1 / 19

UK Seafarers Analysis : Ten years on

UK Seafarers Analysis : Ten years on. David Glen CITM London Metropolitan University Presentation to IMSF Conference April 2007. Origins of the present ‘UK Seafarers Analysis’ Period of Transition Widening Scope of STCW95 Inclusion of CEC’s Details for certificated, uncert, & cadets

jaegar
Download Presentation

UK Seafarers Analysis : Ten years on

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UK Seafarers Analysis : Ten years on David Glen CITM London Metropolitan University Presentation to IMSF Conference April 2007

  2. Origins of the present ‘UK Seafarers Analysis’ • Period of Transition • Widening Scope of STCW95 • Inclusion of CEC’s • Details for certificated, uncert, & cadets • The Active Seafarer • Trends and Forecasts

  3. Background • Possible development of European wide Database under auspices of EMSA • Timely to review ‘lessons learned’ in publishing the Analysis from 1997

  4. Origins of Present ‘Analysis’ • State of play in 1997 • Use of STCW78 information • Original criteria for ‘counting seafarers’ • Certificated officers • Ratings • Cadets

  5. Period of Transition • Creation of MCA SDS database in 1998 • Fully operational in 2002 • Use of overlapping databases • Generated some instability in numbers

  6. Widening Scope of STCW95 • Yachts - MASTER (yachts) identifiable • Tugs and Inshore Craft • CECs on UK registered vessels

  7. Uncertificated officers • Not germane to ‘Strategic Interests’ • Germane to employment and significance of sector • Measured through UKCoS Manpower Survey

  8. Ratings • UKCoS main source • RMT database also examined, but not used

  9. Cadets • Originally used GAFT • Now use • Data from SMaRT • Cross referenced with MNTB data from training colleges and training providers • Issues • SMaRT includes EU nationals • Central database mooted but not developed • UK Data Protection Act used as barrier

  10. ‘The Active Seafarer’ • Certification method overstates numbers • Proportion ‘Active’ estimated • NUMAST survey 1999 • Cardiff University study of on-shore employment • Use 16% • Is an issue still

  11. Seafarer Retirement • Two types • Retirement from ‘active at sea’ • Retirement from working population • Deal with former by assuming a ‘wastage rate’ per year • Original assumptions were 57 and 65. • Now deal with latter by modelling a distribution around mean age of 62.

  12. Model Assumptions • Age profile of existing cert officers taken • Numbers and age distribution of new OOW officers based on cadet entry and wastage rates • ‘Wastage rates’ for 20-40, 40 to retirement • Retirement Age distribution applied around mean of 62

  13. Model Performance

  14. Source: Calculated by Author Note: Figures based on adjusted 2006 total. Proportional splits based on UKCoS survey for the year in which forecast is made.

  15. Forecast Performance • Not good • Consistently forecasting gloomier future than reality • Sources of error • Data • Cadet entry numbers • Assumptions on wastage rates • Model itself flawed

  16. Forecast Performance • Data • STCW95 widened scope so numbers are not strictly comparable • Can adjust for these differences

  17. Lessons for EMSA • Consistency in definition of ‘active seafarer’ • Core competencies should be identified – I.e. should ‘Tug & Inshore craft’ be included • Standard format for data transmission between national agencies & EMSA • Independent Hyperbase or Snapshot of data from National Agencies • Compliance with National & EU Data protection legislation may generate issues • Database design should be driven by information requirements, not admin needs • Certification ignores Ratings and Cadets – how to measure and monitor? • Projection models – alternatives to the Stock-flow eg demand based models?

  18. Concluding Remarks • Given the impression all is doom and gloom • Very great improvement since 1996 • Expect that further improvements will take place in the next 10 years

More Related