STCW Chapter II: Masters and Deck Department Officers

Background: STCW 1978 Convention origin

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 was adopted at an IMO conference in London on 7 July 1978 and entered into force on 28 April 1984 after ratification by the requisite number of States representing at least 50 per cent of world gross tonnage. Its adoption answered the long-standing structural problem that the qualification of merchant seafarers was, prior to 1978, regulated exclusively at the national level. Long-established maritime nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Greece, Japan, and the Scandinavian States operated elaborate national certification regimes reaching back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1850 (United Kingdom Board of Trade deck certificates) and to comparable nineteenth-century instruments in the other established States. These national systems were recognised on a bilateral or informal basis between cooperating administrations, but no universal minimum existed and the post-war growth of open-registry flag States (Liberia, Panama, Honduras, later the Marshall Islands and the Bahamas) produced a structural gap between the tonnage flying a flag and the capacity of that flag administration to oversee training.

The mid-twentieth-century casualty record drove the political momentum for a multilateral treaty. The 1967 Torrey Canyon grounding off Cornwall, the 1976 Argo Merchant grounding off Nantucket, and the 1978 Amoco Cadiz grounding off Brittany all involved vessels under open-registry flags and produced casualty investigation reports that cited navigational error and bridge-team failure as contributing factors with sufficient frequency that the IMO placed the human-element question before the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). A Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping prepared the draft text through the early 1970s. The 1978 conference, attended by 72 States, adopted the Convention text on 7 July 1978.

The 1978 instrument placed all substantive requirements directly in the Convention annex rather than in a separate code, as later became the practice. Regulations were grouped into five chapters: general provisions; master and deck department (Chapter II); engine department (Chapter III); radio department (Chapter IV); and special training requirements (Chapter V). Each regulation established minimum standards (approved education, sea service, training, and examination) that a certificate issued by a party was required to meet. The flag-State control model assigned primary enforcement to the issuing administration; port-State control under Regulation I/4 was empowered to verify that seafarers on foreign ships held Convention-compliant certificates but had limited means to assess whether the issuing administration’s training programme genuinely met the standard.

1995 amendments: ro-ro passenger and grandfathering

The 1995 amendments to STCW were adopted by the Conference of Parties on 7 July 1995 and entered into force on 1 February 1997. They represented the most far-reaching revision since 1978 and produced, in effect, a new instrument grafted onto the 1978 framework. Subsequent practice refers to it as STCW 78 as amended or STCW 95. The amendments introduced three structural innovations of direct relevance to Chapter II: the STCW Code structure separating mandatory Section A from recommendatory Section B, the white-list mechanism under Regulations I/7 and I/8 on quality-standards reporting, and the addition of mandatory ro-ro passenger ship training under Chapter V in response to the 6 March 1987 Herald of Free Enterprise capsize and the 28 September 1994 Estonia sinking.

For Chapter II specifically, the 1995 amendments preserved the structure of Regulation II/1 (OOW), Regulation II/2 (master and chief mate), Regulation II/3 (near-coastal), and Regulation II/4 (RFPNW), but transferred the detailed competence content from the Convention text into the new STCW Code Section A tables. The four-column Section A-II/1 table covering competence, knowledge, understanding and proficiency, methods for demonstrating competence, and criteria for evaluating competence became the operational reference for both flag-State approval of training programmes and port-State control inspection of certificates. Pre-1995 OOW certificates issued under the 1978 text were grandfathered under transitional provisions in Regulation I/15: holders could continue to use existing certificates until next revalidation, at which point the new Code-aligned standard applied.

The grandfathering window was set at five years, coinciding with the standard certificate validity, so that the entire global pool of Chapter II certificates was either revalidated under STCW 95 standards or expired by 1 February 2002. Administrations that issued large numbers of certificates without genuine assessment under the original 1978 standard faced concentrated white-list scrutiny in the 1997 to 2002 period as the grandfathered cohort phased out.

Manila 2010 amendments: key changes

The 2010 Manila Amendments were adopted at a Conference of Parties held in Manila, Philippines, from 21 to 25 June 2010, and entered into force on 1 January 2012, with a transitional period to 1 January 2017 during which holders of pre-2012 certificates could continue to use those certificates. The Manila package was the most extensive STCW revision since 1995 and addressed several areas where operational practice had moved substantially beyond the 1978/1995 framework. The principal Chapter II changes were:

• ECDIS familiarisation added as mandatory competence in Section A-II/1 for the OOW and in Section A-II/2 for the master and chief mate, with the requirement applicable to ECDIS-fitted ships from the 2012 to 2018 SOLAS Chapter V/19 carriage cascade.
• Bridge Resource Management (BRM) added as mandatory competence at both operational and management levels, codifying two decades of post-casualty research into bridge-team failure.
• Engine Room Resource Management (ERM) added under Chapter III in parallel.
• Refresher training and revalidation strengthened: the maximum interval between approved refresher and revalidation was clarified at five years, with no waiver provision; senior certificates for master, chief mate, chief engineer, and second engineer require competence assessment at revalidation rather than reliance on sea-service alone.
• Leadership and managerial skills added as a Section A-II/2 competence at management level, covering leadership styles, team dynamics, workload management, situational awareness, and decision-making under time pressure.
• Drug and alcohol limits: Section A-VIII/1 set a blood-alcohol concentration limit of 0.05 per cent for seafarers on watch or performing designated safety, security, or environment-protection duties.
• Rest-hours alignment with MLC 2006: minimum 10 hours rest in any 24-hour period plus minimum 77 hours rest in any 7-day period, with an alternative formulation permitting a maximum of 14 hours work in 24 and maximum 72 hours work in 7 days, subject to flag-State approval and operational documentation.
• Biometric certificate ID plus machine-readable identifiers added to Regulation I/2 to address the long-standing fraudulent-certificate problem.
• Regulation II/5 Able Seafarer Deck (AB) and Regulation III/5 Able Seafarer Engine added as new ratings-level standards.
• Electro-Technical Officer under Regulation III/6 and Electro-Technical Rating under Regulation III/7 added under Chapter III.

HTW comprehensive STCW review: ongoing as of 2026

The IMO Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW) launched a comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and Code around 2018 with the aim of addressing competency gaps that had opened since the Manila Amendments. The review is ongoing as of 2026; the 2010 Manila Amendments remain the in-force baseline for all Chapter II certificate requirements. No post-Manila comprehensive amendment package has yet entered into force.

