1 INTRODUCTION

The increasing complexity of offshore and maritime

operations has necessitated highly specialised systems

such as Dynamic Positioning (DP), which allows

vessels to maintain a fixed position or precise track

using computer-controlled systems that integrate

position reference sensors, thrusters, and propulsion

[1]. As the offshore industry increasingly relies on DP-

enabled vessels for tasks like drilling, diving, subsea

construction, and shuttle tanker operations, the need

for competent and rigorously trained DP operators

becomes paramount. Any failure in positioning

systems or in the operator's ability to manage them can

have severe operational, financial, and environmental

consequences.

To ensure that DP operators meet the high

standards required for safe and efficient operations, a

comprehensive training and certification scheme has

been established by The Nautical Institute, a globally

recognised maritime professional body. This scheme

consists of two training courses—a Basic DP course

and a Simulator course—combined with two periods

of onboard training, each documented and verified

through a standardised logbook. Candidates receive a

DP Operator Certificate upon completing all phases

and verification by The Nautical Institute. This

rigorous structure has been praised for its ability to

uphold quality, adapt rapidly to industry

developments, and maintain strict controls on

accreditation and certification issuance [2].

Dynamic Positioning Training and Certification Scheme:

Overview and Prospects

Z. Sanchez-Varela

, D. Boullosa-Falces

& N. Mandić

University of Split, Split, Croatia

University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain

ABSTRACT: Dynamic positioning operators must follow a training scheme developed by The Nautical Institute

to obtain their license. The training scheme comprises two courses (basic and simulator) and two periods of

dynamic-positioning training on board, which is recorded in a logbook. The documentation is carefully double-

checked when these are completed before issuing the certificate. This paper aims to present the details of this

training, currently covered in Section B of the International Convention on the Standards of Training,

Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW), and to predict how the system would work if the scheme is referred to

in Section A of the same Convention. The Dynamic Positioning training and certification scheme will be compared

to other micro qualifications detailed in Section A of the STCW convention to achieve this prediction. The

following items will be evaluated: access to the course, instructor's eligibility, control of materials and equipment,

updating of the lesson plan, and certification control. The results show that the Dynamic positioning training

scheme is much superior in all the researched categories due to the rapid capacity for updating the materials and

for the strict controls placed in lieu by The Nautical Institute to accredit training centres, including equipment

and personnel, and especially the certificate-issuing system, keeping frauds to a minimum.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 1

March 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.01.04

Currently, this training scheme is referenced in

Section B-V/f of the International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification, and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), a key legal

framework developed by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) [3]. Section B serves as a guideline

and is not legally binding, unlike Section A, which

contains mandatory minimum standards that

signatory countries must implement. As a result,

training programs mentioned in Section B, such as DP

training, benefit from greater flexibility and can be

tailored to meet industry-specific needs. However,

they are not uniformly regulated across flag states,

which may lead to variations in implementation and

recognition.

This paper will analyse the current DP training and

certification scheme in depth and evaluate how it

would operate if incorporated into Section A of the

STCW Convention. Through a comparative approach,

the study will examine how the DP scheme aligns with

or surpasses other micro qualifications already

established in Section A—such as Electronic Chart

Display and Information System (ECDIS) training,

Bridge Resource Management (BRM), and security

awareness courses [4]. Key factors to be assessed

include access to training, instructor qualifications,

control of course content and equipment, frequency of

updates to the curriculum, and the overall integrity of

certification systems.

As a result, training programs outlined in Section

B—such as the DP training scheme—enjoy the

flexibility that allows them to adapt swiftly to

technological developments and the specific needs of

the offshore and maritime sectors. This adaptability

can enhance training relevance and responsiveness.

However, because these programs are not subject to

mandatory enforcement by all flag states, some

variation in implementation and recognition may

occur.

