Consultants guide to Ship Anti Piracy work in GoA

Leks

As a training provider I will be the first to put my hand up and state that the SSO course in general is death by PowerPoint and teaches you little about the physical application of maritime security measures. But as many seem to get confused with, the SSO course was never designed as an anti piracy course. It addresses an understanding that is required for Merchant Mariners of the Security Code of Practice that the maritime industry has to work under, the ISPS code.

In effect it does what it “says on the tin”

Why some companies ask for an SSO qualification is so that when you go onto a merchant vessel you are speaking the same lingo as the vessel crew when it comes to the security code of practice that they have to work under.

I fully understand that you probably have only so much money to spend on courses and it is laudable that you want to spend this money on safety related courses.

I do not know your background but do you not think that it is disingenuous of you to want to be employed in security on vessels and yet you seem to pay lip service to the security code of practice that the Merchant seaman has to adhere to.

Street cred and understanding the industry lingo you work in can in many cases make or break you.

John
 
Last edited:
imsaltd said:
Leks

As a training provider I will be the first to put my hand up and state that the SSO course in general is death by PowerPoint and teaches you little about the physical application of maritime security measures. But as many seem to get confused with, the SSO course was never designed as an anti piracy course. It addresses an understanding that is required for Merchant Mariners of the Security Code of Practice that the maritime industry has to work under, the ISPS code.

In effect it does what it “says on the tin”

Why some companies ask for an SSO qualification is so that when you go onto a merchant vessel you are speaking the same lingo as the vessel crew when it comes to the security code of practice that they have to work under.

I fully understand that you probably have only so much money to spend on courses and it is laudable that you want to spend this money on safety related courses.

I do not know your background but do you not think that it is disingenuous of you to want to be employed in security on vessels and yet you seem to pay lip service to the security code of practice that the Merchant seaman has to adhere to.

Street cred and understanding the industry lingo you work in can in many cases make or break you.

John
Click to expand...
John,

My background is Ex Royal Marine PW2 (13 Yrs) and CPO (7 Yrs).

I do not mean to come across as disingenuous with regard to my choice of course in relation to MarSec.

I genuinely want to attain the best, relevant qualification in preparation of getting in to The MarSec Industry. If it had not been for my current work commitments, I would have already have done an SSO Cse with IMSA or Drum Cussac, as both companies are spoken highly of and recommended by many to do SSO Cse with.

However, I regularly "check in" on CPW, looking for latest vacancies as well as reading tips and advice with regard to Courses, Companies and Points of view. I find it very frustrating to be so close to going down one route of training to get in to MarSec, only to find other reputable members giving pretty much the opposite advice which appears to be well informed and thought through. I am not looking for the quickest, cheapest, back door way in to MarSec (although a simple and cost effective option is always desirable), but do want to know that my course choice IS actually required and not just what some employers want, where others seem to have different prerequisites.

Surly by now there should be a definitive answer as to what qualifications someone wishing to enter the MarSec Industry (specifically Anti-Piracy) needs to have.

I think it is only human nature for guys to initially get qualifications that they definitely need to get employed and then supplement those quals with others that enhance those "basic" skills.

I know I have to get qual'd, I just do not want to shell out £500 - £1000 (cse dependant) on something that only some recognise as necessary, when perhaps there is another qual that everyone thinks is necessary.

This post is in danger of becoming a "rant" which is not my intention, I value yours and others input and advice and just want to make the right decision as I now find myself at a cross roads that as you said, could make or break me.

I look forward to anyone's input on this matter.

Many thanks in advance,

Leks.
 
Leks

Not a rant mate, you voice the genuine concerns of all and sundry. Unfortunately until there is a marsec industry standard for quals and experience along the lines of the STCW 95 qualifications required by the merchant navy, no one can give you a definitive answer to your question. Until there is a marsec standards body this is never going to happen.

I take your point on trying to gear your current course spending to gaining employment in the anti piracy sector of marsec. What I would say though is look at the bigger picture. What are you going to be doing in 2 years time, anti piracy in the GoA/IO or will you be looking to kick on into general marsec work in the likes of W Africa with more of a steady rotation i.e. 28 about?

