided on the promotion of assistants to the next category The KSMA, in accordance with national regulations, established a plan aimed at increasing the knowledge and. experience of the academic staff ies - Regulations 16,1/8 and 1/12 6414 Training facili The KSMA implemented several procedures to ensure the availabilty and maintenance of the training facilities and simulators, The KSMA had the following simulators available within its premises: an engine-room simulator, a full mission bridge simulator, an ECDIS simulator, a GMDSS simulator, and a crane handling and heavy lift simulator. There were some classrooms equipped with computers and overhead projectors. In addition, the KSMA had available several workshops and laboratories, namely a mechanical workshop equipped with lathe, driling, cutting and 26150 INSP stew 2017-ax0974European Maritime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT welding machines; a workshop with auxiliary machines (pumps, oil separators, small diesel engines and gas turbines) for practical exercises relating to disassembling, maintenance and re-assembling of pieces of machinery, a high-voltage simulator and workshop, and a workshop equipped with an operational diesel engine for training in engine operation and maintenance 615 Monitoring and supervision of traini ns U6 and 18 9 - Regul The KSMA carried out several activities to monitor and supervise the education and training in accordance with established procedures. Lecturers checked attendance of students at lectures and practical training sessions and kept relevant records. In addition, they monitored the students’ performance by the various tests and assignments they required the students to complete during each semester. The lecturers kept record of the marks obtained in these activities, which were also used for the overall student evaluation. The Heads of Department checked the attendance lists, as well as the records showing the progression of students through the semester. In addition, the KSMA implemented procedures to monitor the on-board training conducted by its students. The KSMA required students to complete several assignments during their seagoing service in addition to recording the completion of the tasks specified in the TRB, which was designed by the KSMA According to the structure of the MET programmes accredited by the MESU, the students had to complete at least six months, out of the required twelve months’ seagoing service, serving in a capacity as ordinary seaman, when following a deck officer programme, or as wiper in the engine department, when following an engineer officer programme. However, the KSMA did not implement any specific provision or method for ensuring that the students serving in those capacities on board ship followed the required on board training programme and received systematic practical training and experience in the tasks, duties and responsibilities of an OOW or of an OEW, as appropriate, as required by Sections A-/1.6 and Avlllt.2 of the STCW Code (see section 56). The Heads of Department supervised the overall performance of the academic staff. The KSMA ‘Methodological Department’ conducted ‘open lessons’, which were classroom observations of lecturers conducted by the academic staff. 616 Use of simulators - Regulations lf and 1/12 The KSMA ensured that the simulators used for supporting the training activities conducted for delivering its MET programmes followed appropriate procedures. The lecturers in the relevant subjects designed the simulator exercises to be completed by the students as part of the subject syllabus and defined their objectives, consistent with the learning objectives described for the subject. The simulator exercises were documented and kept both in paper form and in electronic files in the computer. The simulator exercise training objectives, tasks and performance criteria were described. Before being approved by the Head of Department concemed, the simulator exercises were tested by the instructors to ensure their suitability for the training objectives, The instructors familarised the students with the simulator before attempting to carry out any training exercise. In addition, the instructors briefed the students on the simulator exercise they were proposed to conduct, including the training objectives of the simulator exercise, the tasks to be carried out and the applicable performance criteria, and organised a debriefing session after completing the simulation tasks in which the instructor and the students discussed the exercise and its outcome. During the simulator exercises, the instructors evaluated the performance of the students in the training tasks. 617 Examination - Regulations V6,1/8 and 1/12 The KSMA carried out examination activities following a specific QMS procedure. The KSMA academic personnel implemented several activities, organised as a continuous assessment system. They conducted several muttiple- choice tests, problem-solving written tasks, assignments and demonstration of practical tasks, including simulator exercises, where applicable, during each semester. In addition, students were required to sit an oral examination at the end of each semester. The pass mark was 60% for the most of the subjects. To be allowed to take the end of semester oral examination, students had to be awarded a certain number of points from the multiple-choice tests written tasks, assignments and demonstration of practical tasks conducted during the semester. On completion of all subjects, students were required to sit a final examination. Students following deck officer programmes had to pass an oral and a practical examination. Students enrolled in engineer officer programmes had to choose whether to sit a final examination or to write and defend a degree dissertation. At the time of the inspection, the KSMA was implementing a computer-based examination system, which was applied to all lecturing subjects. The lecturers developed examination questions to be downloaded into the examination system following an established INSP.STCW.2017-4x0874 27160INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency procedure. This procedure required the questions to be validated before they were approved and uploaded into the examination system. 618 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 1/2 and 1/8 According to the relevant national legislation, the requirements for admission and the process of admission to higher education institutions were established and managed by the MESU. The KSMA implemented procedures through which it applied the admission process of students according to the scope of its responsibilty. A ministerial order set the conditions for admission of students to higher educational institutions in Ukraine every year pursuant to provisions of the Law of Ukraine on Higher Education. The MESU published that ministerial order before opening the enrolment process for the academic year. In accordance with the ministerial order, the KSMA was required to issue rules for admission annually. Candidates for any higher education programme were required to be graduates from secondary education and to take a national higher education entry examination. Admission to the higher education programme applied for by the candidate was accepted depending on the mark obtained in the national higher education entry examination. Nevertheless, candidates who could not take the national higher education entry examination could apply to the KSMA directly and sit an admission examination prepared by the KSMA In addition, all candidates were required to be interviewed by a member of the KSMA faculty and to pass a medical examination under similar requirements as those for the seafarers’ medical examination. The KSMA ensured its activities relating to the issue of documentary evidence of training by implementing procedures covered by its QMS. The KSMA ‘education department’ was responsible for the issue of diplomas after students met all the requirements of the MET programme they followed. The KSMA registered the diplomas issued in the national register of education diplomas and kept relevant records in its archives. Diplomas were given an identfication number, which was assigned by the national register of education diplomas. A decision of the Cabinet, of Ministers defined the format of the diplomas. 6.2 Kherson Maritime Specialised Training Centre 624 Quality management - Regulation 18 The KMSTC implemented a QMS following the ISO 9001:2015 standard. The QMS was certified as compliant with that standard by Bureau Veritas until September 2018. The QMS was documented by means of a quality manual and procedures. The quality manual contained a description of all the relevant processes and procedures. The QMS scope, as described in the quality manual, covered all education and training actwvities. The KMSTC defined a quality policy, which included a commitment to implement a QMS. In addition, the KMSTC defined several measurable quality objectives. The role of the quality management representative was assumed by the KMSTC manager, who was supported in these tasks by an assistant. The KMSTC conducted an internal audit annually to assess the effectiveness of the QMS and the overall performance of the KMSTC. The internal audit activities were organised according to an audit plan. The results of the internal audit activities were described in audit reports, which included the identified non-conformities and observations. An internal audit report examined during the inspection at the KMSTC included descriptions of eight findings identified during the audit. However, the report contained the description of only one corrective action, designed to address one of the identified findings. The interviewed KMSTC managers stated that corrective actions were implemented for other findings but that this was nat documented, although the relevant procedure required all corrective actions to be documented to enable their control and to follow-up their implementation. This was not consistent with the provisions of Section A-UB.2 of the STCW Code, as the KMSTC did not fully establish the systems, controls and internal quality assurance