2 OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT DYNAMIC

POSITIONING TRAINING SCHEME

The Dynamic Positioning (DP) training and

certification scheme, managed by The Nautical

Institute (NI) on behalf of the International Marine

Contractors Association (IMCA), is a globally

recognised program designed to ensure that DP

operators possess the necessary competencies for safe

and efficient vessel operations. Established in

collaboration with industry stakeholders, including

flag states, the oil and gas sector, and offshore

contractors, the scheme has been operational for almost

40 years (since 1985), adapting to technological

advancements and industry needs.

2.1 Structure of the Training Scheme

The NI's DP training scheme [5] comprises a

combination of theoretical instruction and practical

experience, structured into four distinct phases:

− DP Basic/Induction Course (Phase A): This initial

phase provides foundational knowledge of DP

systems, covering topics such as system

components, operational principles, and safety

procedures. The course typically spans five days

and includes classroom instruction and simulator

exercises. There is an online exam to be passed after

the tuition. Upon completion, trainees receive a

certificate of attendance and a NI DP logbook to

document their subsequent training and

experience.

− Onboard DP Training (Phase B): Following the

Basic course, trainees must complete a minimum of

60 days of DP sea time on a DP-capable vessel.

During this period, they are expected to perform

various tasks under supervision, which are

recorded in their logbook. This phase emphasises

the practical application of DP knowledge in real-

world scenarios.

− DP Simulator Course (Phase C): After accruing the

required sea time, trainees attend the Simulator

course, which focuses on advanced DP operations,

including emergency procedures and system

failures. This five-day course utilises high-fidelity

simulators to replicate complex DP scenarios,

allowing trainees to refine their decision-making

and problem-solving skills.

− Onboard DP Training (Phase D): Post-Simulator

course, trainees undertake an additional 60 days of

DP sea time, further consolidating their skills.

Completing this phase and successful task

assessments and endorsements from senior DP

personnel qualify the trainee to apply for the NI DP

Operator Certificate.

Figure 1. Structure of the DP Training and Certification

Scheme

2.2 Certification Process and Quality Assurance

The rigorous certification process requires thorough

documentation and verification of each training phase.

Trainees submit their completed logbooks, course

certificates, and other relevant documents to the NI for

assessment. The NI evaluates the authenticity and

completeness of the submissions before issuing the DP

Operator Certificate.

To maintain high standards, the NI accredits

training centres that meet specific criteria regarding

facilities, equipment, and instructor qualifications [6].

These centres undergo regular audits to ensure

compliance with the NI's standards. Additionally, the

NI has implemented measures to minimise fraudulent

activities, such as secure logbook formats and

centralised record-keeping.

2.3 Continuous improvement and industry relevance

Recognising the dynamic nature of maritime

operations, the NI continuously updates its training

standards and course content to reflect emerging

technologies and industry practices. Feedback from

stakeholders, including training providers and

maritime organisations (gathered as the Dynamic

Positioning Training Executive Group – DPTEG [7]),

informs these updates, ensuring the DP training

scheme remains relevant and effective. The DPTEG

usually meets twice a year to discuss issues relevant to

the scheme.

3 MICRO-QUALIFICATIONS IN STCW SECTION

A: STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION

The International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers

(STCW) [3] delineates mandatory training

requirements in Section A, encompassing various

micro-qualifications essential for maritime safety and

operational efficiency. This Section examines three key

micro-qualifications—Electronic Chart Display and

Information Systems (ECDIS), Bridge Resource

Management (BRM), and Security Awareness—

highlighting their structure, implementation, and

regulatory oversight.

3.1 Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems

(ECDIS)

ECDIS training is mandated under STCW Code

Sections A-II/1 and A-II/2, requiring deck officers to

demonstrate proficiency in the operational use of

ECDIS for navigation. The 2010 Manila Amendments

reinforced these requirements, emphasising the need

for comprehensive understanding and practical

competence in ECDIS operations. Training programs

typically follow IMO Model Course 1.27 [8], covering

system functionalities, chart management, route

planning, and emergency procedures. Assessment

includes both theoretical examinations and simulator-

based evaluations to ensure practical proficiency.