Three subject areas dominate the HTW review agenda and are expected to form the basis of a future amendment package:

• Cyber-security awareness for bridge officers, recognising the vulnerability of integrated navigation systems, ECDIS, GMDSS, and the Automatic Identification System to cyber attack. This would codify into mandatory STCW competence the cyber risk-management obligation that IMO Resolution MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3 placed on ship operators under the ISM Code from 1 January 2021.
• Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) and remote-control operations training, addressing the training requirements for shore-based remote operators of MASS vessels and the supervisory duties of on-board personnel on vessels with automated bridge functions.
• Alternative-fuel familiarisation for LNG, methanol, and ammonia bunkering and propulsion operations, extending the Chapter V Regulation V/3 IGF Code training framework into Chapter II competences for masters and OOWs serving on alternative-fuel vessels.

Practitioners should monitor IMO MSC session reports for adoption resolutions once any amendment package is finalised and submitted to MSC for tacit-acceptance processing. Until adoption, the Manila text governs.

Regulation II/1: OOW on ships of 500 GT and above

Regulation II/1 is the foundational Chapter II provision, governing the certificate of competency for the Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch (OOW) on seagoing ships of 500 gross tonnage or more. The regulation requires that every candidate for certification meet five cumulative requirements:

1. Be not less than 18 years of age.
2. Have completed approved seagoing service of not less than 12 months as part of an approved training programme that includes onboard training meeting the requirements of Section A-II/1 and is documented in an approved training-record book; or alternatively, complete not less than 36 months of approved seagoing service.
3. Have completed approved education and training and meet the standard of competence specified in Section A-II/1.
4. Have completed STCW VI/1 basic safety training, VI/2 proficiency in survival craft, VI/3 advanced firefighting where applicable, and VI/4 medical first aid where applicable.
5. Have a valid medical fitness certificate under Regulation I/9.

Service in the cadet capacity on an approved training programme counts toward the seagoing-service requirement at rates fixed in the regulation, typically allowing up to 12 months of the 36-month track to be served as cadet under approved supervision documented in the Cadet Training Record Book (CTRB). The 12-month plus onboard-training pathway is the standard route in countries with structured maritime academies such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Netherlands, Philippines, and India; the 36-month direct-entry pathway is used in States with less institutionalised cadet schemes.

Sea service for the OOW certificate must be on ships of 500 GT or more. Service on smaller vessels does not count toward the unlimited OOW certificate unless the flag State specifically accepts a partial period on vessels of 200 GT or more as part of an approved programme. The competence demonstrated in Section A-II/1 must be verified through a combination of approved in-service training, examination, and simulator-based assessment in accordance with Section B-I/12 for several competences.

Regulation II/2: Master and chief mate on ships of 3,000 GT and above

Regulation II/2 governs the master and chief mate on ships of 3,000 gross tonnage or more. The regulation creates two distinct certificates: the master mariner and the chief mate, with the master qualification requiring chief-mate certification as a prerequisite. The minimum requirements are:

• For the chief mate on ships of 3,000 GT or more: hold a Regulation II/1 OOW certificate; have not less than 12 months approved seagoing service as OOW on ships of 500 GT or more; meet the standard of competence in Section A-II/2 at management level.
• For the master on ships of 3,000 GT or more: hold a Regulation II/2 chief-mate certificate; have not less than 36 months approved seagoing service as OOW of which at least 12 months as chief mate; meet the standard of competence in Section A-II/2 at management level for the master function.

Some flag-State implementations consolidate these as a single combined chief-mate-and-master examination, with the certificate progression triggered by accumulation of further sea service. Other administrations issue separate chief-mate and master certificates and require separate examinations.

The seagoing service for Regulation II/2 must be on ships of 500 GT or more, and the chief-mate qualifying service for the master certificate must be on ships of 3,000 GT or more under most flag implementations, though the IMO Code does not impose this restriction explicitly; most parties require it via national rules. Additional approved education and training programmes at management level, typically 12 to 18 months of structured study at a maritime academy or institution, are required to bridge the operational-level OOW competences to the management-level competences in Section A-II/2.

Regulation II/3: Near-coastal certificates for vessels under 3,000 GT

Regulation II/3 addresses two distinct tiers of near-coastal certification, both limited to near-coastal voyages as defined nationally by each flag State subject to IMO guidance.

The first tier covers the OOW on ships of 500 GT or more engaged on near-coastal voyages. The competence requirement is Section A-II/3, a reduced subset of Section A-II/1 omitting certain ocean-going competences such as long-range celestial navigation at the management level, advanced ARPA configurations for open-ocean operations, and extended ocean-passage planning. ECDIS, ARPA, GMDSS, and COLREGs application are retained in full.

The second tier covers the master, chief officer, and OOW on ships of less than 500 GT engaged on near-coastal voyages. This is a further reduced competence framework permitting small-vessel operators in short-range coastal and near-coastal trades to hold a certificate tailored to that vessel size and trading area.

For the OOW near-coastal certificate, the seagoing-service threshold is reduced to 12 months on ships of 500 GT or more with cadet service counting on the same basis as Regulation II/1. For the near-coastal master, qualifying service is 24 months as OOW of which 12 months must be as master or chief mate. The reduced-area certificate is not equivalent to a full Regulation II/1 OOW certificate: it does not authorise service on ships engaged on international voyages outside the defined near-coastal area, and revalidation must be on the basis of continued service within the area.

The “near-coastal voyage” definition is a national matter. Examples include the European near-coastal area covering the Baltic, North Sea, and Atlantic margin; the Caribbean region; and the Far Eastern coastal trade. The flag State must define the area, communicate it to the IMO, and ensure that sea service in the area is recognised by other parties for revalidation purposes.

Regulation II/4: Ratings forming part of a navigational watch

Regulation II/4 sets the competency standard for ratings forming part of a navigational watch (RFPNW) on seagoing ships of 500 GT or more. RFPNW is the deck-rating qualification carried by the able seaman performing lookout duty under the OOW’s direction. The Regulation II/4 minimum requirements are:

• Be not less than 16 years of age.
• Have completed not less than 6 months approved seagoing service including training and experience related to navigational watch functions; or alternatively, complete an approved special training programme of equivalent duration prior to going to sea.
• Meet the standard of competence in Section A-II/4, covering steering the ship and complying with helm orders, keeping a proper lookout by sight and hearing, contributing to monitoring and controlling a safe watch, use of internal communication and alarm systems, knowledge of distress and emergency signals, and contribution to mooring, anchoring, and other deck operations.

RFPNW certification is verified by the flag State and endorsed on the seafarer’s discharge book or seafarer identity document. The Section A-II/4 competence is assessed primarily through onboard demonstration under the OOW’s supervision, augmented by classroom or short-course delivery for the theoretical elements.