reviews ofits QMS in order to ensure achievement of the defined objectives (Shortcoming: Regulation I/B of the STCW Convention). The KMSTC catried out management review meetings once a year. Minutes of management review meetings were maintained and kept. The management review meetings dealt with, among other issues, identified nonconformities during internal and external audits, as well as issues that affected the activities of the KMSTC, and decisions on improvement of activities and the QMS. 622 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 2,1/6, 8,1/12 and 1/15 The KMSTC implemented a procedure for designing and approving its training courses. Following that procedure, the KMSTC manager appointed a group of instructors to carry out the course design work. The group of instructors, 28/50 INSP stew 2017-ax0974European Mattime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT designed the training courses following the national standards for courses developed by the SSUTS, as well as the IMO model courses. The KMSTC manager approved the draft training courses prior to their submission to the SSUTS for approval. The KMSTC documented the training courses through course syllabi, which included a description of the training objectives, topic content and assessment objectives, as wall as lesson plans and instructors’ manuals. The KMSTC implemented a procedure for carrying out a review of al training courses each year. The course review was conducted in accordance with an annual plan by a review group of instructors appointed for the relevant tasks. One of the tasks of the review group was to monitor the changes in the legislation and standards relevant to the particular courses. The review group consulted the IMO website, including the “IMOdocs” website, from which they obtained information on amendments relevant to the training courses and exchanged information with the SSUTS concerning amendments to the national standards for training courses. However, the training course on ‘GMDSS general operator's certificate’ included in its syllabus, lesson plans and course material references on the operation of INMARSAT B satellite communication equipment, which was a GMDSS sub-system that was phased-out in December 2016. In addition, the training course on “Radar, ARP A, bridge teamwork and search and rescue’did not include reference and content on the KUP “blind pilotage planning'Yor the competence “maintain safe navigation through the use of information from navigation equipment systems to assist command decision making’, as required by the minimum standards of competence specified in Section A-IU2.1, Table A-II2, of the STCW Code and intended to be covered by this training course. Moreover, the syllabus and training plan for the training course in fire prevention and fire-fighting did not require trainees to conduct practical demonstration in “entering and passing through with ifeline but without breathing apparatus, into a compartment into which high-expansion foam has been injected” as a method to demonstrate competence in fight and extinguish fires, as required by the relevant standard of competence specified in Section A-VI/I.1.1.2 of the STCW Code, which was intended to be covered by that training course. Therefore, the KMSTC did nat fully ensure that its training courses referred to above were structured and included the methods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve the relevant standards of competence, as required by Section A-U6.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I of the STCW Convention) 623 Qualification and tr: ing of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations U6, V8 and 1/12 The KMSTC had a permanent staff of 11 persons, of which half were instructors. In addition, the KMSTC employed part time instructors, some of whom were also instructors or lecturers at the KSMA The QMS covered the relevant procedures for instructors. The KMSTC defined specific qualification and training requirements for each instructor position. Nevertheless, the KMSTC required each candidate to have a qualification relevant to the subject for the instructor position applied for, documented by the CoC held by the candidate. In addition, the KMSTC required candidates to have received training as trainers and assessors and experience in training as an instructor. The KMSTC defined additional training and experience requirements for instructor positions that implied the use of simulators for delivering training and conducting assessment. These requirements included training as simulator trainer and experience in the use of the particular simulator gained through training provided by the simulator manufacturer and by assisting a senior simulator instructor. The KMSTC submitted each instructor to a competence appraisal exercise every six months to ensure the instructor maintained their competence as instructor. In addition, the KMSTC facilitated the attendance of instructors in training on professional subjects relevant to their training activities. The KMSTC kept relevant documentation. ns V6, VB and 1/12 624 Trai 9 fa - Regulati The KMSTC implemented relevant procedures for ensuring the availabilty of the required facilities and training equipment. The premises of the KMSTC were located in the campus of the KSMA This premises included a swimming pool designed specifically for practical exercises in the operation of iferafts and survival at sea equipment, a small swimming pool with an enclosed lifeboat on davits for practical demonstration of lifeboat launching operations, a fire-fighting facility composed of two metal structures that simulated ship spaces, equipped with a water supply installation with appropriate hose connections and water pumps that delivered appropriate water pressure, as well as two fire pits. These facilities were used for carrying out practical exercises in fire-fighting operations and use of fire-fighting equipment, which was available, including compressed air breathing apparatuses, extinguishers of several types, foam generators, nozzles and hoses, and personal protection equipment. In addition, the KMSTC had equipment available for delivering training in medical first aid and medical care. Moreover, the KMSTC had available a free-fall lifeboat in a station located on a dock at the riverside, which InsP stew.2017-ax0874 20150INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency was used for practical exercises on launching, manoeuvring and recovering the lifeboat. The KMSTC used the simulators located in the premises of the KSMA for dalivering its training courses by virtue of an agreement established with KSMA The KMSTC implemented a detailed plan for maintenance of the equipment they used for its training courses. Some of the maintenance tasks were shared with the KSMA in accordance with the plan. 625 Mo: ns 1/6 and 1/8 itoring and supervision of training - Regul The KMSTC implemented a relevant procedure to monitor and supervise the training activities. The completion of each course was recorded in several documents, which were kept as records and classified in course folders. These included the students’ attendance list, assessment lists describing the relevant training objectives achieved and competences demonstrated by the students throughout the training course, the students’ medical fitness declaration and the list of training sessions delivered, which included information on the training subjects delivered at the training sessions and the instructor who delivered them, The KMSTC managers used the above documents to monitor the students’ performance and for supervising the delivery of the training courses and the activities of the instructors. The KMSTC instructors monitored the performance of the students on each task they were required to perform and kept a record of completion of the tasks. Some training courses were divided into modules, and in case a student was either missing or did not pass one course module, the instructors required the student to attend the missing or failed module within the twelve months immediately after the conclusion of the training course concerned. However, the KMSTC only required 25% of the maximum number of students attending the training course in personal survival techniques to perform a practical demonstration of competence to right an inverted iferaft while wearing a lifejacket, as required by Section AMIlt.2.2 of the STCW Code in Table A-Vi/1-1. In addition, the KMSTC did not require students following the training in fire prevention and fire-fighting to perform practical demonstration of the ability to enter and pass through, with a lifeline but without a breathing apparatus, a compartment into which high-expansion foam was injected, as required by Section A-VI/1 2.2 of the STCW Code in Table A-VI/1-2. Therefore, the KMSTC did not ensure that the training in those areas included the methods, media of delivery and procedures necessary to achieve the prescribed standard of competence (Shortcoming: Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention). 626 Use of imulators - Regulations U8 and 1/12 The KMSTC delivered several training courses with the use of simulators. The relevant simulator training and assessment activities were conducted in accordance with work instructions established by the KMSTC. The KMSTC. instructors designed the simulator exercises and tested their suitability for the expected training objectives before using them for training and assessment of candidates. The KMSTC management approved the simulator exercises after the instructors found them satisfactory for the objectives. The KMSTC instructors carried out a few sessions to familiarise the candidates with the operation of the simulator concerned. In addition, the KMSTC instructors delivering the simulator exercises briefed the candidates on the conduct of the patticular exercise before starting the exercise tasks. They also ensured that the training objectives, operational conditions and tasks to be performed described in the exercise documentation were clearly communicated to the candidates during the exercise briefing Moreover, they provided guidance to the candidates performing simulator training exercises and checked the candidates’ activities while running the exercise. The instructors completed the simulator exercises with a debriefing, in which the performance of the exercise was discussed with the candidates. The simulator exercises used for assessment of competence also included a briefing in which the instructors ensured that the tasks to be conducted and the performance criteria were communicated to the candidates clearly. During the assessment exercises, the instructors evaluated the performance of the candidates in carrying out the exercise tasks and required them to complete all the tasks satisfactorily. 