Much of the work we do requires guys to have BOSIET for the O&G industry, that’s another £650 course, then there are the medical certificates and so on and so forth. Many of the sec companies consultants are working for in the O&G industry in Nigeria require their guys to have the PFSO qual because all onshore and offshore facilities in Nigeria are classed as Port Facilities, more expense for the individual as in most cases the companies will not pick up the tab.

There is no simple answer and you have got to spend your money wisely.

I try to give the guys attending our SSO (plus+) cse a better insight into general marsec employment in a module called Industry quals and jargon. Its jaw dropping stuff for many of the guys new to the game when we start talking about quals, contracts and insurance etc.

Unfortunately there is no definitive answer and the more unbiased threads that are posted can only help to educate guys to what they require. I get many calls from guys asking about courses and quals in general, I invariably direct them to the marsec thread on CPWorld and tell them to take a little time looking back through and make their own minds up based on the many posts on the subject.

John

 
imsaltd said:
Leks

Not a rant mate, you voice the genuine concerns of all and sundry. Unfortunately until there is a marsec industry standard for quals and experience along the lines of the STCW 95 qualifications required by the merchant navy, no one can give you a definitive answer to your question. Until there is a marsec standards body this is never going to happen.

I take your point on trying to gear your current course spending to gaining employment in the anti piracy sector of marsec. What I would say though is look at the bigger picture. What are you going to be doing in 2 years time, anti piracy in the GoA/IO or will you be looking to kick on into general marsec work in the likes of W Africa with more of a steady rotation i.e. 28 about?

Much of the work we do requires guys to have BOSIET for the O&G industry, that’s another £650 course, then there are the medical certificates and so on and so forth. Many of the sec companies consultants are working for in the O&G industry in Nigeria require their guys to have the PFSO qual because all onshore and offshore facilities in Nigeria are classed as Port Facilities, more expense for the individual as in most cases the companies will not pick up the tab.

There is no simple answer and you have got to spend your money wisely.

I try to give the guys attending our SSO (plus+) cse a better insight into general marsec employment in a module called Industry quals and jargon. Its jaw dropping stuff for many of the guys new to the game when we start talking about quals, contracts and insurance etc.

Unfortunately there is no definitive answer and the more unbiased threads that are posted can only help to educate guys to what they require. I get many calls from guys asking about courses and quals in general, I invariably direct them to the marsec thread on CPWorld and tell them to take a little time looking back through and make their own minds up based on the many posts on the subject.

John
Click to expand...

Good post.
Indeed, if the IMO will not come up with something they will put under the ISPS umbrella ( hardly STCW-95 ), the situation will remain as it is.

There is not too much sense in arguing with a company why they require a SSO Certificate if the guy is not working in any SSO capacity, it is like arguing why a company will require for a SIA and you work in A-Stan / Iraq.
No actual need, just somethin THEY or their CLIENT will require. Remember that a company can require a Mickey-Mouse hat if they want. You either go with it or simply move on to some other company.
 
John,

Both you and Nick have given me a lot to think about, I now find myself swinging back to the SSO camp!!??

I can see both courses (SSO / STCW 95) have there value within MarSec.

So I can foresee me getting them both cracked in due time.

The sooner there is consistency in required / preferred qualifications, the better.

Thanks,

Leks.
 
Leks,

Mate if i can add my ten pence worth......basically mate you choose the course for what you think will best aid you and dependant on what avenue of MERSEC you wish to go down then there are different quals for each.
If you want to concentrate on boat driving, security survey, security watch officer stuff.
Or you could just obtain a wide range of quals so that you can do most of the mentioned jobs.
Also it comes down to what the company ie security company wants you to have if they want you to have a CP, SIA, SSO course under your belt then its up to you if you want the job, there are far to many lads and im sorry to say this drip about what companies are asking for "if you want that job or work then you need to get the qualifications".

Some of them might not seem the best qualifications to have to work at sea like CP and SIA but some companies like the super yacht ones like to employ you as a maritime consultant and then if you have to go land side you can do the clients CP for them aswell etc etc.

