1179

1 INTRODUCTION

Global maritime cargo volume increased from 9.48

billion tons in 2013 to 10.73 billion tons in 2023 (Japan

Maritime Center, 2024). The operation of ships at sea is

important to the world economy, and the seafarers

who operate those ships are essential human resources.

Research and development, including demonstration

testing, is being actively conducted in Japan and

around the world with the aim of improving the safety

and efficiency of maritime transport, reducing the

burden on seafarers, addressing the shortage of

seafarers, and reducing costs concerning the practical

application of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships

(MASS) (AAWA, 2016; European Commission, 2017;

The Nippon Foundation, 2022a; The Nippon

Foundation, 2022b; YARA, 2024).

To deal with the development of MASS around the

world, the International Maritime Organization (IMO),

the international maritime rule-making body, is

actively discussing the development of legal systems

and international standards (IMO, 2023). At IMO, the

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), which is in charge

of safety matters, plays a central role in the study of

MASS. At MSC 98 in 2017, it was decided to conduct a

‘Discussion Paper on Regulations for the Use of MASS.'

A Regulatory Scoping Exercise (RSE) was initiated to

determine whether the current IMO regulations

require amendments and other measures (IMO, 2017).

A Study on the Implications of Maritime Autonomous

Surface Ships on Maritime Education and Training

T. Kondo

, S. Fujimoto

, M. Rooks

, T. Konishi

& N. Yasuta

Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: Global maritime traffic is increasing, and the development of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships

(MASS) is progressing. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is developing regulations for the

introduction of MASS, and aims to issue a mandatory MASS Code in 2032. In preparation for the increasing

realization of MASS, research on Maritime Education and Training (MET) based on International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers, 1978 (STCW) is being conducted, however

studies have not yet been carried out on the implications for MET as defined by various international regulations

such as International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) other than STCW. The purpose of

this paper is to capture an overview of the changes in MET that are not limited to STCW in regards to the advent

of MASS by conducting a questionnaire of professional seafarers in ocean shipping companies. Cooperation was

obtained from 100 captains and deck officers to clarify this objective. An analysis of the survey results indicated

that “Watchkeeping” was the most selected item for matters related to STCW. Other results showed that Safety

Management System, which is specified in International Safety Management Code, and Ship Security Plan, which

is specified in International Ship and Port Facility Security Code were major points of consideration for the

respondents.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 4

December 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.04.15

1180

The following year, MSC 100 defined the following

four levels of MASS (IMO, 2018).

− Degree1: Ship with automated processes and

decision support: Seafarers are on board to operate

and control shipboard systems and functions. Some

operations may be automated and at times be

unsupervised but with seafarers on board ready to

take control.

− Degree2: Remotely controlled ship with seafarers

on board: The ship is controlled and operated from

another location. Seafarers are available on board to

take control and to operate the shipboard systems

and functions.

− Degree3: Remotely controlled ship without

seafarers on board: The ship is controlled and

operated from another location. There are no

seafarers on board.

− Degree4: Fully autonomous ship: The operating

system of the ship is able to make decisions and

determine actions by itself.

At MSC 109 in 2024, the roadmap for the

development of the MASS Code was revised, with the

aim of adopting a mandatory MASS Code on July 1st,

2030, to enter into force on January 1st, 2032 (IMO,

2024).

Kretschmann et. al. (2017) point out that onboard

labor costs can account for up to 36% of all costs. The

Nautilus Federation (2018) also concluded that training

and retraining are among the biggest barriers to MASS

implementation. It is socially significant to conduct

research on the education and training of seafarers,

which is very costly for the safe operation of ships. Fan

et. al. (2020) point out that lack of training is a factor

affecting the operational risk of MASS. In addition,

future seafarers, or cadets, are interested in shipboard

automation (Boguslawski et. al., 2024), and it is

important to consider a Maritime Education and

Training (MET) curriculum that will effectively train

them under the changing paradigms. In addition, the

roles and responsibilities of future seafarers have been

identified as one of the most complex issues to be

addressed in the adoption of the MASS in MSC 103 in

2021 (IMO, 2021).