Regulation II/5: Able seafarer deck rating (added 2010)

Regulation II/5, added by the 2010 Manila Amendments, codifies the able seafarer deck (AB) rating: the senior deck rating who has progressed beyond RFPNW to a broader operational competency covering routine maintenance, deck operations, and supervision of less-experienced ratings. The Regulation II/5 minimum requirements are:

• Be not less than 18 years of age.
• Hold an RFPNW qualification under Regulation II/4 or equivalent.
• Have completed not less than 18 months approved seagoing service in the deck department, or 12 months with completion of approved training.
• Meet the standard of competence in Section A-II/5, covering contributions to a safe navigational watch, use of mooring equipment, stowage and securing of cargo, opening and closing of hatch covers, knowledge of survival-craft launching and recovery, application of fire-fighting, anti-piracy and anti-armed-robbery procedures, and basic shipboard medical first aid.

The AB rating is a recognised qualification under the ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006 and under the wage-grade structures negotiated through the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) uniform Total Crew Cost agreement. Pre-2010 AB qualifications issued under national systems were grandfathered into Regulation II/5 under Regulation I/15 transitional provisions, with the post-2017 cohort fully Manila-aligned.

Regulation structure summary: certificate tiers by GT

The five Chapter II Regulations address distinct vessel-size and voyage-type combinations. The table below shows the principal certificate types, their GT and voyage scope, and the required seagoing service.

STCW Code Section A (mandatory) vs Section B (guidance)

The STCW Code is divided into two parts. Part A contains mandatory minimum standards of competence specified in tabulated form. Each competence table sets out the competence required, the knowledge, understanding, and proficiency needed to demonstrate that competence, the methods for demonstrating competence (examination, approved in-service training, approved sea-going service, approved simulator training), and the criteria for evaluating competence. Part A provisions are binding on all parties; deviation requires formal IMO notification under Regulation I/13.

Part B contains recommended guidance, including IMO model courses for each training objective. Part B has no binding force under the Convention but carries significant practical weight because the IMO model courses developed to implement it are the principal reference against which flag-State training programmes are assessed at white-list submission and at IMSAS audit. Administrations that depart substantially from model courses must demonstrate to the IMO Secretariat that their alternative arrangements meet or exceed Part A standards.

For Chapter II, the principal Section A tables are A-II/1 for the OOW, A-II/2 for the master and chief mate, A-II/3 for the near-coastal master, chief officer, and OOW, A-II/4 for the RFPNW, and A-II/5 for the AB. Each table references functions and assigns each competence to the operational or management responsibility level.

Function-based competency framework

The STCW Code organises competences around functions rather than around traditional shipboard departments. The functions for deck-side certification under Chapter II are:

• Navigation (Function 1): the safe conduct of the ship, covering passage planning, position determination, watchkeeping, use of radar, ARPA, and ECDIS, manoeuvring, response to emergencies, distress at sea, and use of IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases.
• Cargo handling and stowage (Function 2): management of cargo loading, stowage, securing, care during voyage, and discharge, including stability and stress calculations.
• Controlling the operation of the ship and care for persons on board (Function 3): vessel management, statutory and environmental compliance, safety of crew, leadership and teamworking, emergency and damage-control planning, medical advice, and shipboard radio communications.

Each function is assigned at the operational level for the OOW under Regulation II/1 and Section A-II/1, and at the management level for the master and chief mate under Regulation II/2 and Section A-II/2. Some functions appear at both levels with progressively expanded competence; navigation, for example, is exercised at operational level by the OOW conducting the watch and at management level by the master establishing the watchkeeping arrangements and supervising the OOW team.

Responsibility levels: Operational vs Management

The STCW framework recognises three responsibility levels:

• Operational level: the officer performs assigned tasks, duties, or responsibilities under immediate personal control on board a ship. The OOW under Regulation II/1 holds an operational-level certificate.
• Management level: the officer has responsibility for the performance of functions and for the work of others. The master and chief mate under Regulation II/2 hold management-level certificates.
• Support level: the rating performs designated safety or pollution-prevention duties under the direction of someone at the operational or management level. RFPNW under Regulation II/4 and AB under Regulation II/5 are support-level qualifications.

Each responsibility level corresponds to specific evaluation criteria, with management-level competence assessment requiring demonstration not only of technical proficiency but of decision-making, delegation, resource management, and leadership competences absent from the operational level.

OOW pathway in major maritime States

The typical pathway to a Regulation II/1 OOW unlimited certificate in a major maritime nation such as the UK, Norway, India, Philippines, or Singapore is:

1. Pre-sea education: completion of an approved degree or diploma programme at a maritime academy covering the Section A-II/1 theoretical content, typically 2 to 4 years of structured study equivalent to EQF Level 6 in the European framework.
2. Approved cadet sea service: minimum 12 months as cadet under an approved CTRB programme on a ship of 500 GT or more, with structured supervision by a designated training officer.
3. Approved short courses: STCW VI/1 basic safety training, VI/2 survival craft, VI/3 advanced firefighting, VI/4 medical first aid, VI/6 security awareness, plus generic ECDIS and ARPA short courses.
4. Examination: oral, written, and for several competences simulator examinations administered by the flag-State examiner against the Section A-II/1 criteria.
5. Medical fitness certificate under Regulation I/9.

The 12-month cadet pathway is the predominant route; the 36-month direct-entry pathway permitted under Regulation II/1 is increasingly rare in the major-supply States as cadet programmes have become the standard recruitment channel for officer candidates.

Master pathway: sea service and training

The pathway to a Regulation II/2 master mariner unlimited certificate is:

1. Hold a valid Regulation II/1 OOW certificate.
2. Accrue not less than 12 months approved seagoing service as OOW on ships of 500 GT or more.
3. Complete the approved chief-mate management-level education programme, typically 6 to 12 months at a maritime academy bridging operational-level OOW competences to management-level competences in Section A-II/2, equivalent to EQF Level 7 in the European framework.
4. Pass the chief-mate examination against Section A-II/2 management-level criteria.
5. Hold a valid Regulation II/2 chief-mate certificate.
6. Accrue not less than 36 months approved seagoing service as OOW, of which at least 12 months as chief mate on ships of 3,000 GT or more.
7. Complete the approved master-level training, typically 3 to 6 months of structured study covering ship management, leadership, and commercial operations.
8. Pass the master examination.
9. Hold a current medical fitness certificate.

Total elapsed time from entry as cadet to master mariner is typically 8 to 12 years depending on the cadet pathway, sea-service intensity, and academic-progression schedule.

Section A-II/1 competences: passage planning, ARPA, ECDIS

Section A-II/1 specifies the standards of competence required of officers in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 GT or more. The competences in the Navigation function include:

• Plan and conduct a passage and determine position, covering position determination by celestial observation of the sun, stars, and planets; terrestrial observation; electronic position-fixing systems including GPS, GNSS, and DGPS; echo sounder; gyrocompass; and magnetic compass.
• Maintain a safe navigational watch, covering watchkeeping arrangements and principles, lookout, situational awareness, traffic monitoring, weather monitoring, and response to changes in sea state.
• Use of radar and ARPA including target acquisition and tracking, vector and relative-motion display, dangerous-target alarm setting, parallel-index navigation, and ARPA limitations and errors.
• Use of ECDIS including chart selection, scale-band management, route planning and monitoring, dangerous-target alarm and contour-alarm setting, ENC update procedure, and ECDIS sensor integration. This competence was added under the Manila 2010 amendments and made mandatory from 1 January 2017.
• Respond to emergencies: collision, grounding, fire, flooding, abandon ship, person overboard, and pollution incident.
• Respond to a distress at sea under SOLAS Chapter V Regulation 33.