3.2 Bridge Resource Management (BRM)

BRM training, outlined in STCW Code Section A-II/1,

focuses on effectively managing bridge operations,

emphasising teamwork, communication, decision-

making, and situational awareness. The training aims

to minimise human error and enhance safety by

fostering a collaborative environment on the bridge.

Courses are designed to be interactive, often utilising

simulators to replicate real-life scenarios, and

assessments are based on performance in these

simulated environments.

3.3 Security Awareness

Under STCW Regulation VI/6 and Section A-VI/6,

Security Awareness training is compulsory for all

seafarers. The training encompasses understanding

security threats, recognising suspicious activities, and

responding appropriately to security incidents. It

aligns with the International Ship and Port Facility

Security (ISPS) Code [9] and is based on IMO Model

Course 3.27 [10]. Assessment involves theoretical

knowledge and practical drills to ensure readiness in

real-world situations.

4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: DP TRAINING

SCHEME VS STCW SECTION A MICRO-

QUALIFICATIONS

The Dynamic Positioning (DP) training scheme,

administered by The Nautical Institute, exhibits

several distinguishing features compared to other

micro-qualifications mandated under Section A of the

STCW Convention. This Section presents a

comparative analysis across the following key

parameters: access to training, instructor qualifications,

control of materials and equipment, curriculum

updating, and certification control.

4.1 Entry requirements

STCW-mandated courses such as ECDIS, BRM, and

Security Awareness are widely available globally

through numerous maritime training centres. The

requirements for entering these courses assume

previous basic knowledge, although no evidence of

such knowledge is formally required [8,10].

In contrast, the DP training scheme is offered only

through Nautical Institute-accredited centres, which

must meet stringent criteria regarding facilities,

equipment, and instructor qualifications. While this

ensures high-quality training, it may limit accessibility

due to fewer accredited centres. The candidates must

own one of the following STCW certificates of

competence under Regulations II/1 - II/2 - II/3 Deck,

Regulation III/1 – III /2 – III/3 – III/6 Engine and

Regulation III/6 for ETOs [5].

4.2 Instructor Qualifications

In STCW courses, instructor qualifications are

generally determined by national maritime authorities,

leading to potential standard variability. Generally, the

appointed instructor has to possess at least the micro-

qualification he/she intends to lecture.

The DP training scheme, however, mandates that

instructors possess specific DP experience and undergo

regular assessments to maintain their accreditation.

This requirement ensures that instructors are not only

knowledgeable but also current with industry

practices.

4.3 Control of Materials and Equipment

The control and standardisation of training materials

and equipment play a vital role in ensuring the quality

and effectiveness of maritime education. In the case of

STCW courses, instructional materials are often based

on model courses developed by IMO. These resources

are widely used and ensure a baseline of global

consistency across training institutions. However, their

standardised nature can also pose limitations in

responding to rapid technological advances. Updating

IMO model courses can be infrequent and slow to

reflect the pace of change in industry practices or

equipment [11].

Conversely, the Dynamic Positioning (DP) training

scheme administered by The Nautical Institute

mandates using advanced and industry-relevant

simulation technology. Training centres seeking

accreditation must meet stringent hardware and

software requirements, including full-mission or class-

certified DP simulators that accurately replicate real-

world operational environments [5]. These simulators

must be capable of emulating various DP scenarios,

including failures, adverse environmental conditions,

and emergency procedures.

The Nautical Institute performs regular audits and

evaluations to ensure accredited centres maintain high-

fidelity equipment and instructional content

standards. Centres must also keep simulator software

updated in alignment with the latest system

configurations used on active DP vessels. This ensures

that trainees are familiar with generic DP principles

and gain exposure to the types of interfaces, alarms,

and control logics they are likely to encounter on board

[12].

This high level of equipment realism significantly

enhances the practical competence of DP operators. By

training on systems that mirror real operational

contexts, seafarers can develop the muscle memory

and decision-making skills essential for complex

positioning tasks. In contrast, many STCW courses,

particularly those delivered through PowerPoint-

based instruction or basic part-task simulators, may

not offer the same operational immersion or technical

specificity level.