Aylaward et. al. (2022) point out that education and

training in “nautical knowledge” is essential while

seafarers are on board and have decision-making

authority, and Yoshida et. al. (2020) propose a

framework for Remote Operator (RO) competence

under International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers,

1978 (STCW). As these two studies show, there is a

need to consider MET curriculum regardless of

whether seafarers are on board or not. Sharma et. al.

have conducted a study of experts to ascertain the

importance of seafarer competency standards to

MASS. Kim and Mallan (2020) also conducted a study

of seafarers' attitudes toward MASS, primarily among

experienced seafarers. On the other hand, Mallan et. al.

(2022) focused on the opinions of academics. Training-

related issues were mentioned on other occasions,

indicating a gap between the future shape of the

industry and training methods (Pietrzykowski and

Hajduk, 2019; Hogg and Ghosh, 2016). Most of these

previous studies are based on STCW. However,

consideration should also be given to MET other than

those under STCW. Examples are international

regulations such as International Convention for the

Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL), International Safety Management (ISM)

Code, and International Ship and Port Facility Security

(ISPS) Code. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to

provide an overview of the changes in STCW and MET

stipulated in various international regulations with the

advent of MASS by conducting a questionnaire survey

of professional seafarers of ocean shipping companies.

2 METHODS

A questionnaire about MASS and MET was

administered between October 2023 and March 2024 to

a total of 101 respondents from 3 companies, consisting

of 43 Japanese and 10 non-Japanese seafarer employees

from shipping company A, 14 Japanese and 1 non-

Japanese seafarer employees from shipping company

B, and 20 Japanese and 14 non-Japanese seafarer

employees from shipping company C. No personally

identifiable information was collected in the

questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire was to

identify the current image of MET with the emergence

of MASS among professionals in the field, to examine

current MET for MASS operations based on the

maritime professionals' practical experience onboard

and onshore, and to identify potential areas for MET

changes. The questionnaire was divided into two

sections, Degrees 1 and 2 with people on board, and

Degrees 3 and 4 without people on board, with

questions on STCW (Table A- Ⅱ /1 Specification of

minimum standard of competence for officers in

charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross

tonnage or more Columm2 Focusing on 22 themes of

knowledge, understanding and proficiency) and MET

as defined in various international regulations,

including STCW. In addition, questions regarding

MET as defined by various international regulations

were investigated at three separate times: “throughout

the year,” “immediately prior to embarkation,” and

“onboard.” The questions were prepared based on

“Introduction to Ship Management: A practical guide

to ship management.” (The Japan Shipping Exchange,

Inc., 2008).

There were 101 respondents, 100 of whom agreed to

complete the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 83

were active captains and chief officers of ocean-going

vessels, 21 of whom were none-Japanese. Table 1

shows the age of respondents. Table 2 shows the

license type held by the 100 respondents. 72.0% hold a

grade 1 license. Table 3 shows onboard experience of

respondents. 67% have more than 8 years experience at

sea. These data points provide evidence of the high

level of expertise and experience of the respondents.

Table 4 and Table 5 show the years of onshore

experience and the departments in which they have

worked, respectively. Nearly 90% of respondents have

worked onshore, in a wide range of departments.

Therefore, the respondents provided perspectives that

were obtained not only from working at sea, but also

from working onshore. The responses in Table 5 show

the percentages for the 88 respondents who have

worked onshore.