627 Examination - Regulations V6,1/8 and 1/12 The KMSTC implemented relevant procedures for examining the students following its training courses. The students were evaluated during the courses through the performance of practical exercises at different stages of the courses. The level of performance in these practical exercises was taken into account in the overall evaluation of the student. In addition, students were required to sit a final assessment session, either by means of a written test or by oral questions. Satisfactory completion of both the practical exercises and final assessment session was required to complete each course. The KMSTC kept records of students’ performance in the practical exercises and records of the final assessment. 30/60 INSP stew 2017-ax0974European Martime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT 628 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 1/2 and 18 The KMSTC defined admission requirements for each training course, including previous qualifications and training, experience and medical fitness, as applicable. The KMSTC implemented procedures to verify that the applicants for training courses mat the admission requirements. For training courses that required candidates to carry out certain practical exercises, the KMSTC required applicants to sign a medical fitness declaration stating that their health allowed them to perform all the practical exercises needed to complete the course The KMSTC issued certificates of training to the candidates on completion of the courses according to an established procedure. The KMSTC established the requirements for completing the courses in the course documentation. The KMSTC designed the format of the certificates of training in accordance with their own criteria, as no national provisions in this respect had been published. Most of these certificates of training were printed in Ukrainian and English. The format included the name of the course and the reference to the relevant standard of competence as indicated in the STCW Code. In addition to the full name of the candidate, they included the date of issue, a certificate number and a serial number. The KMSTC was required to submit the lst of successful candidates for each course to the ITCS. Thereafter, the ITCS sent the number of each certificate of training, as assigned by the SQC, to the KMSTC. The KMSTC kept records of the particulars of the certificates of training in accordance with its procedures. Some of these cattificates of training included a heading stating “certificate of proficiency'despite that the MIU, through the ITCS, was responsible under the national legislation for issuing the CoP required by the relevant provisions of the STCW Convention. 6.3 National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy 63.1 Quality management - Regulation 18 NUOMA implemented a QMS following the ISO 9001:2008 standard. The QMS was certified for compliance with this standard by Bureau Veritas until September 2018. The scope of the QMS covered all NUOMA departments and its education and training activities. A Head of Department was appointed as quality representative to ensure the implementation of the QMS. The QMS was documented through a quality manual, procedures and forms. The quality manual contained a description of the relevant processes with their interrelation. A quality policy was established, which included explicit reference to compliance with the provisions of the STCW Convention. The quality policy also expressed the commitment of NUOMA to implementing a QMS to ensure the consistency of its activities with national regulations and industry standards. The quality documentation included a description of several quality objectives. However, these objectives were not measurable and therefore the degree of achievement could not be determined. This was not consistent with the provisions of Section A-V8.2 of the STCW Code, as NUOMA did not fully establish the systems and controls of its QMS to ensure achievernent of the defined objectives (Shortcoming: Regulation I of the STCW Convention) NUOMA carried out an annual internal audit. The auditors who conducted the internal audits were its own personnel, who had received relevant training for that purpose. Internal audits were planned and documented through audit reports. The internal audit report made available provided information on the findings and nonconformities identified, the corresponding corrective actions implemented and the follow-up actions carried out. A management review meeting was carried out at the end of calendar each year. Members of NUOMA's Scientific Council attended the meetings, in which all the findings established during internal audit were discussed and decisions on improvement of the QMS were adopted. NUOMA kept relevant documentation 632 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations V2,1/6, /8,1/12 and 1/15, NUOMA designed its Specialist’s, Bachelor's and Master's MET programmes following an established procedure This procedure implemented the national standards for MET programmes formulated by the MESU In accordance with the procedure, the design tasks were undertaken by working groups composed of lecturers appointed by the Rector of NUOMA, together with experts from the shipping industry. The working groups organised the relevant tasks in two stages. During the first stage, the working groups prepared a document outlining concisely the proposed MET programme, which was submitted to the Academic Council for consideration and approval. In the second stage, after the MET programme was approved by the Academic Council, the working groups further developed the programme subjects and modules, as well as identifying the equipment required and the qualifications and experience of the academic staff. The working groups considered the specifications of the standards of competence and tables of competence defined in the STCW Code as well as the relevant IMO model INsP.STew 2017-ax674 31150INSPECTION REPORT European Maitime Safety Agency courses for the tasks of developing the content of the programme subjects and modules. The working groups verified that the specific competences were included appropriately in the subjects and modules with the help of cross-reference tables. The working groups documented the programmes through subject or module syllabi and lesson plans, which included the learning objectives, the structure of the subject or module in lessons and training sessions, the knowledge relevant to the learning objectives, and the criteria for assessing the achievement of the leaming objectives. In addition, the programme documents included a description of the education and training facilties and equipment. On completion of the design and development tasks by the working groups, the Academic Council approved the MET programmes, which were subsequently submitted to the MESU for accreditation. The design of the ancillary training courses was part of the design tasks of the working groups. The design of ancillary training followed the relevant national standards, NUOMA implemented a specific procedure to review its MET programmes and training courses. The Rector was responsible for establishing working groups to conduct an annual review of the programmes. Ifthe working groups, the Faculty Committee or the Educational Committee considered that the programmes required significant amendments, the working groups proceeded as established by the programme design procedure. The revised programme required the approval of the Academic Council. For minor amendments and improvements to the programme subjects or modules, the lecturers and instructors, under the supervision of the relevant Head of Department, were allowed to introduce the related amendments to the lesson plans and course material without further approval 63.3 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations 1/6, 48 and 1/12 NUOMA implemented procedures to ensure the qualification and training of its academic staff. These procedures applied the general requirements for qualifications and experience of lecturers defined in the Law of Ukraine on Higher Education. NUOMA developed its internal regulations on qualification and experience of lecturers, in line with the relevant provisions of the legislation. These internal regulations included the specific requirements for each lecturer category and position. The general qualification requirement for lecturers was to hold a Master's degree in a relevant speciality. Lecturing experience and training was also a general requirement for al lecturing categories. Assistants and junior lecturers were required to undergo training in teaching methodologies, in addition to the training in this area that they received during their Master's degree programme, which was a common requirement for these programmes offered by all universities in Ukraine. Candidates for senior lecturer positions were required to have three years of experience as lecturer. In addition, lecturers delivering subjects related directly to the standards of competence specified in the STCW Code were required to hold a relevant certificate of competency and seagoing experience. Moreover, all lecturers were required to complete a training course on instructional techniques and assessment methods, which was based on the recommendations of IMO model course 6.09 Training Course for Instructors’ and delivered by NUOMA instructors. NUOMA required lecturers appointed as instructors for subjects or courses requiring