Furthermore, the DP scheme's emphasis on

continuous improvement allows for the swift

incorporation of industry feedback and technological

updates, which helps training centres remain aligned

with evolving operational demands. This dynamic,

feedback-driven approach offers a clear advantage in a

field where equipment diversity and system

complexity constantly increase.

4.4 Curriculum Updating

The ability to update training curricula in response to

technological and operational developments is

essential for maintaining the relevance and

effectiveness of maritime education. However,

updating STCW course content is inherently complex

and time-consuming. Because the STCW Convention is

a product of international agreement under the IMO,

any changes to course content, competency standards,

or model courses require consensus among member

states. This process typically involves multiple rounds

of consultations, sub-committee discussions, and

formal adoption by the IMO Maritime Safety

Committee (MSC) or the Sub-Committee on Human

Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW).

As a result, revisions to STCW-related curricula,

such as updates to Model Courses like ECDIS or Bridge

Resource Management, can take several years to

materialise. In fast-moving sectors like offshore

operations, this lag may render training materials

outdated by the time they are implemented, potentially

limiting the preparedness of seafarers for modern

onboard systems or procedures [13].

In contrast, the Dynamic Positioning (DP) training

scheme administered by The Nautical Institute

operates under a much more agile framework. Because

it is a privately regulated scheme rather than an

international convention, the Nautical Institute has the

autonomy to update its training standards and

supporting documentation rapidly and unilaterally.

When industry feedback, incident reports, or

technological innovations emerge, updates to

curriculum content, assessment criteria, or simulator

scenarios can be issued within months rather than

years.

This responsiveness is built into the scheme's

structure. The Nautical Institute communicates closely

with stakeholders, including DP equipment

manufacturers, training centres, vessel operators, and

industry associations. Through routine audits,

feedback loops, and review boards, the Institute

continuously evaluates the effectiveness of its training

model. For instance, changes in system interfaces or

alarm management protocols can be integrated into

simulator exercises and course manuals shortly after

they are adopted in the field.

Moreover, The Nautical Institute publishes

revisions and bulletins through its Alexis Platform,

ensuring that all accredited centres receive and

implement updates consistently. This maintains

uniformity across training providers and ensures that

DP operators are always trained to the most current

operational standards. In doing so, the DP scheme

aligns closely with the dynamic nature of offshore

industries, where operational conditions and

technologies evolve rapidly.

The contrast between the relatively rigid update

cycle of STCW courses and the agile, stakeholder-

driven updating mechanism of the DP training scheme

highlights one of the core strengths of the latter: its

ability to remain relevant and operationally effective in

a high-technology environment.

4.5 Certification Control

Certification control is critical in safeguarding

maritime qualifications' credibility and reliability.

Within the STCW framework, certificates of

competency and proficiency are issued by national

maritime administrations or designated authorities of

individual flag states. While this decentralised model

aligns with the sovereign rights of states over their

maritime education systems, it also introduces

variability in the rigour of verification processes,

record-keeping, and anti-fraud measures. In some

cases, discrepancies in documentation standards and

oversight mechanisms can result in forged or

improperly issued certificates being circulated,

undermining trust in the international certification

system [14].

Each flag state is responsible for maintaining its

own registry and issuing certificates in compliance

with STCW standards. However, administrative

capacity, digital infrastructure, and regulatory

enforcement differences lead to a lack of global

uniformity in how certification data is stored, accessed,

and validated. Although efforts have been made to

encourage greater transparency—such as the IMO's

GISIS (Global Integrated Shipping Information System

[15])—real-time, cross-border verification of

credentials remains a challenge, particularly in remote

inspection contexts or in jurisdictions with limited

digital capabilities.

By contrast, The Nautical Institute has established a

centralised and highly controlled system for managing

the certification of Dynamic Positioning (DP)

operators. All candidates undergoing DP training are

issued a personal digital or physical logbook, which is

used to record practical sea time, simulator courses,

and task completion. These logbooks are uniquely

numbered, tamper-evident, and subject to verification

by accredited training centres and The Nautical

Institute itself. Before issuing a DP certificate, The

Nautical Institute's verification team reviews all

submitted documents, including the logbook entries,

course completion certificates, and onboard training

signatures [5].