Section A-II/1: SMCP, visual signalling, and manoeuvring

Additional Section A-II/1 OOW competences include:

• Use of IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) as set out in IMO Resolution A.918(22). SMCP provides standardised vocabulary for ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore radio communication, replacing the variable English-language phrasings that had contributed to communication failures in collision and grounding casualties.
• Transmit and receive information by visual signalling covering Morse light, flag signals, the International Code of Signals, and pyrotechnic distress signals.
• Manoeuvre the ship, covering reaction of the ship to engine and rudder commands, turning circles, advance and transfer, stopping distance, narrow-channel manoeuvring, manoeuvring in shallow water, anchoring, pilot embarkation, mooring approaches, and unmooring and sailing.

The manoeuvring competence is partly demonstrated at sea under approved supervision and partly in full-mission ship handling simulators under Section B-I/12 simulator-based assessment. ARPA, ECDIS, and radar competences are predominantly assessed in simulators, on the basis that controlled casualty scenarios cannot be created on a real vessel for examination purposes.

Section A-II/2: voyage planning, celestial navigation, and weather routing

Section A-II/2 specifies the management-level competences for master and chief mate on ships of 3,000 GT or more. The Navigation function competences include:

• Plan a voyage and conduct navigation at the management level, covering passage planning across ocean voyages, weather routing, ice routing where applicable, currents and tides analysis, and voyage optimisation against fuel consumption, arrival time, and cargo schedule.
• Determine position by celestial observation at the management level, covering high-altitude meridian-passage observation, twilight observations using multiple bodies, the intercept method (Marc Saint-Hilaire) for position fixing, time and longitude management, and celestial chronometer error rating.
• Determine and allow for compass errors: gyrocompass error sources including latitude error, course-and-speed error, ballistic error, and settling error; magnetic compass deviation determination by amplitude and azimuth observations; deviation-card maintenance.
• Coordinate search and rescue operations under the IAMSAR Manual, covering the role of the on-scene coordinator, search patterns, and recovery operations.
• Use weather routing services including obtaining and interpreting forecasts, weather-routing service outputs, decision criteria for course and speed adjustments to avoid heavy weather, and application of synoptic chart analysis to ship handling decisions.
• Establish watchkeeping arrangements and procedures: determination of bridge manning levels for routine and demanding operations including port approach, restricted visibility, heavy traffic, ice, and narrow channel; allocation of duties among the bridge team; and integration of the master into the bridge team during demanding operations.
• Maintain safety of navigation through navigation equipment at management level, covering identification of redundancy in the navigation suite, evaluation of navigation system failure modes, and decision criteria for system substitution such as paper-chart fallback and dead-reckoning when electronic positioning fails.
• Forecast weather and oceanographic conditions including reading synoptic charts, recognising hazardous weather signatures such as tropical cyclone vortex patterns, frontal convergence, polar low formation, and interpretation of satellite imagery and Doppler radar.

Section A-II/2: cargo, ballast, and environmental compliance

Master and chief mate competences in the cargo and operation functions of Section A-II/2 include:

• Plan and ensure safe loading, stowage, securing, care during voyage, and unloading of cargoes: trim and stability calculations, stress and bending-moment calculations, cargo securing arrangements, dunnaging and lashing, ventilation requirements for hygroscopic and self-heating cargoes, and segregation of dangerous goods under the IMDG Code.
• Assess reported defects and damage to cargo spaces, hatch covers, and ballast tanks and take appropriate remedial action.
• Carriage of dangerous goods competence under the IMDG Code, including segregation, stowage, documentation, and emergency response.
• Control trim, stability, and stress including damage stability calculations, GZ curve interpretation, free-surface effect management, and longitudinal strength calculations.
• Monitor and control compliance with legislative requirements ensuring safety of life at sea, security, and protection of the marine environment: SOLAS, MARPOL, ISPS, MLC, and ISM compliance verification, statutory document maintenance, and port-State control inspection preparation.

Section A-II/2: leadership, teamworking, and medical advice

The Manila 2010 management-level additions to Section A-II/2 include:

• Use leadership and managerial skills: knowledge of leadership styles, team dynamics, workload and crew-management, situational awareness, and decision-making under time pressure. This competence codified post-casualty research into bridge-team failure, drawing on accident investigations including the Royal Majesty 1995 grounding, the Costa Concordia 2012 grounding, and related analyses from the MAIB and NTSB.
• Develop emergency and damage-control plans and handle emergency situations: ship-specific emergency response plan development, drills programme, and casualty management.
• Apply medical advice including the means to obtain medical advice by radio: ship’s medical guide use, telemedicine via maritime medical services, and decision criteria for diversion to a port of refuge for medical reasons.
• Maintain safety and security of the vessel, crew, and passengers: drill schedule, equipment maintenance, and statutory document compliance.
• Apply the Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seafarers or the equivalent national instrument to all routine and non-routine shipboard operations.
• Communicate via shipboard radio at management level including GMDSS distress procedures and MF-HF and INMARSAT communications management.

ECDIS familiarisation mandatory under Manila 2010

The 2010 Manila Amendments inserted ECDIS familiarisation as mandatory competence in Section A-II/1 and Section A-II/2, with phased application keyed to the SOLAS V/19.2.10 ECDIS carriage cascade between 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2018. The mandatory competence has two layers:

• Generic ECDIS course: a 5-day approved course covering ECDIS principles, ENC structure, route planning and monitoring, alarms and indicators, sensor integration, system limitations and errors. The course is delivered against IMO Model Course 1.27.
• Type-specific familiarisation: shipboard familiarisation with the specific ECDIS make and model installed on the assigned vessel, completed before the officer assumes navigational-watch duty using ECDIS as the primary chart medium. Type-specific training is delivered by the manufacturer or a manufacturer-approved third party and is not a substitute for the generic course.

The introduction of mandatory ECDIS competence followed casualty investigations including the CFL Performer 2008 grounding off Haisborough Sand and the Ovit 2013 grounding in the Dover Strait, both of which identified inadequate ECDIS familiarisation as a contributing factor in groundings on vessels that had transitioned from paper charts to ECDIS without adequate crew training.