1181

Table 1. The age of respondents

Age

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-64

over 65

No. of

respondents

(%)

7 (7.0%)

(36.0%)

(30.0%)

(27.0%)

0 (0.0%)

Table 2. License type of respondents

License

First*1

Second*2

Third*3

No. of

respondents (%)

72 (72.0%)

23 (23.0%)

5 (5.0%)

Note: *1: ocean going master mariner; *2: ocean going chief class; *3:

ocean going second and third class

Table 3. Onboard experience of respondents

Year

1-3

4-7

8-10

11-15

16-20

20 +

No. of

respondents

(%)

4 (4.0%)

(29.0%)

(17.0%)

7(27.0%)

(15.0%)

8 (8.0%)

Table 4. Onshore experience of respondents

Year

Nothing

1-3

4-7

8-10

11-15

16-20

20 +

No. of

respondents

(%)

(12.0%)

(26.0%)

(20.0%)

(15.0%)

(12.0%)

(0.0%)

Table 5. Department of onshore

Deployments

No. of respondents (%)

Human Resources

20 (22.7%)

Public Relations

3 (3.4%)

Harbor

4 (4.5%)

Offshore Business

5 (5.7%)

Environment

3 (3.4%)

Marine

48 (54.5%)

Technical

5 (5.7%)

Energy

15 (17.0%)

Car carrier

12 (13.6%)

Container

13 (14.8%)

Dry Bulk

13 (14.8%)

LNG

17 (19.3%)

Others

32 (36.4%)

Total

190

Note: Multiple selections allowed

In the following chapters, we will analyze the

results of the questionnaire survey and discuss the

possible changes in MET due to the emergence of

MASS.

3 RESULTS

3.1 STCW

We asked the following question regarding the

availability of changes in STCW at MASS automation

levels Degrees 1 and 2 as well as Degrees 3 and 4. We

asked the question “Please select the items in which

you think there will be changes regarding STCW

(minimum competency standards for personnel on

deck duty on vessels of 500 gross tons or more).” In

order to separately represent those who responded,

respondents who selected “No particular changes” and

those who selected the change items are shown in

Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. Availability of changes in STCW (Degree1 and

Degree2)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

79 (79.0%)

21 (21.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 6, 79 (79.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 21 (21.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes.

Table 7. Availability of changes in STCW (Degree3 and

Degree4)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of

respondents (%)

75 (75.0%)

25 (25.0%)

100 (100.0%)

In Table 7, 75 (75.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 25 (25.0%) of the

respondents stated that they expect no particular

changes. The change items in Degrees 1 and 2 and

Degrees 3 and 4 are shown in Table 8. Table 8 shows

the percentages for the 79 (Degrees 1 and 2) and 75

(Degrees 3 and 4) respondents who responded, “There

will be changes.”

Table 8. Changes is STCW

Answer

(Deg.1&2) No. of

respondents (%)

(Deg.3&4) No. of

respondents (%)

Celestial Navigation

33 (41.8%)

38 (50.7%)

Terrestrial and coastal

navigation

29 (36.7%)

34 (45.3%)

Electronic systems of position

fixing and navigation

28 (35.4%)

26 (34.7%)

Echo sounding

10 (12.7%)

18 (24.0%)

Compass-magnetic and gyro

15 (19.0%)

21 (28.0%)

Steering control system

31 (39.2%)

31 (41.3%)

Meteorology

21 (26.6%)

19 (25.3%)

Watchkeeping

51 (64.6%)

45 (60.0%)

Radar navigation

33 (41.8%)

31 (41.3%)

Navigation using ECDIS

41 (51.9%)

33 (44.0%)

Emergency procedures

40 (50.6%)

41 (54.7%)

Search and rescue

28 (35.4%)

34 (45.3%)

English language

14 (17.7%)

11 (14.7%)

Visual signaling

20 (25.3%)

19 (25.3%)

Ship maneuvering and

handling

43 (54.4%)

45 (60.0%)

Cargo handling, stowage and

securing

18 (22.8%)

27 (36.0%)

Prevention of pollution of the

marine environment and air-

pollution procedures

15 (19.0%)

21 (28.0%)

Ship stability

13 (16.5%)