the use of simulators to complete a training course that was based on the recommendations of IMO Model Course 6.10 Training for Simulator Instructors’ and delivered by NUOMA lecturers. In addition, NUOMA required each simulator instructor to complete training on the operation of the specific simulator to be used for instruction delivered by the simulator manufacturer. ns V6, VB and 1/12 63.4 Training facilities - Regulati NUOMA implemented procedures for ensuring the availabilty of training facilities and equipment under its QMS. Several simulators were available, including a full mission navigation simulator with six navigation bridges equipped with Radar ARPA and ECDIS simulation units; an ECDIS simulator, a GMDSS simulator; a full mission engine- room simulator for internal combustion engines to simulate main propulsion machinery; and an additional engine- room simulator. There were also several laboratories and workshops available for training, including an English language laboratory, a ship's stability, dry cargo and liquid cargo operations laboratory equipped with computer programmes for conducting relevant exercises and practices; and a navigation laboratory including material for practical exercises on chartwork and voyage planning. In addition, concerning engineering subjects, NUOMA had available an electro- technology laboratory, an electrical engines laboratory: an automation and control systems laboratory: an electronic systems laboratory; a high voltage laboratory and workshop and a refrigeration systems’ workshop. Moreover, there was an internal combustion engines’ workshop equipped with two diesel generators; a diesel engines workshop for practical exercises maintenance and repairs; a welding workshop and a machine tools workshop, including lathe machines and metal drill and cutting machines. 260 I SP sTow.2017-ax0874European Martine Safety Agency IsPECTION REPORT Concerning ancillary training covering the standards of competence specified in Chapter VI of the STCW Convention, NUOMA had available the following equipment = Afire-fighting facility, including some fire-fighting equipment, namely, fire-fighting personal protection suits, breathing apparatuses, extinguishers of different types, hoses and nozzles, and a foam generator. However, this facility did not include an appropriate fire pit to carry out practical demonstration in extinguishing extensive fires with water using jet and spray nozzles, as required by Section A-Vi/1.2.1.2 of the STCW Coda, = Asswimming pool for training in personal survival techniques, including some relevant equipment, namely lifejackets, immersion suits and a lferaft with part of its required equipment; = Arescue boat for training in survival craft and rescue boats, which was mounted on gravity davits on board a training sailing ship. However, the training equipment did not include location devices, portable radio equipment, radio life-saving appliances used on survival craft, ie. SART and satellite EPIRB, pyrotechnic distress signals and a hydrostatic release unit, and therefore, training and assessment of competence in the use of this equipment could not be carried out as required in Sections AMI/1.2.1.1.1 and AVI2.4 of the STCW Cade In conclusion, NUOMA did not fully ensure that its training designed to cover the standards of competence specified in Section A-VI/1.2.1.2 on fire prevention and fire-fighting, and its training designed to cover the standards of competence specified in Sections A-VI/1.2.1.1.1 and A-Vi/2.4 on personal survival techniques and in survival craft and rescue boats, respectively, included the media of delivery necessary to achieve those standards of competence, as required by Section A-V6.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention). NUOMA ensured that maintenance of the training facilities and equipment was conducted and kept relevant records 63.5 Monitoring and supervision of training - Regulations V6 and U8 NUOMA implemented several procedures for monitoring and supervising the delivery ofits programmes and training courses. The lecturers kept records of the attendance of students at lectures and training sessions in a logbook They also recorded the results obtained by the students in all examinations by means of a computer application which facilitated monitoring the students’ progress through the subjects and the programme. Control of students’ progress was carried out at three levels: an almost continuous control carried out by the lecturers, a control at the end of each semester and an annual control. Each department responsible for implementing a programme monitored the students’ progress through that programme and reported to NUOMA's Scientific Council, which was, responsible for analysing overall progress and for proposing improvements in the teaching system. The lecturers were required to report any problems individual students were having in passing the exams to the Dean's office, which was responsible for taking appropriate action The Dean's office supervised the delivery of lectures and practical training sessions in laboratories, workshops and other facilities regularly, mainly by means of the lecture logbooks. In addition, NUOMA implemented a system of lecture observation by which NUOMA supervised the delivery of lectures and training sessions. The Dean's office maintained relevant records In addition, NUOMA ensured the implementation of a procedure for monitoring the on-board training performed by its students. The Training Department’ was responsible for conducting the relevant activities. The NUOMA cadets were interviewed on the content of their TRB after returning from their on-board training. The conclusions from these interviews were recorded. The TRB format was designed by NUOMA and approved by the MESU in the framework of its accreditation of the programme concerned. According to the structure of the MET programmes accredited by the MESU, some students completed at least six months, out of the required twelve months’ seagoing service serving in a capacity as ordinary seaman, when following a deck officer programme, or as wiper in the engine department when following an engineer officer programme. However, NUOMA did not implement any specific provision or method for ensuring that the students serving in those capacities on board ship followed the required on-board training programme and received systematic practical training and experiance in the tasks, duties and responsibilities of an OOW or of an OEW, as appropriate, as required by Sections A-I/1.6 and ALll/t.2 of the STCW Code (see section 5.6). INSP.STow 2017.ax0874 39/50INSPECTION REPORT European Martine Safety Agency 636 Use of simulators - Regulations 1/8 and 1/12 The use of simulators for training activities was covered by a quality procedure and internal regulations. The NUOMA instructors used several simulator exercises that were loaded in the simulator computer system by its manufacturer. In addition, the NUOMA instructors also developed some simulator exercises for training purposes and these were tested and validated before their use in training and assessment sessions. Paper copies of the simulator exercises were also retained. The training objectives, tasks, performance criteria and, where applicable, assessment criteria were clearly defined. The instructors reviewed the simulator exercises each year. The instructors conducted some preliminary sessions on the simulators to familiarise the students with the operational characteristics of the simulator. In addition, the instructors conducted a briefing session before starting the simulator exercises and completed them with a debriefing in which the results and activities were discussed with the students, During the simulator exercises, the instructors evaluated the performance of the students in completing the exercise tasks 637 Examination - Regulations V6,1/8 and 1/12 NUOMA implemented relevant procedures to ensure the conduct of the examination activities. The lecturers for programme subjects submitted the students to a continuous assessment system during the semester by means of, oral and practical tests, as well as problem-solving assignments. At the end of each semester, the students were required to sit a final examination, which in most cases took the form of an oral exam. The lecturers prepared the examination questions and updated them every academic year. According to the internal regulations, a final mark was calculated at the end of each semester subject using established criteria and taking into account the results from the continuous assessment system and the result of the end of semester examination. Results from exams were kept in lecturer's logbooks for one year and in the Dean's office for five years. The examination activities required for ancillary training courses were established for each training course. In general, the instructors required each student to demonstrate the relevant skills by performing several practical exercises conducted duting the course. In addition, the instructors required students to sit some written tests, for which the pass mark was 70%. The NUOMA instructors kept relevant records of the examination activities. 