In addition to the secure logbook system, The

Nautical Institute maintains a comprehensive digital

database that tracks all DP operators who have been

awarded certificates. This centralised database allows

employers, flag states, and other stakeholders to

authenticate a DP operator's certification status

instantly using a unique certificate number. This

transparency significantly reduces the risk of fraud,

lost credentials, or misrepresented qualifications.

Moreover, The Nautical Institute has implemented

robust audit protocols for training centres, ensuring

that only institutions meeting strict equipment,

instructor, and procedural standards can issue DP

training documentation. Non-compliance can lead to

suspension or revocation of accreditation, thus further

safeguarding the certification process from systemic

vulnerabilities.

The result is a certification system that not only

meets high standards of integrity but also inspires

greater industry confidence. In a high-risk operational

domain like offshore dynamic positioning, where

safety and precision are paramount, such centralised

control ensures that certified DP operators possess

verifiable, up-to-date competencies backed by an

internationally recognised authority.

5 IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATING THE DP

TRAINING SCHEME INTO STCW SECTION A

The potential integration of the Dynamic Positioning

(DP) training scheme into Section A of the STCW

Convention carries significant implications for

maritime training standards, certification processes,

and industry practices. This section explores the

prospective benefits, challenges, and considerations

associated with such a transition.

5.1 Enhanced Standardisation and Global Recognition

Incorporating the DP training scheme into STCW

Section A would establish it as a mandatory

qualification, promoting uniform training standards

and certification processes worldwide. This alignment

could facilitate mutual recognition of DP certifications

among flag states, enhancing the mobility of DP

operators and ensuring consistent competency levels

across the global maritime industry.

5.2 Regulatory Oversight and Quality Assurance

Transitioning to Section A would subject the DP

training scheme to the regulatory frameworks and

oversight mechanisms of the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) and national maritime

administrations. While this could bolster quality

assurance through standardised curricula and

assessment protocols, it may also introduce

bureaucratic complexities that could impact the agility

of the training scheme in adapting to technological

advancements and industry needs.

5.3 Impact on Training Providers and Accreditation

Training centres currently accredited by The Nautical

Institute (NI) would need to align with the broader

accreditation requirements stipulated under STCW

Section A. This could entail modifications to training

facilities, instructor qualifications, and course content

to meet the standardised criteria. While this alignment

could enhance the credibility of training providers, it

may also impose additional administrative and

financial burdens, particularly for smaller institutions.

5.4 Certification and Record-Keeping

Under STCW Section A, the issuance and management

of certifications would likely fall under the purview of

national maritime authorities. This shift could affect

the centralised certification system currently

maintained by the NI, potentially leading to variations

in certification processes and record-keeping practices

among different jurisdictions. Ensuring the integrity

and consistency of DP certifications would necessitate

robust coordination among international regulatory

bodies.

5.5 Flexibility and Responsiveness to Industry Needs

One of the strengths of the current NI-administered DP

training scheme is its ability to swiftly incorporate

industry feedback and technological developments

into training standards. Integrating the scheme into

STCW Section A could potentially reduce this

flexibility, as changes would be subject to the formal

amendment procedures of the STCW Convention,

which can be time-consuming. Balancing

standardisation with the need for responsiveness

would be critical in such a transition.

6 DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS, CHALLENGES,

AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The comparative evaluation of the Dynamic

Positioning (DP) training scheme against micro-

qualifications listed in Section A of the STCW

Convention reveals a pronounced strength in the DP

system's structure and enforcement mechanisms. This

section explores the key takeaways from the analysis

and reflects on the broader implications for the

maritime education and certification system.