17 (22.7%)

Ship construction

16 (20.3%)

27 (36.0%)

Fire prevention and fire-

fighting appliances

25 (31.6%)

32 (42.7%)

Life saving

25 (31.6%)

32 (42.7%)

Medical aid

19 (24.1%)

26 (34.7%)

Total

568

628

Note: Multiple selections allowed

In Degrees 1 and 2, the three most frequent

responses were, in descending order, 51 responses

(64.6%) for “Watchkeeping”, 43 responses (54.4%) for

“Ship maneuvering and handling” and 41 responses

(51.9%) for “Navigation using ECDIS.” In Degrees 3

and 4, the three most frequent responses were, in

descending order, 45 responses (60.0%) for

“Watchkeeping” and “Ship maneuvering and

handling”, 41 responses (54.7%) for “Emergency

procedures.” The total number of itemized change was

568 in Degrees 1 and 2, and 628 items in Degrees 3 and

4, an increase of 60 items (10.6%).

1182

3.2 MET by various international regulations

3.2.1 Throughout the year

We asked the following question regarding the

availability of changes in MET throughout the year at

MASS automation levels Degrees 1 and 2 as well as

Degrees 3 and 4. We asked the question “Please select

the items you expect to change regarding throughout

the year education/training.” In order to separately

represent those who responded, respondents who

selected “No particular changes” and those who

selected the change items are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. Availability of changes in MET throughout the year

(Degree1 and Degree2)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

81 (81.0%)

19 (19.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 9, 81 (81.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 19 (19.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes are

anticipated.

Table 10. Availability of changes in MET throughout the

year (Degree3 and Degree4)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

72 (72.0%)

28 (28.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 10, 72 (72.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 28 (28.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes. The

change items in Degrees 1 and 2 and Degrees 3 and 4

are shown in Table 11. Table 11 shows the percentages

for the 81 (Degrees 1 and 2) and 72 (Degrees 3 and 4)

respondents who responded, “There will be changes.”

Table 11. Changes in MET throughout the year

Answer

(Deg.1&2) No. of

respondents (%)

(Deg.3&4) No. of

respondents (%)

ISM Code/SMS

(Safety Management

System) related

matters

55 (67.9%)

59 (81.9%)

ISPS Code / SSP (Ship

Security Plan) related

matters

45 (55.6%)

51 (70.8%)

Training and

certification based on

STCW

57 (70.4%)

60 (83.3%)

Items related to the

MARPOL and global

environmental

pollution prevention

23 (28.4%)

32 (44.4%)

Maritime regulations,

ship operation,

equipment handling,

general and recent

topics in shipping,

and other matters

specified by ship

management

companies

65 (80.2%)

61 (84.7%)

Total

245

263

Note: Multiple selections allowed

In Degrees 1 and 2, the three most frequent

responses were, in descending order, 65 responses

(80.2%) for “Maritime regulations, ship operation,

equipment handling, general and recent topics in

shipping, and other matters specified by ship

management companies”, 57 responses (70.4%) for

“Training and certification based on STCW” and 55

responses (67.9%) for “ISM Code/SMS (Safety

Management System) related matters.” In Degrees 3

and 4, the three most frequent responses were, in

descending order, 61 responses (84.7%) for “Maritime

regulations, ship operation, equipment handling,

general and recent topics in shipping, and other

matters specified by ship management companies”, 60

responses (83.3%) for “Training and certification based

on STCW” and 59 responses (81.9%) for “ISM

Code/SMS (Safety Management System) related

matters.” The total number of itemized change was 245

in Degrees 1 and 2, and 263 items in Degrees 3 and 4,

an increase of 18 items (7.3%).

3.2.2 Immediately prior to embarkation

We asked the following question regarding the

availability of changes in MET immediately prior to

embarkation at MASS automation levels Degrees 1 and

2 as well as Degrees 3 and 4. We asked the question

“Please select the items you expect to change regarding

education/training immediately prior to embarkation.”