638 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 12 and 18 The system for the admission of students to NUOMA was administered and managed by the MESU at national level in compliance with the established requirements. The secondary school graduates applying for admission were required to take a general university entry examination. The Central Examination Commission at national level assigned the students to the universities and other higher education institutions they had applied for, provided that, the applicants had passed the entry examination. Applicants had to comply with the medical fitness requirements to be admitted. NUOMA’s medical centre cartied out the relevant medical examinations. The activities concerning the admission of students carried out by NUOMA were limited to the registration of the new students that met the requirements of the Central Examination Commission. These activities followed relevant procedures covered by the QMS. NUOMA kept relevant records, NUOMA organised and cartied out the activities relevant for the issue of degree diplomas and certificates of training following established procedures. The Dean's Office prepared a list of students who completed all the requirements of the relevant programme upon receipt of the relevant information. This list was forwarded to the ‘Department for organisation of studies’, which prepared the draft diploma after having obtained the diploma numbers from the national register of education diplomas NUOMA issued cattficates of training to those students who completed ancillary training courses approved by the SSUTS. In accordance with the applicable procedures, NUOMA maintained relevant records of the certificates of training that had been issued and forwarded a list of the candidates who had completed the training courses satisfactorily to the ITCS. NUOMA had designed the format of these documents since there were no legal provisions in this respect. Some of these certificates of training, namely those issued for the courses in Radar ARPA, survival craft and rescue boats, advanced fire-fighting and basic safety, included a heading stating “certificate of proficiency” despite that the MIU, through the ITCS, was responsible under the national legislation for issuing the CoP required by the relevant provisions of the STOW Convention. 60 InsP sTOW.2017-ax0874European Marte Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT 64 Education and Training Complex “Admiral” 641 Quality management - Regulation 18 ETCA implemented a QMS based on the ISO 9000-2015 quality management system standard and was certified under it until August 2018. The scope of the QMS covered all the training activities undertaken by ETCA The QMS was documented by means of a quality manual, quality procedures and work instructions. ETCA defined a quality policy, which included an explicit commitment to ensure that its training activities meet the relevant STCW Convention requirements The quality policy was controlled by the date of issue, although this control method did not ensure that only the last version of the document was used. In addition, ETCA defined a number of quality objectives, although these were not associated with any target and, therefore, the degree of achievement of those objectives could not be determined. This was not consistent with the provisions of Section A-V8.2 of the STCW Code, as ETCA did not fully establish the systems and controls ofits QMS to ensure achievement of the defined objectives (Shortco Regulation \/8 of the STCW Convention). The QMS provided for processes to manage the resources needed for the activities, including the instructors ETCA appointed a qualify management representative to ensure that the QMS was properly implemented and maintained. Feedback from trainees was collected at the end of each training course and ETCA kept reports of the analyses of the feedback carried out. ETCA planned and carried out internal audits once a year. These audits covered all the processes under the scope of the QMS and all personnel involved. The internal audit reports, as well as relevant documentation, including follow up of corrective and preventive actions and risk analysis reports, were available. In addition, ETCA held a management review meeting each year after the annual internal audit was completed. Minutes of meatings of the management review were available, Records of the external audits of ETCA carried out by the certification body that issued the certificate of conformity of the QMS with the applied quality management system standard were also available 642 Programme and course design, review and approval - Regulations 12,116,1/8,1/12 and 1/15 ETCA implemented a procedure for the design, development and approval of its training courses. This procedure required a team of instructors to be established for conducting the course design and development tasks. The procedure required the team to develop the course learning objectives, timetables, lesson plans, classroom presentations, assessment tests and other course documents, in line with the instructors’ professional experience and following the recommendations of the relevant IMO model course. In addition, the procedure required the course design team to identify and document the training faciliies and equipment required to deliver the training, as well as to identify the appropriate course material (relevant reference and legal texts, professional books and written works, etc.) ETCA implemented a procedure for the review of ETCA's documentation. However, this procedure was of a general character and it did not include specific provisions to ensure that the training courses were effectively evaluated and reviewed. In this regard, the EMSA inspectors found that the training course delivered by ETCA on "Radar, ARPA bridge teamwork and Search and Rescue (Radar navigation at Management Level)"did not include content or reference to a "knowledge, understanding and proficiency” item, namely “blind pilotage planning’, which was introduced, as a consequence of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, in Section A-lW2 (Table A.IV2) of the STCW Code specifying the minimum standard of competence for masters and chief mates on ships of 500 GT or more. In addition, the documentation of the training courses for certification in basic training for oil and chemical tanker cargo operations and in basic training for liquefied gas tanker cargo operations did not identify the training facilities and materials to be used for the capacity “carry out fire-fighting operations”, which is specified in the relevant minimum standards of competence of the STCW Code, e.g. Sections A-W/i-1 (Table A-V/I-1-1) and AV/2-1 (Table A-VII-2-1) and for which these sections require practical exercises and instruction under approved realistic training conditions as the single method for demonstrating competence. The above sections of the STCW Code were amended completely by the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code, which incorporated the specification of the minimum standards of competence concerned by means of the tables mentioned above. Therefore, the procedure for the review of ETCA’s documentation, as well as the procedure for the design, development and approval of its training courses, did not ensure that amendments to the standards of competence INsP.sTow.2017-4x0878 36150INSPECTION REPORT European Martine Safety Agency directly related to the training courses were considered, and courses were reviewed accordingly, with a view to incorporating relevant changes covering the amended standards of competence in the learning objectives, course contents, training materials, facilities and equipment or in other course elements. In consequence, ETCA did not fully ensure that its training designed to cover the minimum standards of competence specified in Sections A-lW2, A-VI1-1 and A-VI2-1 was structured and included the methods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve those standards of competence, as required by Section A: 1/6.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation U6 of the STCW Convention) 643 Qualification and training of assessors, instructors and supervisors - Regulations 1/6, 1/8 and 42 The ETCA implemented a procedure for selecting and recruiting the staff, which concerned instructors, assessors and supervisors, and included provisions for ensuring their training and appraisal. The procedure required ETCA to define the structure, level and type of staff appropriate for the education and training services provided. ETCA identified general competences, specific qualifications and experience required of the staff in job descriptions. During the recruitment process, ETCA verified the relevant requirements of the applicants for instructor positions against the job descriptions. Before newly recruited instructors were appointed to deliver training, they were required to undergo a 3-month induction process, during which they had to complete a training course in instructional techniques and assessment methods. This training course was designed by ETCA based on the recommendations of IMO model course 6.09, was approved by the SSUTS, and was delivered by ETCA’s own instructors. In addition, the procedure required that new lecturers had to prepare and deliver two training sessions or lectures under the supervision of a senior instructor. At the end of the induction process, senior instructors and managers evaluated the new instructors before appointing them as instructors for a longer period. The new instructors whose training tasks required the use of simulators for training and assessment were required, in addition to the above process, to complete a training course in the use of simulators. This training course was delivered by ETCA simulator instructors, who designed it based on IMO model course 6.10 “Train the Simulator Trainer and Assessor’. Moreover, ETCA required new simulator instructors to complete training to familiarise them on the use of the particular simulator they would use during the training, which was delivered by personnel from the simulator manufacturer. Furthermore, ETCA required the new simulator instructors to conduct two training courses using the particular simulator under the supervision of a senior simulator instructor. In addition, ETCA prepared and implemented an annual staff training plan. ETCA maintained records of the qualifications, training and experience of, all its instructors and other staff members. 