6.1 Superior Framework of the DP Training Scheme

The DP training scheme, administered by The Nautical

Institute (NI), is designed with rigorous quality

assurance. Centralised control, mandatory simulator

use, standardised logbooks, and regular audits of

accredited centres ensure high consistency and

integrity in training outcomes. Unlike many STCW

micro-qualifications that rely heavily on individual

flag states for enforcement, the DP scheme's global

standardisation helps minimise variability, reducing

the risk of certificate fraud or skill mismatch across

jurisdictions.

6.2 Advantages in Curriculum Flexibility and

Technological Responsiveness

A crucial advantage of the current DP system is its

ability to adapt rapidly to emerging technologies and

operational challenges. NI can issue certification

standards or course content updates without waiting

for international consensus, as required under the

STCW Convention. This agility is particularly valuable

in a fast-evolving technical field like dynamic

positioning, where systems are frequently updated,

and operators must remain current with complex

software and hardware integrations.

In contrast, STCW courses, though robust, are often

hindered by slower amendment cycles. For instance,

the delay in mandatory ECDIS training

implementation following the technological rollout

created inconsistencies in officer competence during

the transitional period [4].

6.3 Challenges of Shifting to Section A

While moving the DP scheme under Section A could

confer the legitimacy and universality of the STCW

Convention, it also risks introducing regulatory inertia.

Standardisation across countries may dilute some

current strengths—particularly in responsiveness,

enforcement stringency, and uniformity of assessment

criteria. National differences in the interpretation and

implementation of STCW provisions may undermine

the training's efficacy [16].

Furthermore, a transition could strain existing

training providers who might struggle to meet both NI

and IMO/flag-state requirements simultaneously. It

may also complicate the centralised certification

process, which currently helps track operators and

minimise fraudulent entries in the profession.

6.4 Potential for Hybrid Regulation

A possible middle ground may lie in a hybrid

approach: recognising the DP scheme under Section A

as a mandatory qualification while retaining The

Nautical Institute's role in course oversight and

certification issuance. Similar arrangements already

exist for some specialised maritime qualifications (e.g.,

oil tanker endorsements), which are administered by

industry organisations under IMO frameworks [17].

This model would allow STCW-level standardisation

while preserving the DP scheme's operational

strengths.

6.5 Implications for Future Maritime Training Standards

The broader implication of this study is the need for

future STCW revisions to be more agile and

technologically attuned. The DP model demonstrates

how decentralised oversight can outperform

centralised systems when backed by rigorous auditing

and global standards. Integrating such models into the

international regulatory framework could serve as a

blueprint for future high-tech competencies in the

maritime sector—such as remote operations,

unmanned systems, and AI-supported navigation.

7 CONCLUSIONS

This paper has examined the Dynamic Positioning

(DP) training scheme The Nautical Institute

administers, comparing it with micro-qualifications

currently listed under Section A of the STCW

Convention. The comparison focused on several core

criteria: access to training, instructor qualifications,

control of materials and equipment, curriculum

adaptability, and certification oversight.

The analysis indicates that the DP training scheme

consistently demonstrates high effectiveness and

rigour across all evaluated dimensions. Its centralised

structure, strict accreditation standards, and rapid

update mechanisms contribute to a system that is both

responsive to technological advances and robust in

maintaining training quality and certification integrity.

By contrast, the formal structure of Section A

qualifications under the STCW Convention, while

offering international legal standing and

standardisation, may limit the flexibility required for

schemes such as DP training. The multilateral nature of

the regulatory process, the variation in national

implementation, and the slower pace of curriculum

revisions could present significant challenges to the

continued agility and relevance of the DP scheme if it

were integrated into Section A.

Based on this evaluation, it appears that the current

positioning of the DP scheme under Section B provides

a balanced and effective framework. It allows the

training system to remain closely aligned with industry

developments while still maintaining international

visibility and alignment with recognised training

principles. The model exemplifies how high-

specialisation training programs can operate

successfully outside Section A's more rigid regulatory

frameworks without compromising quality or

credibility.