In order to separately represent those who responded,

respondents who selected “No particular changes” and

those who selected the change items are shown in

Tables 12 and 13.

Table 12. Availability of changes in MET immediately prior

to embarkation (Degree1 and Degree2)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

78 (78.0%)

22 (22.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 12, 78 (78.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 22 (22.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes were

expected.

Table 13. Availability of changes in MET immediately prior

to embarkation (Degree3 and Degree4)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

78 (78.0%)

22 (22.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 13, 78 (78.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 22 (22.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes were

expected. The change items in Degrees 1 and 2 and

Degrees 3 and 4 are shown in Table 14. Table 14 shows

the percentages for the 78 (Degrees 1 and 2) and 78

(Degrees 3 and 4) respondents who responded, “There

will be changes.”

1183

Table 14. Changes in MET immediately prior to

embarkation

Answer

(Deg.1&2) No.

of respondents

(%)

(Deg.3&4) No.

of respondents

(%)

Basic pre-boarding training

required by STCW

41 (52.6%)

47 (60.3%)

Proficiency training required by

STCW

49 (62.8%)

51 (65.4%)

International regulations, SMS, SSP,

and other company regulations

48 (61.5%)

51 (65.4%)

Ship's particulars, routes, special

matters, and pending issues

40 (51.3%)

49 (62.8%)

Recent accidents and matters

requiring special attention

(including accident procedures)

48 (61.5%)

49 (62.8%)

Key points and points to be noted in

charter contracts, insurance

contracts, manning contracts,

collective bargaining agreements,

etc. (including ITF measures)

27 (34.6%)

36 (46.2%)

Other matters requested by ship

management companies,

shipowners, charterers, etc.

30 (38.5%)

38 (48.7%)

Total

283

321

Note: Multiple selections allowed

In Degrees 1 and 2, the three most frequent

responses were, in descending order, 49 responses

(62.8%) for “Proficiency training required by STCW”,

48 responses (61.5%) for “International regulations,

SMS, SSP, and other company regulations” and

“Recent accidents and matters requiring special

attention (including accident procedures).” In Degrees

3 and 4, the three most frequent responses were, in

descending order, 51 responses (65.4%) for

“Proficiency training required by STCW” and

“International regulations, SMS, SSP, and other

company regulations”, 49 responses (62.8%) for “Ship's

particulars, routes, special matters, and pending

issues” and “Recent accidents and matters requiring

special attention (including accident procedures).” The

total number of itemized change was 283 in Degrees 1

and 2, and 321 items in Degrees 3 and 4, an increase of

38 items (13.4%).

3.2.3 Onboard

We asked the following question regarding the

availability of changes in MET onboard at MASS

automation levels Degrees 1 and 2 as well as Degrees 3

and 4. We asked the question “Please select the items

you expect to change regarding onboard education and

training. (Multiple selections allowed)” In order to

separately represent those who responded,

respondents who selected “No particular changes” and

those who selected the change items are shown in

Tables 15 and 16.

Table 15. Availability of changes in MET onboard (Degree1

and Degree2)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

78 (78.0%)

22 (22.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 15, 78 (78.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 22 (22.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes were

anticipated.

Table 16. Availability of changes in MET onboard (Degree3

and Degree4)

Answer

There will be

changes.

No particular

changes.

Total

No. of respondents

(%)

75 (75.0%)

25 (25.0%)

100

(100.0%)

In Table 16, 75 (75.0%) of the respondents stated that

there will be changes, while 25 (25.0%) of the

respondents stated that no particular changes. The

change items in Degrees 1 and 2 and Degrees 3 and 4

are shown in Table 17. Table 17 shows the percentages

for the 78 (Degrees 1 and 2) and 75 (Degrees 3 and 4)

respondents who responded, “There will be changes.”