Bridge Resource Management (BRM) mandatory

Bridge Resource Management training became mandatory under Section A-II/2 at the management level and under Section A-II/1 at the operational level by the 2010 Manila Amendments. BRM applies human-factors and crew-resource-management principles to the bridge team, drawing directly on aviation Crew Resource Management which became standard in commercial flight operations from the 1980s following the Tenerife 1977 and United Airlines 173 1978 accident investigations.

The BRM competence covers:

• Authority gradient management: encouraging junior officers to challenge senior officers on safety-relevant points without breach of discipline.
• Situational awareness: awareness of own position, vessel status, traffic, environment, plan, and team status across the bridge team collectively.
• Workload management: distribution of duties to avoid overload of any one team member during demanding operations.
• Communication: closed-loop communication, briefing and debriefing, and standard phraseology.
• Decision-making: structured decision processes, recognition-primed decisions versus deliberative decisions, and error-trapping.
• Leadership and followership: the master’s role as leader of the bridge team during demanding operations; the OOW’s role as leader of the routine watch and follower of master direction during demanding operations.

BRM is delivered through a 3-to-5-day approved course combining classroom delivery with simulator-based scenarios designed to expose participants to crew-resource failure modes.

GMDSS link to STCW Chapter IV

Chapter II OOW certificate holders are required, under SOLAS Chapter IV and STCW Chapter IV, to hold the appropriate GMDSS operator certificate for the sea area in which their vessel operates:

• General Operator’s Certificate (GOC): required for officers responsible for radio communications on GMDSS-equipped vessels operating in any sea area (A1, A2, A3, A4). The GOC is the standard qualification for OOWs on ocean-going commercial vessels.
• Restricted Operator’s Certificate (ROC): applies to vessels operating in Sea Area A1 only, within VHF-DSC range of a coast station, typically 20 to 30 nautical miles from coast.

GMDSS qualifications are administered in most States by the telecommunications authority rather than the maritime administration, but the certificate is endorsed on the seafarer’s discharge book and is checked at port-State control alongside the deck-officer competency certificate. The 2010 Manila Amendments aligned the STCW Chapter IV competency tables to the GMDSS post-2009 architecture covering Inmarsat-C, MF-HF DSC, and NAVTEX. HTW is also addressing modernised GMDSS developments including extended sea-area definitions and newer satellite communication systems as part of the ongoing comprehensive review. See SOLAS Chapter IV: Radiocommunications GMDSS for the carriage and competency interface.

Rest-hour minimum: 77 hours per week

The rest-hours framework in Regulation VIII/1 and STCW Code Section A-VIII/1, aligned with the MLC 2006 Title 2 Standard A2.3 by the 2010 Manila Amendments, sets the following minima for all Chapter II officers and ratings:

• Minimum 10 hours rest in any 24-hour period.
• Minimum 77 hours rest in any 7-day period.
• The 10 hours in any 24-hour period may be divided into no more than two periods, one of which must be at least 6 hours, and the intervals between consecutive periods of rest must not exceed 14 hours.

An alternative formulation drawn from ILO Convention No. 180 and preserved in MLC 2006 permits a maximum of 14 hours work in any 24-hour period and a maximum of 72 hours work in any 7-day period, subject to flag-State approval and operational documentation. Some operational documents have cited “91 hours” in the context of maximum concession work hours under specific flag-State frameworks, but this figure does not appear in the standard STCW or MLC text; the operative minimum rest under both the standard and the alternative formulation is either 77 or 96 hours per 7-day period. The heading of this section and related headings in legacy publications sometimes juxtapose “77” and “91” without clarifying that these are rest minimum and a concession variant rather than two competing standards. PSC inspectors apply the 77-hour rest minimum as the default.

The rest-hours record must be maintained on board in IMO and ILO standardised format and made available at port-State control inspection. PSC deficiency reports under Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU consistently show rest-hours violations among the most frequently cited STCW and MLC deficiencies. The two-watch deck-officer system provides 6 hours off in every 12, which is the absolute minimum permitted by the 10-hour rule only if no duty outside the watch period is required, and is therefore unsustainable on any voyage including mooring, anchoring, port entry, or drills.

Biometric CoC and electronic certificate

Regulation I/2, as amended by the Manila 2010 package, requires Chapter II certificates of competency to be:

• Issued in a prescribed form specified in the Convention text.
• Identified by a unique reference number plus biometric or photographic identifier preventing direct falsification.
• Verifiable through a flag-State electronic database or via the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) for parties that participate.
• Issued only after the candidate has demonstrated competence, medical fitness, and identity through documentary evidence acceptable to the flag State.

The electronic-certificate framework is at varying maturity across flag administrations: the United Kingdom (MCA), Norway, the Netherlands, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Greece, and the Marshall Islands operate online verification portals allowing port-State control inspectors and recruiting employers to verify a certificate by entering the reference number and a confirmation code printed on the document. The HTW comprehensive review addresses the development of an electronic Certificate of Competency (eCoC) standard with cryptographic signature verification as a future objective.

Cyber-security competence under HTW review

The IMO HTW Sub-Committee has prioritised cyber-security awareness training as a key deliverable of the comprehensive STCW review. Under the proposed competence framework, bridge officers would be required to demonstrate:

• Awareness of the cyber-vulnerability of ECDIS, AIS, GMDSS, integrated navigation systems, and machinery automation systems.
• Recognition of phishing, malware, USB-borne attack, and software-supply-chain compromise vectors against shipboard systems.
• Cyber-incident response procedures including system isolation, paper-chart fallback, manual position-fixing, and incident reporting under the company’s ISM-aligned cyber risk management framework.
• Cyber-risk management principles consistent with IMO Resolution MSC.428(98), which required incorporation of cyber risk into ISM Code safety management systems from 1 January 2021.

High-profile shipping-industry cyber incidents, including the Maersk NotPetya 2017 ransomware attack and the CMA CGM 2020 and MSC 2020 events, demonstrated the operational vulnerability of bridge and terminal systems in ways that the pre-Manila STCW competence tables did not address. The proposed cyber competence has been assigned to a new or expanded Section A-VI entry with cross-reference to Sections A-II/1 and A-II/2; the precise structure and mandatory implementation date will depend on the final MSC adoption resolution.

MASS and remote-control training under development

The HTW Sub-Committee is also developing competence requirements for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) and remote-control ship operations. The IMO MASS framework, developed through dedicated IMO sessions since 2018, recognises four degrees of autonomy:

• Degree 1: ship with automated processes and decision support, but seafarers on board to operate and control.
• Degree 2: remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board.
• Degree 3: remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board.
• Degree 4: fully autonomous ship.

Under the proposed competence requirements still under HTW development, additional training would be required for:

• On-board operators of Degree 1 and Degree 2 vessels: supervision of automated decision-support, recognition of automation failure modes, and manual override procedures.
• Shore-based remote operators of Degree 2 and Degree 3 vessels: a new shore-based officer category requiring most of the Section A-II/1 competences plus additional competence in remote-control system operation, latency-and-lag awareness, and shore-side control-room procedure.