644 Training facilities - Regulations 6,18 and 1/12 The procedure for the design, development and approval of training courses implemented by ETCA required the identfication of training facilities and equipment to be used to deliver the intended training. In addition, ETCA implemented procedures for purchasing, procuring and maintaining the facilties and equipment needed for the provision of its courses. ETCA kept relevant records of those activities. ETCA had its training facilties and equipment in three different locations. It owned a covered swimming pool specifically designed for delivering its training in personal survival techniques and in several competences required for the training in survival craft and rescue boats. ETCA kept the relevant training equipment in the swimming pool building, which also held some classrooms for the theoretical training sessions. In particular, a lferaft and its, equipment were available for practicing demonstration of the relevant competences and immersion suits and lifejackets were also available. However, ETCA did not have pyrotechnic distress signals available for practical demonstration of the abilty to use them, as required by the minimum standard of competence specified in Section A- Vid (Table A-Vi22-1) of the STCW Code for proficiency in survival craft and rescue boats ETCA maintained a training centre at a location with direct access to a dock in the port area. This centre included a lifeboat station with an open lifeboat on a launching appliance using falls and a winch, as well as a fire-fighting facilty. The launching device and lifeboat appeared to be maintained in operation and records of relevant maintenance activities were kept. The fire-fighting facilty included a two-level metal structure equipped with closing doors, a structure inside resembling ship spaces, which included a vertical ladder linking its lower and upper levels. This structure was used for practical demonstration of competences in firefighting in darkness and smoke-filed spaces, as well as to demonstrate practically the use of high expansion foam in fire-fighting operations. Several 2060 INSP.sTew 2017-ax0074European Martime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT compressed air breathing apparatuses, portable extinguishers of different types, hoses, nozzles, foam generator and fireman outfits were available for use in practical exercises. The facility included a fire pit and tray of at least one square metre for ol fires and solid fires. However, the facility did not include any means for gas fires or an installation equipped with a fire pit, tray and gas supply or similar, and there was no dry chemical powder (DCP) installation or demonstrator with similar features to the DCP installations found on board liquefied gas tankers, oil tankers and chemical tankers, in order to conduct practical exercises and instruction for demonstrating competence in the use of fixed dry chemical system operations, as required by the minimum standard of competence specified in Section A-ViI -2 (Table A-VIN -2-1) of the STCW Code for basic training in liquefied gas tanker cargo operations and in Section A-V/1-1 (Table A-VI1-1-1) for basic training in oil and chemical tanker cargo operations. ETCA had available a fast rescue boat, which was used in its approved training course on fast rescue boats, However, there was no launching equipment and appliance as commonly fitted on board ships with fast rescue boats, in order to conduct practical demonstration in the abilty to control the safe launching and recovery of the fast rescue boat, as required by the minimum standard of competence specified in Section A-VI2 (Table A-V1/2-2) of the STCW Code ETCA delivered the courses “Radar Navigation, Radar Plotting and use of ARP A (operational leve)” and "Radar Navigation at management level, ARPA, Bridge Teamwork Search and Rescue "designed to cover the relevant standards of competence specified in Sections Ali and A-II2 with the use of a Radar and ARPA simulator. However, the certificate of the software governing this simulator, which was issued in May 2014 and was valid until May 2018, stated that such software was in compliance with two IMO Assembly Resolutions that had not been in force since 2001 (namely Resolutions A.482(XIl) and A 483(XiIl), which were revoked by Resolution A921 (22) on standards for training in Radar and ARPA), and that it was also compliant with the requirements of the STCW Convention and Code in its 1995 version. Therefore, ETCA could nat demonstrate that the Radar and ARPA simulator used for those courses included all the features and capabilities necessary for achieving the relevant standards of competence As a consequence, ETCA did not fully ensure that its training designed to cover standards of competence specified in Sections AWW1, All2, AVI2, A-VIt-1 and A-VIt-2 included the media of delivery necessary to achieve those standards of competence, as required by Section AU5.1.1 of the STCW Code (Shortcoming: Regulation I/6 of the STCW Convention) 645 Monitoring and supervision of training - Regulations 6 and 18 ETCA implemented relevant procedures to monitor and supervise the delivery of its training courses. The instructors, kept records of the attendance of students at training sessions, the theoretical and practical sessions delivered, the practical training exercises conducted by each student, the assessment exercises carried out and the marks obtained by the students. The procedure implemented by ETCA required the instructors to monitor all practical training sessions and to ensure that each student completed all the required training tasks successfully as defined in the course documentation. The information collected in those records was used by the ETCA managers to supervise the delivery of the training courses. 646 Use of simulators - Regulations V8 and 1/12 ETCA required the instructors using simulators to follow a defined procedure for preparing and conducting the training sessions using the simulators. The instructors allowed the students to familiarise themselves with the simulators before conducting a training exercise. The instructors briefed the students on the tasks to be conducted or skills to be assessed during the simulator training or assessment session. In addition, the instructors monitored the students continuously while performing the simulator exercises, and provided a debriefing on the exercise once the students completed the exercise. However, ETCA did not fully ensure that the simulator exercises met the relevant provisions of Section A-W12, paragraphs 6,7 and 8, of the STCW Code. In particular, the documentation on the simulator exercises did not include a description of the specific training objectives. Moreover, performance and assessment criteria were not clearly and explicitly established. Furthermore, the simulator exercises, which were designed by simulator instructors, were not tested before they were used in training or assessment sessions to ensure that they were suitable for the training objectives (Shortcoming: Regulation 1/12 of the STCW Convention). InsP. sTow2017-ax0a74 a1INSPECTION REPORT European Martime Safety Agency 647 Examination - Regulations 1/6,1/8 and 1/12 ETCA ensured that the examination methods to be used for assessing the competence of the students were defined for each training course. The students were required to demonstrate their skills in the tasks required by performing those specific tasks at the times required during the course. The instructors ensured that the tasks carried out by the students were completed successfully before considering the student as competent. The assessment method also included oral and written tests, designed as multiple-choice as well as questions requiring a short description as an answer. Some training courses required a final examination or the completion of a simulator exercise at the end of the course. The course instructors prepared the examination questions and exercises, which were approved by a supervisor or senior instructor. ETCA kept relevant records of the exams conducted and the marks obtained 648 Admission of students and issue of documentary evidence - Regulations 1/2 and 1/8 ETCA implemented a procedure for the admission of students. The entry requirements for each training course were specified and implemented through the procedure, Some training courses required the students to undergo a medical fitness examination or to produce a valid medical fitness certificate for seafarers. Relevant documentation was kept in an electronic database In addition, ETCA applied a procedure for the issue of documentary evidence of training. The procedure required the issue of such evidence once the responsible instructor concluded the course and the successful students were listed as having finished the course. ETCA kept a database of the documentary evidence of training it had issued, including the number of the document and date of the training course. The format of the documentary evidence was defined in the procedure approved by ETCA as a “certificate of proficiency’, although they were not the actual CoPs required by the relevant regulations of the STCW Convention as these were issued by the ITCS through the HMOs (see section 57). 7. Summary of findings 7.14 Review of national provisions TCW [Description of shortcoming ection in reference report 29. 