Table 17. Changes in MET onboard

Answer

(Deg.1&2) No. of

respondents (%)

(Deg.3&4) No. of

respondents (%)

Shipboard Familiarization

required by STCW

55 (70.5%)

57 (76.0%)

Various drills

37 (47.4%)

41 (54.7%)

Safety Management Policy

48 (61.5%)

53 (70.7%)

SSP related matters

43 (55.1%)

45 (60.0%)

Safety and health training

33 (42.3%)

44 (58.7%)

Special requests and instructions

from ship management

companies, shipowners and

charterers.

41 (52.6%)

43 (57.3%)

Port conditions at ports of call,

cargo and cargo handling

conditions, and other precautions

32 (41.0%)

42 (56.0%)

Other information on terrorism

and piracy, danger information,

ITF circumstances

35 (44.9%)

40 (53.3%)

Total

324

365

Note: Multiple selections allowed

In Degrees 1 and 2, the three most frequent

responses were, in descending order, 55 responses

(70.5%) for “Shipboard Familiarization required by

STCW”, 48 responses (61.5%) for “Safety Management

Policy” and 43 responses (55.1%) for “SSP related

matters.” In Degrees 3 and 4, the three most frequent

responses were, in descending order, 57 responses

(76.0%) for “Shipboard Familiarization required by

STCW”, 53 responses (70.7%) for “Safety Management

Policy” and 45 responses (60.0%) for “SSP related

matters.” The total number of itemized change was 324

in Degrees 1 and 2, and 365 items in Degrees 3 and 4,

an increase of 41 items (12.7%).

4 DISCUSSION

The above results give an indication of the appearance

of changes in MET due to the advent of MASS, as

considered by professional seafarers. As can be seen

from Tables 6 and 7, approximately 80% of professional

seafarers considered that STCW would change with

the advent of MASS. From Table 9, Watchkeeping was

the most frequently selected item for possible change.

The criteria for assessing this competence include “The

conduct, handover and relief of the watch conforms

with accepted principles and procedures ” and “A

proper lookout is maintained at all times and in such a

way as to conform to accepted principles and

procedures.” Whatever the level of MASS, be it as a

system with automatic navigation functions, remote

operation or fully autonomous operation, it is expected

to be a change from the current system of navigation

watch. “Watchkeeping” competence assessment

1184

criteria are also likely to change as a result of changes

to navigation watch. On the other hand, in Tables 6 and

7, approximately 20% selected “No particular

changes.” It can be inferred that professional seafarers

suspect that the emergence of automated vessels will

not significantly change what is required of seafarers

or ROs in terms of competence. For each of these items,

it is expected that the current broad themes will be

maintained, although looking at the details there may

be items to be added or deleted. Pietrzykowski and

Hajduk (2019) point out that theoretical training does

not face many problems; it is practice that faces

problems. If the deployment of seafarers is reduced

with the advent of MASS, it is expected that seafarers

will have less experience at sea. However, there are

some things that can only be experienced at sea, such

as the distance from other vessels that you can actually

feel with your own body, external forces such as wind

that the hull is subjected to, and the resulting hull

motions. Without these experiences at sea, any

problems with a remotely operating vessel could result

in a delayed response. Yoshida et al. (2020) also point

out that “experience” is an important item to

compensate for lack of ship sense and necessary

information. Even if MASS with no seafarers on board

emerge, as in IMO Degrees 3 and 4, it may be necessary

to work at sea for a certain period of time and

experience what can only be experienced at sea.

In terms of MET as defined in various international

regulations, Tables 9 and 10 show that 81% (Degrees 1

and 2) and 72% (Degrees 3 and 4) responded that there

will be changes in regard to MET throughout the year.