The MASS competence framework is not yet adopted. HTW is expected to continue developing detailed competence tables through 2026 and beyond, with any adopted amendment subject to the tacit-acceptance procedure under STCW Article XII.

Alternative-fuel familiarisation under development

The HTW comprehensive review also addresses alternative-fuel familiarisation for vessels operating on LNG, methanol, and ammonia. The proposed competence would extend the Chapter V Regulation V/3 IGF Code training framework into Chapter II for OOWs and masters serving on these vessels:

• LNG familiarisation: cryogenic-liquid handling, boil-off gas management, gas-detection equipment use, response to gas releases in enclosed spaces, and bunker-transfer procedure.
• Methanol familiarisation: low-flashpoint hazard management (10°C closed-cup flash point), miscibility with water and the implications for spill response, toxicological exposure limits, and methanol fuel-system inert-gas management.
• Ammonia familiarisation: acute-toxicity hazard management (IDLH 300 ppm NIOSH/25 ppm ACGIH TWA), respiratory-protective-equipment selection, leak-detection procedure, emergency cooling and dilution measures, and response to ammonia-release events in port and at sea.

The proposed competence would harmonise with the existing STCW V/1 tanker-officer competence framework applicable to LNG carrier and chemical carrier service since the 1995 amendments. Like the cyber and MASS elements, this proposed addition has not yet been adopted by the MSC and is not in force.

STCW Convention parties

The STCW Convention has 167 States Party plus the European Union as of 2026, representing in excess of 99 per cent of world merchant tonnage. The EU is a party in respect of the matters within EU competence under Directive 2022/993 (replacing the earlier 2008/106/EC). All major flag States are parties: Panama, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong (China), Singapore, Malta, Greece, Bahamas, Cyprus, China, Italy, Japan, Norway, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, Bermuda, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Russia, Turkey, and effectively every other State with a merchant fleet of any significance.

The party list is maintained by the IMO Secretariat and published in the IMO Status of Conventions document. Non-party flags are vanishingly rare in international shipping and are subject to systematic port-State control detention under the Regulation I/4 enforcement regime. Domestic-only fleets in non-party States are outside the Convention’s scope but the operational practical effect is that STCW is universal for international merchant shipping.

IMO HTW Sub-Committee role and structure

Amendments to STCW are prepared by the IMO Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW), formed in 2014 by the merger of the previous Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) with elements of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation. The HTW Sub-Committee:

• Reviews proposals for STCW amendments from Member States and observer organisations.
• Conducts the comprehensive STCW Code review that began around 2018 and continues as of 2026.
• Develops IMO Model Courses for the Section B Code, used as the principal reference for training-programme design.
• Provides advisory input to the MSC on all human-element matters, including fatigue research, cyber competency, and MASS-related training.
• Coordinates with the International Labour Organization (ILO) on the work-and-rest-hour interface between STCW and MLC.

HTW reports to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), which adopts proposed amendments under the tacit-acceptance procedure of STCW Article XII. HTW typically meets twice yearly and holds intersessional working group meetings on the active STCW amendment project.

IMSAS triennial audit of STCW party performance

The IMO Member State Audit Scheme (IMSAS), made mandatory by Resolution A.1067(28) and effective from 2016, subjects all IMO Member States to a rolling audit of their implementation of mandatory IMO instruments, including STCW. An IMSAS audit examines:

• The legislative and administrative framework through which the State implements STCW.
• The approval and oversight of training institutions, examination centres, and training providers.
• The examination and certification processes including documentation, integrity controls, and biometric/photographic identification.
• The recognition and endorsement procedures for foreign certificates under Regulation I/10.
• The quality-standards evaluation system required by Regulation I/8.

Audit findings are classified as major non-conformities, non-conformities, and observations, with time-bound corrective action plans required for non-conformities. The IMSAS cycle covers all Member States over a 7-year rolling period, with the STCW-specific aspects reviewed at least every 7 years and PSC deficiency data feeding into intermediate scrutiny. Audit findings are summarised in the IMO Audit Summary Report to the Council.

STCW White List: historical context and current status

The STCW White List was introduced by the 1995 amendments under Regulation I/7, requiring each party to provide the IMO Secretary-General with detailed information on the laws and regulations in force, the examination and assessment procedures, the training programmes and courses, and the certificates and endorsements issued. The IMO MSC, on advice from a panel of experts, reviewed each submission and, where satisfied, included the party on a list of administrations whose information had been verified as meeting Convention requirements.

The white-list mechanism produced a step change in flag-State quality assurance from 1997 onwards, but its operational effect has been substantially absorbed into the IMSAS framework since 2016. As of 2026, the white list is in a state of inactive maintenance: the IMO does not formally publish a current white list distinct from the IMSAS audit programme. Pre-2016 white-list circulars in the STCW.7 series remain authoritative for transitional purposes and are referenced in pre-IMSAS port-State control determinations. New parties acceding to STCW after 2016 are subjected directly to the IMSAS framework.

The historical context matters because legacy commercial documentation in P&I cover wording, charter-party requirements, and manning-agency contracts frequently references the white list rather than the IMSAS framework, and operational practice continues to use “white-listed” as shorthand for “Convention-compliant flag administration”.

Simulator-based training: Section B-I/12

Section B-I/12 sets out the recommended performance standards for maritime simulators used in STCW training and assessment. Simulators are categorised by physical fidelity:

• Type 1 (full-mission bridge simulator): capable of modelling the full bridge environment with radar, ECDIS, conning equipment, propulsion and steering controls, and communications and auxiliary systems. Required for navigational watchkeeping competence assessment at both operational and management levels.
• Type 2 (full-mission engine simulator): replicates the full engine-room environment including main propulsion, auxiliary machinery, and automation and control systems. Required for engineering competence assessment under Chapter III.
• Type 3 (radar/ARPA simulator): standalone radar and ARPA training without the full bridge environment.
• Type 4 (ECDIS simulator): standalone ECDIS training without the full bridge environment.
• Type 5 (GMDSS simulator): GMDSS console and communication procedures without the full bridge environment.

Full-mission bridge and engine-room simulators have, since the early 2000s, replaced sea-time as the principal medium for testing emergency procedures in certificate examinations. The shift reflects both the improved fidelity of simulation technology and the difficulty of creating controlled casualty scenarios on real vessels. The governing standard is IMO Resolution MSC.64(67) Annex 5 and subsequent guidance from the HTW Sub-Committee.