1. t [Order 491 stipulates the requirements for instructors for training courses covering the minimum standards of competence specified in Sections IV, V, and V1 of the ISTCW Code and for training courses addressing specific KUP items required under he standards of competence of Sections All/t, A-WU2, All, All! and A. II/2. However, Order 491 does not require instructors to have completed training in lassessment methods and practice, as required by Section A-U6.7 of the STCW. ICode. in addition, the same Order does not require instructors to have received lappropriate guidance in assessment methods and practice and to have gained ractical assessment experience, as specified in Section A-V6.3 and 4 7.2 Review of requirements for certification STCW Description of shortcoming [Section in leference report eg. 11 ik [According to the provisions of Order 567, appendix 1, candidates for CoCs that are lendorsed for service in a capacity as OOW on ships of 500 GT or more, with no limitations, are not required to complete training and assessment in ECDIS and in {bridge resource management’. Those provisions are not consistent with the Ininimum standard of competence specified in Section A-lI/1.2 for OOW on ships of| (00 GT or more, which requires candidates for a CoC as OOW on ships of 500 GT lor more the knowledge, understanding and proficiency in ECDIS and ‘bridge fesource management’ specified in Table A-IV1 of the STCW Code. In addition, the labove provisions of Order 567 are not consistent with the terms of Sections A. 32160 InsP stow 2017-4x0873European Martime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT [11/1.1.1 and AAW 5, which require candidates for a CoC as OOW on ships of 500, sT or more to demonstrate competence to undertake the tasks, duties and esponsibilities associated with the competences listed in Table A-Iit relevant to nowledge, understanding and proficiency in ECDIS and ‘bridge resource ‘anagement’ and to provide evidence of having achieved the required standard of ompetence in accordance with the methods for demonstrating competence and he criteria for evaluating competence as specified in Table AW ndorsed for service in a capacity as OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of 750) .W propulsion power or more are not required to complete training and }Ssessment in ‘engine-room resource management. Those provisions are not consistent with the minimum standard of competence specified in Section A-II/1 4 for OEW an ships of propulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more, hich requires candidates for a CoC as OEW on ships of propulsion machinery of ’50 KW propulsion power or more the knowledge, understanding and proficiency in fengine-room resource management’ specified in Table Aull/1 of the STCW Code. in addition, the above provisions of Order 567 are not consistent with Sections A- V1.3 and A-WVI.9, which require candidates for a CoC as OEW on ships of ropulsion machinery of 750 kW propulsion power or more to demonstrate ability to indertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities associated with the competences listed in Table A-lll1 relevant to knowledge, understanding and proficiency in fengine-room resource management’ and to provide evidence of having achieved he required standard of competence in accordance with the methods for femonstrating competence and the criteria for evaluating competence as specified in Table AIA eg. TTT fred to the provisions of Order 567, appendix 1, candidates for CoCs that are i feos 171.26 andl. se, 567 includes provisions allowing the ITCS and the State Qualification ‘ommission (SQC) to approve service completed by candidates for certification on hips of between 80 GT and 500 GT as qualifying seagoing service for the issue of ‘oC endorsed for service in a deck officer or master capacity on ships of 500 GT f More, as well as to approve service completed by candidates for certification on hips powered by main propulsion machinery of between 55 kW and 750 kW ropulsion power as qualifying seagoing service for the issue of CoCs endorsed for in engineer officer capacity on ships of main propulsion machinery of 750 kW. ropulsion power or more. Also, Order 567 includes provisions by which the ITCS ind the SQC approve service completed by candidates for certification on fishing hips, ships operating in inland waters and in port waters as qualifying seagoing ervice for the issue of CoCs for masters, dack officers and engineer officers. jowever, the service allowed by the above Ukrainian provisions by candidates for fre issue of those CoCs and endorsed for the referred capacities does not meet the quirements for approval of seagoing service established by Section V2.5 of the sTCW Code and is not consistent with the definition of ‘seagoing service’ provided in Regulation 1/1.26 of the STCW Convention. In addition, the Ukrainian legislation joes not include criteria to ensure that service on ships below the tonnage or ropulsion power limits of the CoC to be issued, or on board vessels that are utside the scope of application of the Convention, is relevant to the qualification pplied for, meets the requirements for being approved and enables the candidates| 0 achieve the required competences ection A-V2.5 of the STCW Code provides that the objective of the seagoing ervice to be approved and be completed by candidates for certification under the sTCW Convention “isto allow the seafarers to be instructed in and to practice, lunder appropriate supervision, those safe and proper seagoing service practices, rocedures and routines which are relevant to the qualification applied for" Regulation 1/125 ofthe STCW Convention establishes that seagoing sevice! jeans “service on board a ship relevant to the issue or revalidation of a certficate r other qualification”. ervice on board the ships referred to in the above provisions of Order 567 does hot enable seafarers to be instructed in and to practise all the safe and proper, Isp. stow2017-axga74 20/50[seagoing practices, procedures and routines relevant to the qualifications required for those CoCs and capacities, a8 required by Section AlD.6 ofthe SLEW fin [This is because such ships do not provide all the conditions for the candidates fo {certification to complete a service that enables them to be instructed and to practise, as required by Section A-V2.5, because the operational and maintenance Jprocedures of ships of the type and of the limited tonnage, propulsion power and larea of operation referred to in Order 567 are significantly diferent to and technically not comparable with the manning, navigation, handling, equipment and |cargo procedures, as well as with the operation and maintenance procedures of the| Inain and auxiliary machinery of seagoing ships of unlimited tonnage, propulsion power and area of navigation for which the CoCs to be issued are valid. Therefore, the Ukrainian legislation does not ensure that the seagoing service performed by |candidates for certification is relevant for certification as masters and deck officers land engineer officers under Regulations 11/1, 1/2, 3 11/1, Ill and lll, as lappropriate BEY Age 3 Taspection of the Maritime Administration Istcw keference Description of shortcoming ISection in keport eg. 6 [The national standards for the basic training in oil and chemical tanker cargo loperations and for the basic training in liquefied gas tanker cargo operations, lathough providing that the training must cover Sections A-V/1-1.1 and A-Vi1-2.1 of the STCW Code, did not require the candidates to conduct practical exercises and instruction under approved and truly realistic conditions as a method to ldemonstrate competence in carrying out fire-fighting operations, as required by the labove Sections of the STCW Code in Tables AVIt -1-1 and A-VIl -2-1 in addition, the SSUTS did not fully ensure that the amendments to the minimum Istandard of competence specified in the STCW Code were covered after they were introduced in the Code and before they entered into force. This was found for the raining in “Radar, ARP A, Bridge Teamwork and Search and Rescue (Radar IWavigation at Management Leve)” The corresponding national standard required hat the training must cover the relevant competences in accordance with Section féll2 of the STCW Code, although it does not specifically identify which |competences they were. In addition, the national standard required the training [courses to be designed in accordance with IMO model course 1.08. However, the KUPs associated with the competence concetned in Table A-lU2, namely “maintain |safe navigation through the use of information from navigation equipment and |systems to assist command decision making” and "establish watchkeeping larrangements and procedures’, were amended in 2010 while the version of the IMO model course 1.08 in use at the time of the inspection had been issued in [1999 and, obviously, could not cover the relevant standard of competence as i jas amended in 2010. Therefore, the procedure for approving these training |courses and for maintaining them updated did not fully ensure that the training and lassessment concerned was structured and included methods, procedures and |course material necessary to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as lequired by Section A-U6.1.1 of the STCW Code eg. 5 [The SSUTS required candidates for instructor positions to provide “documentary levidence of training in instructional techniques, methods and practice in laccordance with the requirements of Section A-V/6 and B-V6 of the STCW Code" [Section A-US of the STCW Code establishes that each Party to the Convention [shall ensure that the qualification of instructors conducting training and assessment| ithin an institution "incorporate training in instructional techniques and training in lassessment methods and practice’, and Section B-V6 does not include any specific lguidance to implement those requirements. However, the SSUTS neither specified such training nor defined criteria for accepting training as InsP. STOW 2017-axoe74European Marine Safety Agency IsPECTION REPORT fresing ose objectives in order to ensure the implementation of the above quirements. [The MESU did not establish provisions within the accreditation requirements for IET programmes to ensure that the on-board training to be followed by the tudents during the required period of seagoing service as part of those MET rogrammes met the requirements for such on-board training established in the elevant provisions of the STCW Code. The MESU accredited MET programmes hat allowed the MET institutions to accept that the students followed the on-board raining while performing seagoing service as ordinary seaman or wiper. However eagoing service in such posttions did not enable the students to receive yystematic practical training and experience in the tasks duties and responsibilities f an COW, an OEW or an ETO, as required by Sections A-li1.6, AlI36, Arlt 2 ind AvIIUG.2 of the STCW Code, and therefore, did not enable the students to ichieve the on-board training objectives and meet the standard of competence equired for certification as OOW, OEW or an ETO. Therefore, the MESU did not nsure that the on-board training that was part of the accredited MET programmes nabled the students to achieve the prescribed standard of competence, as equired by Section A-Il6.1.1 of the STCW Code 7.4 _ Inspection of Kherson State Maritime Academy ISTCW [Description of shortcoming leference Reg. 18 [The KSMA had defined several qualty objectives. However, these objectives were lnot measurable and, therefore, their achievement could not be