Table 11 shows that the most frequently selected items

for change were “Maritime regulations, ship operation,

equipment handling, general and recent topics in

shipping, and other matters specified by ship

management companies.” Tables 12 and 13 show that

78% of the respondents answered “There will be

changes” with regard to MET immediately prior to

embarkation, regardless of the level of MASS. Table 14

shows that the change items are “Proficiency training

required by STCW” in Degrees 1 and 2, “Proficiency

training required by STCW” and “International

regulations, SMS, SSP, and other company

regulations” in Degrees 3 and 4 were the most

frequently selected items. Tables 15 and 16 show that

78% (Degrees 1 and 2) and 75% (Degrees 3 and 4)

responded that there will be changes in regard to MET

onboard. Table 17 shows that the most frequently

selected items for change were “Shipboard

Familiarization required by STCW.” Other items

selected for change were not only matters relating to

STCW, but also in regard to SMS as specified in the ISM

Code and SSP as specified in the ISPS Code. MET

curricula are not only those outlined by STCW. Future

consideration should not be limited to STCW, but also

with consideration to MET as provided for in various

international regulations or company rules.

Fewer people selected “There will be changes” in

Degrees 3 and 4, which no people are on board, than in

Degrees 1 and 2, which people are on board in most

responses. This result is thought to be due to the fact

that it is difficult for professional seafarers to imagine

a situation where no one is on board the vessel in this

survey.

5 CONCLUSION

In this study, 100 professional seafarers were surveyed

to provide an overview of how the MET is changing

with the advent of MASS. In regard to the survey items

in this questionnaire - STCW and MET stipulated in

various international regulations - more than 70% of

professional seafarers respectively believe that there

will be changes. The study showed possible changes to

the competence requirements set out in STCW. For

MET defined by various international regulations, a

number of options related to STCW were selected, but

also items related to MET defined by the ISM Code and

the ISPS Code. In the future, a detailed study should

also be carried out on MET provided for in

international regulations other than STCW (e.g. which

parts of the SMS as provided for in the ISM Code need

to be changed).

This study did not examine how changes should be

made in regard to individual items in order to provide

an overview of changes. In addition, questionnaires

were used in this study, but questionnaire surveys

have limitations in the response results obtained as

they do not allow for a deep dive into the results of the

responses. To conduct a detailed study of how each of

these items may change, it is necessary to conduct

interviews or use other methods than surveys, e.g. by

conducting interviews.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the participants from NYK Line

(Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha), MOL (Mitsui O.S.K.

Lines, Ltd.) and K Line (Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.) for

responding to their MASS survey. This work was supported

by JST SPRING, Grant Number JPMJSP2148.

REFERENCES

[1] AAWA, “Remote and Autonomous Ships The next steps,”

Ship intelligence Marine, https://www.rolls-

royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-

Royce/documents/customers/marine/ship-intel/aawa-

whitepaper-210616.pdf, 2016. [Accessed April 22, 2024].

[2] Aylward, K., Weber, R., Lundh, M., MacKinnon, SN. and

Dahlman, J., “Navigators' views of a collision avoidance

decision support system for maritime navigation,”

JOURNAL OF NAVIGATION, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1035-

1048, 2022.

[3] Boguslawski, K., Gil, M., Nasur, J., Wróbel, K.,

“Implications of autonomous shipping for maritime

education and training: the cadet's perspective,”

MARITIME ECONOMICS & LOGISTICS, vol. 24, no. 2,

pp. 327-343, 2022

[4] European Commission, “Charting a course towards

autonomous shipping,” Research and Innovation,

https://projects.research-and-

innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/success-

stories/all/charting-course-towards-autonomous-

shipping, 2017. [Accessed Nov. 5, 2024].

[5] Fan, CL., Wróbel, K., Montewka, J., Gil, M., Wan, CP.,

Zhang, D., “A framework to identify factors influencing

navigational risk for Maritime Autonomous Surface

Ships,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 202, p. 107188, 2020.

[6] Hogg, T., and Ghosh., S., “Autonomous merchant vessels:

Examination of factors that impact the effective

implementation of unmanned ships,” Australian Journal

1185

of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, vol. 8, no.3, pp. 206-222,

2016.