Seagoing service: definition and counting

Seagoing service is defined for STCW purposes as service performed on board a ship at sea, that is when the ship is not in port. Time in port may count partially toward seagoing service in some flag implementations, typically up to 30 days in any 12-month rolling period, but practice varies. The principles governing the counting of seagoing service are:

• Service must be on a certified seagoing vessel registered to a flag administration and operating internationally or in a recognised near-coastal area.
• Service must be in a capacity appropriate to the certificate sought: a Regulation II/1 OOW certificate requires service as deck officer or cadet on ships of 500 GT or more.
• Cadet service counts toward the OOW seagoing-service requirement at rates fixed by the flag administration, with the cumulative cadet contribution capped at typically 12 months of the 36-month track.
• Service is documented in the seafarer’s official discharge book or sea-service record, signed by the master and verified by the flag State at certificate application.
• Concurrent service in dual capacity is generally accepted for cadet-level service but not for officer-level service: an officer must accrue separate service for each certificate type.

The Cadet Training Record Book under STCW B-I/14 has standardised the documentation of cadet sea service across most maritime States, providing a structured record of competence achievement that is accepted at certificate examination across all major flag administrations.

EQF Level 6 (OOW) and Level 7 (Master) in the EU

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF), under EU Recommendation 2017/C 189/03, provides a reference framework against which national qualifications are mapped. STCW Chapter II certificates map to the EQF as follows in EU Member States:

• EQF Level 6: Regulation II/1 OOW certificate. Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree. Typical academic delivery is a 3- or 4-year Bachelor’s degree in Nautical Science at a state-approved maritime academy, integrating the Section A-II/1 competence content with general higher-education subjects.
• EQF Level 7: Regulation II/2 master and chief-mate certificate. Equivalent to a Master’s degree. Typical academic delivery is a postgraduate diploma or Master’s-level qualification in maritime operations or shipping management, on top of the Level 6 OOW programme and the chief-mate sea-service requirement.

The EQF mapping is operationally significant for mutual recognition of certificates among EU Member States under Directive 2022/993, for academic mobility of seafarers between EU institutions, and for post-seagoing-career articulation into shore-based maritime industry roles. The EQF mapping does not extend automatically to non-EU States; Philippines, India, Singapore, UK (post-Brexit), and Norway qualifications are mapped to the EQF only through bilateral or multilateral recognition agreements.

Class society and flag-State CoC verification

Classification societies are not directly involved in STCW certificate issuance, which is a flag-State function, but the principal IACS societies including DNV, Lloyd’s Register, ABS, Bureau Veritas, ClassNK, KR, RINA, RS, IRS, Polski Rejestr Statków, and China Classification Society operate at the interface with STCW in three ways:

• Bridge layout and manning interface design: class societies approve bridge layouts and manning levels as part of the safety-case review for newbuild and major-conversion projects, with reference to STCW competence requirements and SOLAS Chapter V Regulation V/15 bridge-design ergonomics.
• Recognised Organisation work for ISM Code: most flag States delegate Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificate issue to ROs, which audit company manning and crew-certification verification procedures as part of the ISM SMS audit.
• PSC deficiency consultancy: flag administrations and ROs frequently engage class society consultancy services in remediating systemic STCW-related PSC deficiencies on a managed-fleet basis.

The flag-State direct verification of CoCs is conducted at certificate issue, at revalidation every 5 years, and on demand at PSC inspection, including verification of currency, endorsement chain, and electronic-database confirmation.

Tokyo MoU and Paris MoU PSC inspection

Port-State control under the Paris MoU (covering Europe and the North Atlantic), the Tokyo MoU (covering Asia-Pacific), the Indian Ocean MoU, the Caribbean MoU, the Black Sea MoU, the Mediterranean MoU, the West and Central Africa MoU, and the Latin American MoU, supplemented by the United States Coast Guard QUALSHIP 21 programme, is the principal enforcement mechanism for STCW Chapter II at the ship level. PSC inspectors check:

• That every certificated officer and rating on board holds a valid certificate for the rank and ship type, in the original or in an electronically-verifiable form.
• That revalidation dates are current.
• That endorsements for the ship type (tanker, passenger, polar waters, IGF Code alternative fuel) are present where required.
• That rest-hours records show compliance with the 10 hours per 24 and 77 hours per 7 days framework.
• That the safe-manning document is on board, current, and the actual complement matches or exceeds the document specification.

Common STCW-related PSC deficiencies include certificates not corresponding to rank or duties, expired revalidations, missing tanker or passenger or polar-waters endorsements, fraudulent certificates from non-Convention administrations, and rest-hours record violations. These deficiencies feature consistently in the top ten categories reported by Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU in their annual reports.

Endorsements required beyond the Chapter II certificate

A Regulation II/1 OOW or Regulation II/2 master certificate alone does not authorise service on every vessel type. Additional endorsements are mandatory in several trading patterns:

• Tanker endorsements under STCW Regulation V/1: a Regulation V/1-1 endorsement (oil and chemical tanker) or Regulation V/1-2 endorsement (liquefied gas tanker) is required for service as an officer on the respective tanker type. These endorsements require dedicated basic and advanced tanker training programmes typically delivered at approved shore-based training centres.
• Passenger ship endorsement under STCW Regulation V/2: officers on passenger ships must hold the relevant crowd management, passenger safety, and crisis management training certificates, with enhanced requirements for high-speed passenger craft.
• Polar waters endorsement under STCW Regulation V/4 and the Polar Code (SOLAS Chapter XIV): from 1 July 2018 for masters and from 1 July 2019 for chief mates, a Basic Training for ships in Polar Waters certificate is required; an Advanced Training certificate is required for masters and chief mates who are in charge of navigational watches on vessels operating in polar waters.
• IGF Code alternative-fuel endorsement under STCW Regulation V/3: for vessels operating under the International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code), masters and OOWs must hold the relevant V/3 basic or advanced training certificate.

Port-State control inspectors check the endorsement chain at every inspection and detention for a missing endorsement is common on vessels entering trades where the flag State or shipowner did not ensure crew preparation in advance.

Dispensations under Regulation I/10

Regulation I/10, paragraph 5 permits a flag-State administration to issue, in exceptional circumstances, a dispensation allowing a seafarer to serve in a specified capacity on a named ship for a period not exceeding 6 months. A dispensation is not a recognition of a foreign certificate and applies only to the specific named vessel on the specific voyage or period stated. Dispensations cannot be issued for positions where the STCW Convention requires the highest standard of competence: a flag administration cannot, for example, dispense with the requirement for a master certificate on a ship required to carry a certificated master under the safe-manning document.

In practice, dispensations are used where a qualified officer is temporarily unavailable due to illness or repatriation and a suitable replacement cannot be sourced at short notice. The administration issuing the dispensation must notify the IMO Secretary-General, and PSC inspectors encountering a dispensation at inspection will verify its currency and the circumstances under which it was issued.