In light of these findings, maintaining the DP

training scheme under the oversight of The Nautical

Institute within the flexible structure of Section B

appears to best support its continued success. It may

also serve as a reference for other emerging

qualifications requiring similar specialisation,

responsiveness, and integrity levels in a rapidly

evolving maritime environment.

REFERENCES

[1] International Maritime Organization (IMO), "Guidelines

for Vessels with Dynamic Positioning Systems,"

MSC/Circ.645, 1994.

[2] K. A. Nowak, "Differences in the certification of DP

Operator's Certificates according to the Nautical Institute

and DNV," Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime

University, no. 118, pp. 51-61, 2021.

[3] International Maritime Organization (IMO),

"International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),"

2017 Edition

[4] International Maritime Organization (IMO), "Training

Requirements for Electronic Chart Display and

Information Systems (ECDIS) and Provision of the

Documentation for Verification," STCW.7/Circ.24, 2011.

[5] The Nautical Institute, "Dynamic Positioning

Accreditation and Certification Standard, Volume 1:

Training and Certification," Feb. 2025. [Online].

Available:

https://www.nialexisplatform.org/media/jbtjafza/the-

nautical-institute-dynamic-positioning-certificate-and-

accreditation-standard-volume-1-training-and-

certification-februar.pdf

[6] The Nautical Institute, "Dynamic Positioning

Accreditation and Certification Standard, Volume 2:

Accreditation," Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available:

https://www.nialexisplatform.org/media/qmtnokwj/the-

nautical-institute-dynamic-positioning-certificate-and-

accreditation-standard-volume-2-accreditation-february-

2025.pdf

[7] The Nautical Institute, "DPTEG & Scheme Setup."

nialexisplatform.org.

https://www.nialexisplatform.org/accreditation/dynamic

-positioning/dpteg-scheme-setup/ (accessed April 7,

2025).

[8] IMO, Model Course 1.27 Operational Use of ECDIS, 2012

Edition. London: International Maritime Organisation,

2012.

[9] IMO, International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

(ISPS Code), 2003 Edition. London: International

Maritime Organisation, 2012.

[10] IMO, Model Course Security Awareness Training for all

Seafarers, 2012 Edition. London: International Maritime

Organisation, 2012.

[11] N. Kouvertari, "Maritime Education and Training Must

Evolve Rapidly to Keep Pace with the Rate of Change,"

SAFETY4SEA, Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available:

https://safety4sea.com/cm-lr-maritime-education-and-

training-must-evolve-rapidly-to-keep-pace-with-the-

rate-of-change/

[12] Y. Bogachenko and O. D. Pipchenko, "Monitoring and

Identification of DP Operators' Behavioural Traits and

Common Errors During Simulator Training," TransNav,

the International Journal on Marine Navigation and

Safety of Sea Transportation, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 327–332,

2021, https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.15.02.09

[13] Y. Nhleko, "Challenges in International Convention on

the Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping Compliance: A case study of the South

African Maritime Education and Training System," South

African Journal of Maritime Education and Training,

vol.2, no. 1, pp. 121-131, 2023

https://doi.org/10.47348/SAJMET/2023/i1a8

[14] B. Obando-Rojas, I. Welsh, M. Bloor, T. Lane, V.

Badigannavar, and M. Maguire, "The Political Economy

of Fraud in a Globalised Industry: The Case of Seafarers'

Certifications," The Sociological Review, vol. 52, no. 3, pp.

295–313, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

954X.2004.00481.x

[15] IMO, "Global Integrated Shipping Information System

(GISIS)," International Maritime Organization. [Online].

Available: https://gisis.imo.org

[16] A. A. Hebbar, "Implementation of IMO instruments from

a flag state perspective," in The Elgar Companion to the

Law and Practice of the International Maritime

Organization, L. C. Piñeiro and M. Q. Mejia Jr., Eds.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, pp. 304–329.

[17] S. Šekularac-Ivošević and D. Milošević, "Innovation

Through Collaboration: The Application in Maritime

Industry," in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Maritime Science &

Technology Naše More, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Oct. 17–18,

2019.