[7] IMO, “Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), 98th session, 7-

16 June – Media information,”

https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/imomediaaccredit

ation/pages/msc-98-preview.aspx, 2017. [Accessed Nov.

5, 2024]

[8] IMO, “Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), 100th session,

3-7 December 2018,”

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummari

es/Pages/MSC-100th-session.aspx, 2018. [Accessed Nov.

5, 2024]

[9] IMO, “Maritime Safety Committee, 103rd session (MSC

103),”

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummari

es/Pages/MSC-103rd-session.aspx, 2021. [Accessed Nov.

5, 2024]

[10] IMO, “Joint MSC-LEG-FAL Working Group on

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS-JWG) 2nd

session,”

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummari

es/Pages/Joint-MSC-LEG-FAL-Working-Group-on-

Maritime-Autonomous-Surface-Ships-(MASS)-.aspx,

2023. [Accessed Nov. 5, 2024]

[11] IMO, “Maritime Safety Committee - 109th session (MSC

109), 2-6 December 2024,”

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummari

es/Pages/MSC-109th-session.aspx, 2024. [Accessed March

22, 2025]

[12] Japan Maritime Center, “Trends in global seaborne cargo

volumes”,

https://www.jpmac.or.jp/file/1716956578085.pdf, 2024.

[Accessed Oct. 29, 2024]

[13] Kim, T. and Mallam, S., “A Delphi-AHP study on STCW

leadership competence in the age of autonomous

maritime operations,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs,

vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 163-181, 2020.

[14] Kretschmann, L., Burmeister, HC., Jahn, C., “Analyzing

the economic benefit of unmanned autonomous ships: An

exploratory cost-comparison between an autonomous

and a conventional bulk carrier,” RESEARCH IN

TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT,

vol. 25, pp. 76-86, 2017.

[15] Mallam, SC., Nazir, S., Sharma, A., “The human element

in future Maritime Operations - perceived impact of

autonomous shipping,” ERGONOMICS, vol. 63, no. 3,

pp. 334-345, 2020.

[16] Nautilus Federation, “Future Proofed? What Maritime

Professionals Think about Autonomous Shipping,”

https://www.nautilusint.org/globalassets/public-

resources/pdfs/autonomous_shipping.pdf, 2018.

[Accessed March 22, 2025]

[17] Pietrzykowski, Z., and Hajduk, J., “Operations of

maritime autonomous surface ships,” TransNav, the

International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of

Sea Transportation, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 725-733, 2019.

[18] Sharma, A., Kim T., Nazir S., Chae, C., “Catching up with

time? Examining the STCW competence framework for

autonomous shipping” Ergoship2019, vol. 2019, pp. 87-

93, 2019.

[19] The Japan Shipping Exchange, Inc., “Introduction to

Ship Management : A practical guide to ship

management,” Japan, Foreign Crewman's Welfare

Fund Management Committee, pp. 53-55, 2008.

[20] The Nippon Foundation, “3rd and 4th Demonstration

Tests of Fully Autonomous Ship Navigation Successfully

Completed Seen leading to improved safety at sea,”

https://www.nippon-

foundation.or.jp/en/news/articles/2022/20220207-

67748.html, 2022. [Accessed Oct. 22, 2024]

[21] The Nippon Foundation, “5th Demonstration Test of

Fully Autonomous Ship Navigation Successfully

Completed Test between Tokyo Bay and Ise Bay marks

first successful demonstration of fully autonomous

navigation in congested sea area,” https://www.nippon-

foundation.or.jp/en/news/articles/2022/20220301-

67775.html, 2022. [Accessed Oct. 29, 2024]

[22] YARA, "Yara Birkeland, two years on,”

https://www.yara.com/knowledge-grows/yara-

birkeland-two-years-on/, 2024. [Accessed Oct. 29, 2024]