Revalidation and continuing professional competency

A Chapter II certificate of competency is issued for a validity period of 5 years. Before expiry, the holder must revalidate by satisfying the flag administration that:

• Approved seagoing service of at least 12 months in total during the preceding 5 years has been completed in the capacity for which revalidation is sought; or
• An approved refresher course meeting the requirements of Section A-I/11 has been completed; and
• For management-level certificates (master and chief mate), competence assessment confirming continued proficiency has been completed, in addition to the sea-service or refresher-course requirements.

The introduction of management-level competence assessment at revalidation was a Manila 2010 change; pre-2010 practice in many flag States allowed senior officers to revalidate on the basis of sea-service alone without structured competence verification. The change was specifically motivated by casualty investigation findings showing that experienced masters and chief mates had allowed their familiarity with emergency procedures, stability calculations, and BRM principles to atrophy during long service in routine trades.

Revalidation is the primary quality-assurance checkpoint for the ongoing competency of serving officers. An officer whose certificate has lapsed must generally repeat the applicable examination and training rather than merely completing a refresher course, the threshold being whether the gap exceeds 5 years or whether the flag State has specific re-entry requirements for lapsed certificates.

Mutual recognition under Regulation I/10

Regulation I/10 governs the recognition by one party of a certificate issued by another party. A flag State wishing to employ a seafarer holding a foreign Chapter II certificate must issue an endorsement attesting recognition of that certificate. Before issuing the endorsement, the flag State must satisfy itself that:

• The issuing party is on the STCW white list (pre-2016) or has passed IMSAS audit (post-2016 framework).
• The foreign certificate is valid and genuine.
• The qualifications required by the foreign certificate meet or exceed those required by the STCW Convention.

The endorsement has a validity tied to the underlying certificate’s validity and lapses when the underlying certificate is revalidated or renewed. Port-State control inspectors verify both the CoC and the endorsement at inspection; a foreign seafarer on board a vessel flagged to a third State requires a chain of endorsement from flag to seafarer’s issuing State, both in valid and consistent form.

Limitations

STCW Chapter II is the foundational certification framework for commercial deck officers on international voyages, but several boundary conditions limit its coverage in practice:

• Gross tonnage thresholds use TONNAGE 1969 measurement. Vessels with pre-1969 measurement may be subject to flag-State conversion rules that do not directly correspond to the GT thresholds in the Regulations.
• Near-coastal voyage definition is national, not uniform. A near-coastal certificate issued by one State may authorise a geographic area that is recognised by some trading partners but not others, creating recognition gaps in practice.
• Chapter II does not cover all vessel types on all voyages. Fishing vessels on international voyages are subject to the Cape Town Agreement and the STCW-F Convention (1995), not to STCW 1978. Pleasure yachts and government non-commercial ships are outside the Convention’s scope.
• The white-list and IMSAS frameworks do not guarantee individual certificate quality. IMSAS audits examine institutional processes; they do not examine every individual certificate or training record. Fraudulent certificates from nominally Convention-compliant administrations continue to be detected by port-State control inspectors.
• Rest-hours records can be falsified. The Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU annual reports consistently identify falsified rest-hours records as a PSC deficiency, and casualty investigation reports have identified falsification as a contributing factor in fatigue-related accidents. The record requirement is necessary but not self-enforcing.
• The HTW comprehensive review amendments are not yet in force. Practitioners relying on published descriptions of “2024 STCW amendments” should verify the current adoption status at the IMO website. The Manila Amendments remain the only binding comprehensive post-1995 revision.
• Chapter II certificates do not cover the full range of maritime qualifications. Pilot exemption certificates, harbour-master qualifications, offshore vessel officer certificates, and maritime security officer qualifications are governed by national or separate IMO frameworks and are not STCW Chapter II certificates.

See also

• STCW Convention parent article
• MLC 2006 Maritime Labour Convention covering work and rest hours alignment
• SOLAS Chapter I: General Provisions survey and certificate framework
• SOLAS Chapter V: Safety of Navigation the operational regime in which STCW-certified officers serve
• SOLAS Chapter IV: Radiocommunications GMDSS GMDSS operator certification
• ISM Code safety management system manning and certificate verification
• ISPS Code ship security officer competence interface
• Polar Code polar-waters STCW V/4 advanced training trigger
• AIS and ECDIS bridge electronic equipment carriage rules
• COLREGS Convention the rules-of-the-road competence subject-matter
• COLREGS Steering and Sailing Rules Part B of COLREGS
• MARPOL Convention pollution-prevention competence interface
• SOLAS Chapter XI-2: Maritime Security ISPS-aligned security competence
• Calculator catalogue

References

The principal source for STCW Chapter II is the IMO consolidated text of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, together with the STCW Code (Sections A and B), available from the IMO publishing service and the IMO Knowledge Centre. The Manila 2010 amendments are codified in IMO Resolution MSC.396(95) (Convention amendments) and IMO Resolution MSC.397(95) (Code amendments). Subsequent interim amendments were adopted at MSC 101 in Resolutions MSC.486(101) and MSC.487(101) (2019). The ongoing comprehensive STCW review is documented in HTW Sub-Committee session reports available on the IMO website. The minimum safe-manning framework that operationalises STCW Chapter II at the ship level is set out in IMO Assembly Resolution A.1047(27) (Principles of Minimum Safe Manning, 2011). The IMO Member State Audit Scheme is established under Resolution A.1067(28) and operationalised through the III Code (Resolution A.1070(28)). Cyber risk management for shipboard systems is addressed in IMO Resolution MSC.428(98). The work-and-rest-hour interface is governed by the ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Title 2 Standard A2.3, aligned with STCW Regulation VIII/1 and Section A-VIII/1. Port-State control enforcement is operated through the Paris Memorandum of Understanding and the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding secretariats and the United States Coast Guard QUALSHIP 21 programme, with annual deficiency reports providing the principal evidence base on STCW Chapter II compliance in practice. The EU’s implementation of STCW for EU flag States is set out in Directive 2022/993 (replacing Directive 2008/106/EC), incorporating EQF Level 6 and Level 7 mapping for OOW and master qualifications. Classification-society interface guidance on bridge layout, manning ergonomics, and ISM Code delegation is published by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), with IACS Recommendations 95 and 96 the principal references for the STCW competence and ship-design interface. The historical lineage of STCW from the 1978 adoption through the 1995 and 2010 amendments is documented in the IMO Brief History of IMO and the IMO Knowledge Centre archival materials. The casualty record underpinning the Convention’s evolution including the Torrey Canyon, Amoco Cadiz, Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia, Costa Concordia, Royal Majesty grounding, and the CFL Performer and Ovit ECDIS-related groundings is maintained in the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) Marine Casualties and Incidents module.

Related calculators

• STCW Tanker Certification Requirement
• STCW Ice Navigation Certificate
• IMO STCW Seafarer Training and Certification