There are a few course i think you should have and this would give you a very good head start in the game

1. - Being an ex marine etc is always a very good start.
2. - SSO course anyone of the IMSA, DC and MUSC course are all top grade and give you that tick with some expert dits and experiences from people who have done the job.
3. - RYA powerboat level 2 (advanced)
4. - STCW 95 or an equivalent qualification within the maritime sector.
5. - ENG 1 (seafarers medical - slowly being asked for alot more)

A CP course and SIA license is always good mate from my point of view and will always make you more employable from the average joe with limited quals.
Mate if you want any more info or if i can be of any help then please PM away on a job for the next 6wks but should have comms for a limited amount of days.

Hope it goes well

damianbevs
 
Nick
A brilliant post, many thanks for the input, what advice and what kind of training
Package could you advise to be an approved trainer, is there a set package laid down by the MCA? and what quals would the trainer need, many thanks
 
royw said:
Nick
A brilliant post, many thanks for the input, what advice and what kind of training
Package could you advise to be an approved trainer, is there a set package laid down by the MCA? and what quals would the trainer need, many thanks
Click to expand...
Hi RoyW,
As a training provider, the MCA require a copy of your CV with relevant experience and certs submitted to them; they provide approval on a case by case basis. Some evidence of training ability is required and would recommend a C&G Cert in Providing Adult Learning as well as Delivery of Conflict Mgt Training.
My own background was 30 years police experience (mostly CT) and the professional Certs helped a lot viz
Home Office CP Course
Hostage Negotiator Trainer
TFA
Air Obs
HND Pol Studies
Public Order Command
PolSA
etc.
I have to say, the first few ISPS courses I delivered were a steep learing curve and having done as much learning from delegates over 5 years as they have from me I realise that humility to accept you don't know it all is an important quality. Having said that, for the wee obscure questions which crop up from time to time, you need to know where to find the answers.
Providing Ship Security Surveys and Plans is also a highly important learning aspect to witness the practical application of the code and such experience can then be incorporated into your training delivery.
There are ISPS trainers from many different backgrounds and I have witnessed the worst and the very best which is dependent on their experience.
Someone mentioned 'Death by PowerPoint' and I have seen a trainer from a large global security provider do exactly that by simply reading the script from the screen with no ability or experience to illustrate with practical examples. In this respect, I would recommend that anyone about to spend money on an ISPS Course to firstly call the trainer (rather than the course administrator) and interrogate them regards course content/experience and get a feel of the cut of their jib. A good trainer should manage to pitch a course to fit the specific requirements and background of the delegates and not be a robotic rep of a 'stack em high, sell em cheap' organisation.
Hopefully, this may help you or have I completely missed your point?
Roger
 
These posts are an excellent example of how good this forum is at distributing information to other members not as knowledgeable as the ones who have many years experience at a specific subject.

However,here is another subject thrown into the mix,i have spoken to a few operators and companies involved in maritime security and apparently the new must have item is a seamens card,this apparently acts as a passport into a country without the need for a visa and is separate to a discharge book,the process to obtain one is the same however you must have a company to fill in certain parts of the application form to state you are working on seafareing vessel.

I confess to having a limited knowledge of the complete world of maritime security and would welcome any other members view on this subject.

Sean.
 
Sean

Discharge Books & British Seamans Cards

A discharge book is a continuous record of a seafarers service. It is the personal possesion of the seafarer. The British Seaman's Card is similar to a British Passport and is internationally accepted, allowing seafarers to land at foreign ports without having to obtain visas. The card is surrendered to RSS by the seafarer when he/she leaves seagoing employment. Guidance notes on qualifying criteria are attached to the application form.

Does what it says on the tin!

[url]http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/msf4509r409.pdf[/URL]

John
 
Thanks John,

Had already visited that website previously,was just making the point that although you may have what you deem as the correct quals for a maritime security contract,possibly not all forum members maybe be aware of the need to now have a seamens card to gain employment,possibly not every company requires it but most do i think.

Sean.
 
Thanks Nick, very enjoyable read, our Business has a interest in working in this area, but only want to do it professionally and with a reasonable skill set behind us. We are New Zealand based, luckily the pirates cant navigate this far down under yet!
 