determined. The IKSMA held a management meeting each year in which the results of internal audit hvere discussed and decisions were made for improving the QMS and its procedures, as stated by the KSMA managers. However, records of such management meetings, Le. agenda, minutes of meeting or other records on ldecisions made, were not kept. Ths, together with the lack of measurable quality lobjectves, as described above, was not consistent with the provisions of Section [V8.2 of the STCW Code, as the KSMA did not fully establish the systems and [controls of its GMS to ensure achievement of the defined objectives. ea IThe programme for ‘Bachelor in Navigation’ did not include reference and content f lon "knowledge of bind plotage techniques” conceming the competence "maintain le safe navigational watch’, and on “bind pilotage planning’relevant for the lcompetence ‘maintain safe navigation through the use of information from Jnavigation equipment systems to assist command decision making” as required by he minimum standards of competence specified in Sections A-lI.1, Table AIM, land A-li2.1, Table AII2, of the STCW Code, respectively. Therefore, the KSMA lid not fully ensure that ts MET programme for ‘Bachelor in ‘Navigation’, which hvas designed for covering the minimum standards of competence specified in [Sections Al/t and AvlI2 of the STCW Code, was structured and included the Imethods, procedures and course material necessary to achieve those standards of lcompetence, as requited by Section A-V6.1.1 of the STOW Code. 7.5 ___ Inspection of Kherson Maritime Specialized Training Centre STCW Description of shortcoming keference Ieport 2g. 0 ZT [An internal audit report examined during the inspection at the KMSTC included {tescriptions of eight findings identified during the audit. However, the report |contained the description of only one corrective action, designed to address one of he identified findings. The interviewed KMSTC managers stated that corrective INSP stow 2017-4x0878 41150INSPECTION REPORT European Maritime Safety Agency lactions were implemented for other findings but that this was not documented, lathough the relevant procedure required all corrective actions to be documented to lenable their control and to follow-up their implementation. This was not consistent ith the provisions of Section A-UB.2 of the STCW Cade, as the KMSTC did not ully establish the systems, controls and internal quality assurance reviews of its [QMS in order to ensure achievement of the defined objectives. [The training course on "GMDSS general operator's certificate’ included in its lyllabus, lesson plan and course material references on the operation of INMARSAT B satellite communication equipment, which was a GMDSS subsystem that was phase-out in December 2016. In addition, the training course on “Radar, JARP A, bridge teamwork and search and rescue did not include reference and [content on the KUP “blind pilotage planning’, which is required for the competence [maintain safe navigation through the use of information from navigation eguipment| |systems to assist command decision making’ as required by the minimum lstandards of competence specified in Section A-/2.1, Table A-lV2, of the STCW ICode and intended to be covered by this training course. Moreover, the syllabus land training plan of the training course in fire prevention and firefighting did not fequire trainees to conduct practical demonstration in “entering and passing through with Ifeline but without breathing apparatus, into a compartment into which lhigh-expansion foam has been injected” as a method to demonstrate competence in fight and extinguish fires, as required by the relevant standard of competence kspecified in Section A-VI/1.1.1.2 of the STCW Code, which was intended to be [covered by that training course. Therefore, the KMSTC did not fully ensure that its raining courses referred to above were structured and included the methods. procedures and course material necessary to achieve the relevant standards of competence, as required by Section A-U6.1.1 of the STCW Cade gS ‘ [The KMSTC only require 25% of the maximum number of students attending the raining course in personal survival techniques to perform a practical demonstration lof competence to right an inverted liferaft while wearing a lfejacket, as required by [Section A-VI/1.2.2 of the STCW Cade in Table A-Vi/1-1. In addition, the KMSTC lid not require students following the training in fire prevention and fire-fighting to perform practical demonstration of the ability to enter and pass through, with a lifeline but without a breathing apparatus, a compartment into which high- expansion foam was injected, as required by Section A-VI/1 2.2 of the STCW Code in Table A-Vi/1-2. Therefore, the KMSTC did not ensure that the training in those lareas included the methods, media of delivery and procedures necessary to lachieve the prescribed standard of competence 7.6 __ Inspection of National University ‘Odessa Maritime Academy TCW [Description of shortcoming [Section in ference report eo [The quality documentation included a description of several quality objectives. oT However, these objectives were not measurable and, therefore, the degree of lachievement could not be determined. This was not consistent with the provisions lof Section A-U8.2 of the STCW Code, as NUOMA did not fully establish the lsystems and controls of its QMS to ensure achievement of the defined objectives Regs 30 °9 INUOMA had available a fire-fighting facility, including some fire-fighting equipment, lnamely, fire-fighting personal protection suits, breathing apparatuses, extinguishers} lf different types, hoses and nozzles, and a foam generator. However, this facility ldid not include an appropriate fire pit to carry out practical demonstration in lextinguishing extensive fires with water using jet and spray nozzles, as required by [Section A-Vi/1.2.1.2 of the STCW Code. NUOMA had available a rescue boat for raining in survival craft and rescue boats, which was mounted on gravity davits on board a training sailing ship. However, the training 42150 wwsP.stow2017-Axee74European Martime Safety Agency INSPECTION REPORT quip ment did not include location devices, and portable radio equipment, as well 3s radio life-saving appliances used on survival craft, ie. SART and satelite EPIRB, pyrotechnic distress signals, and a hydrostatic release unit, and therefore, raining and assessment of competence in the use of this equipment could not be arried out as required in Sections A-VIN.2.1.1.1 and A-VI/2.4 of the STCW Code. in conclusion, NUOMA did not fully ensure that its training designed to cover standards of competence specified Section A-VI/1.2.1.2 on fire prevention and fire- Fighting, and its training designed to cover standards of competence specified ections A VI/1 2.1.1.1 and A-V1/2.4 in personal survival techniques and in survival raft and rescue boats, respectively, included the media of delivery necessary to chieve those standards of competence, as required by Section A 1/6.1.1 of the TOW Code Thspection of Education and Traming Centre Admiral sTCW [Description of shortcoming {Section in feference feport eg. 1 AT IETCA defined a number of quality objectives, although these were not associated ith any target and, therefore, the achievement of those objectives could not be ldetermined. This was not consistent with the provisions of Section A-V8.2 of the ISTCW Code, as ETCA did not fully establish the systems and controls of its QMS to ensure achievement of the defined objectives. eg. 16 IETCA implemented a procedure for the review of ETCA’s documentation. 4 However, this procedure was of a general character and it did not include specific provisions to ensure that the training courses were effectively evaluated and leviewed. In this regard, the EMSA inspectors found that the training course ldelivered by ETCA on “Radar, ARP A bridge teamwork and Search and Rescue |(Radar navigation at Management Leve) "did not include content or reference to [knowledge, understanding and proficiency” item, namely “blind pilotage planning’ hich was introduced, as a consequence of the amendments of the 2010 STCW [Convention and Code, in Section A-W2 (Table A-lV2) of the STCW Code specifying the minimum standard of competence for masters and chief mates on ships of 500 IGT or more. In addition, the documentation of the training courses for certification in basic training for oil and chemical tanker cargo operations and in basic training for liquefied gas tanker cargo operations did not identify the training facilities and Inaterials to be used for the capacity “carry out fire-fighting operations”, which is Ispecified in the relevant minimum standards of competence of the STCW Code, leg. Sections AVI-1 (Table AV/I-1-1) and A-VI2-1 (Table A: V/1-2-1) and for hich these sections require practical exercises and instruction under approved fealistic training conditions as the single method for demonstrating competence. [The above sections of the STCW Code were amended completely by the 2010 lamendments of the STCW Convention and Code, which incorporated the Ispecification of the minimum standards of competence concerned by means of the tables mentioned above. Therefore, the procedure for the review of ETCA's ldocumentation, as well as the procedure for the design, development and approval lf its training courses, did not ensure that amendments to the standards of |competence directly related to the training courses were considered, and courses jere reviewed accordingly, with a view to incorporating relevant changes covering the amended standards of competence in the learning objectives, course contents raining materials, facilities and equipment or in othar course elements. |n consequence, ETCA did not fully ensure that its training designed to cover the Ininimum standards of competence specified in Sections A-lI2, AVI-1 and A- VI2- [I was structured and included the methods, procedures and course material lnecessary to achieve those standards of competence, as required by Section A- [16.1.1 of the STCW Code Reg Il IETCA did not have pyrotechnic distress signals available for practical Ad Insp sTew2017-aea874 43150