This is a snip from the IPO

Using private security companies to provide security in the maritime field gives rise to the same issues as their use in the land domain; by nature these are regulatory, legal and co-operative. The regulation of private companies is currently a hot topic involving a wide spectrum of interested stakeholders. There is unity of purpose in trying to establish an international Code of Conduct for private security, covering both the delivery of service and sound commercial practice. Once accepted this will provide a clear benchmark for acceptable modus operandi for companies. This will ensure that private security companies have a sound set of standard procedures and, in particular, a clearly articulated RUF, which must be reactive, proportionate and escalatory in nature.

Legally, all managers must have a sound understanding of the intricacies of maritime law concerning territorial and international waters. In particular, the passage of arms and armed men through territorial waters is a key issue that has to be resolved (assuming that the client wishes and is permitted under its flag state regulations to have an armed guard force). In the sphere of cooperation, a private firm needs to integrate its operations with the relevant stakeholders (such as naval, coast guard, customs and police forces). This is vital to minimize the chance of “blue on white†incidents and to maximize the opportunities to receive support (such as the helicopter in the initial vignette). Finally, a private firm needs to maintain certified training standards for all its operators to assure the standard of skills and professional knowledge of its work force.


There is a significant need for the use of private security in the domain of maritime security. The responsibility for assuring such security lies firmly with governments and international bodies, but companies have an appropriate role and a sound capability to service a niche market in support of these official bodies. For their part, companies must operate within the extant legal and regulatory framework and ensure that their staffs are appropriately trained.
 
Sounds like the IMO had a complete 'brain fart' in stating the obvious with worn-out corporate speak from the 90's!
 
Last edited:
NGIP said:
This is a snip from the IPO

Using private security companies to provide security in the maritime field gives rise to the same issues as their use in the land domain; by nature these are regulatory, legal and co-operative. The regulation of private companies is currently a hot topic involving a wide spectrum of interested stakeholders. There is unity of purpose in trying to establish an international Code of Conduct for private security, covering both the delivery of service and sound commercial practice. Once accepted this will provide a clear benchmark for acceptable modus operandi for companies. This will ensure that private security companies have a sound set of standard procedures and, in particular, a clearly articulated RUF, which must be reactive, proportionate and escalatory in nature.

Legally, all managers must have a sound understanding of the intricacies of maritime law concerning territorial and international waters. In particular, the passage of arms and armed men through territorial waters is a key issue that has to be resolved (assuming that the client wishes and is permitted under its flag state regulations to have an armed guard force). In the sphere of cooperation, a private firm needs to integrate its operations with the relevant stakeholders (such as naval, coast guard, customs and police forces). This is vital to minimize the chance of “blue on white†incidents and to maximize the opportunities to receive support (such as the helicopter in the initial vignette). Finally, a private firm needs to maintain certified training standards for all its operators to assure the standard of skills and professional knowledge of its work force.


There is a significant need for the use of private security in the domain of maritime security. The responsibility for assuring such security lies firmly with governments and international bodies, but companies have an appropriate role and a sound capability to service a niche market in support of these official bodies. For their part, companies must operate within the extant legal and regulatory framework and ensure that their staffs are appropriately trained.
Click to expand...
Yep and that's the exact reason the IAMSP was founded so that the industry has the necessary benchmark on quality and to keep the cowboys out (read Blackwater, XE etc.....) More info on the IAMSP and its aims can be found on their website at IAMSP
 
I don't think the maritime section is seeing the importance of this? The European commission is currently discussing PMC’s. In the past most opposition against PMC-PSC was from IPO. To read this from them is a big about turn and seems it will go ahead. I think its time for UK groups to get together and work out a plan before Skills for Security get into the act.
 
NGIP said:
I don't think the maritime section is seeing the importance of this? The European commission is currently discussing PMC’s. In the past most opposition against PMC-PSC was from IPO. To read this from them is a big about turn and seems it will go ahead. I think its time for UK groups to get together and work out a plan before Skills for Security get into the act.
Click to expand...

The thing is the IAMSP is aware of this plus the fact that we will be signing the Nyon document this month. Which the beginning of the control of the PSC's & PMC's in EU........If you want a copy of the said document PM me.
Yours
Aye
 
Back
Top