1. Introduction

The intensifying global competition in the shipping industry and the growing demand for logistics efficiency have driven significant technological advancements, notably the trend toward larger and faster vessels. Ultra-large container ships and LNG carriers, for example, require a high level of professional expertise and precise maneuvering in navigation, berthing, and ship handling. While traditional theoretical instruction and on-board practical training remain core elements in enhancing seafaring competence, the importance of simulation-based training has become increasingly evident. Simulation enables the systematic incorporation of diverse maritime and emergency scenarios and provides opportunities for repetitive, controlled practice, thereby strengthening the overall competency of seafarers.

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers(STCW), adopted by the International Maritime Organization(IMO), explicitly mandates the use of simulators in certain training courses, such as RADAR, ARPA, and ECDIS, and recommends their active utilization in ship handling training(IMO, 2025). In Korea, the provisions of the STCW Convention have been incorporated into domestic legislation, and simulator-based training has been implemented in selected components of the maritime officer training curriculum.

Previous studies have addressed various aspects of simulator-based maritime education and training. Kim(2002) analyzed the practices at the Marine Simulation Center of Korea Maritime University, focusing on Ship Handling Simulator(SHS) and Bridge Resource Management(BRM) training. Lee et al.(2013) compared and analyzed maritime accident statistics and the operational status of training programs in accordance with the revised STCW standards and international training criteria, identifying enhancement of emergency response capability, expansion of practice-oriented training, and standardization of assessment criteria as key improvement measures. Yun et al.(2015) developed standardized search and rescue ship handling procedures tailored to the Korea Coast Guard and implemented them through ship handling simulator training. Park(2016) provided foundational data for standardizing training and assessment items in ARPA/Radar simulation training. Lee et al.(2016) recommended the use of both ECDIS simulators and Full Mission Simulator Systems(FMSS) to address the growing number of ECDIS-related incidents. Park et al.(2018), through a survey, proposed customized radar simulation training periods and content for coastal seafarers.

Recognizing the operational variations in simulator-based training among institutions, this study aims to demonstrate the necessity of standardization. To this end, the research examines relevant international and domestic regulatory frameworks, including the STCW Convention, IMO Model Courses, the Seafarers’ Act, and standards for designated training institutions, to derive implications for best practice. Furthermore, the study compares the operational status of simulator-based training in maritime officer training institutions in Korea and, based on these findings, proposes a standardized operational framework for ship handling simulator training.

2. Regulations on Simulator-Based Training

2.1 STCW Convention

STCW Convention and Code stipulate both general principles and specific standards for simulator-based training, as outlined below.

STCW Regulation I/12 specifies the obligation to comply with performance standards when conducting simulator-based training, assessment, or demonstration of proficiency. STCW Code Section A‑I/12 (Standards Governing the Use of Simulators) presents the main performance standards for training simulators (Part 1) and assessment simulators (Part 2).

For training simulators, the performance standards require that they be appropriate to the training objectives and tasks; realistically simulate the physical operation of the relevant shipboard equipment, including its limitations and errors; provide sufficient behavioral realism to enable skill acquisition; be capable of reproducing emergency, hazardous, and abnormal situations; provide interactive interfaces for both trainees and instructors; and allow instructors to control, monitor, and record training for effective feedback.

For assessment simulators, the standards require that they enable achievement of assessment objectives; realistically simulate the operation, limitations, and possible errors of shipboard equipment; provide sufficient behavioral realism for candidates to demonstrate required skills; include interfaces for interaction between assessors and candidates; reproduce emergency, hazardous, and abnormal situations under controlled conditions; and allow assessors to control, monitor, and record performance for effective evaluation.

STCW Code Section A‑I/6 (Training and Assessment) prescribes the qualifications of instructors and assessors, stipulating that instructors conducting simulator-based training must have received appropriate guidance in the use of simulation training techniques and possess practical experience in operating the specific simulator.

STCW Code Section A‑I/6 (Quality Standards) also requires that all training objectives and competence standards be clearly defined and documented, that overall monitoring be conducted under a quality standards system, and that simulator-based training meet standardized procedures and criteria under such a quality assurance framework. An independent evaluation must be carried out at least every five years to verify compliance.

2.2 Seafarers’ Act

The Seafarers’ Act aims to ensure the safety of ship navigation by prescribing the qualifications of those serving as ship officers. Article 16 authorizes the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries to require seafarers to undertake refresher training, as prescribed by ministerial ordinance, if deemed necessary for improving competence and technical skills or for implementing the STCW Convention or the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel.

The Enforcement Rules of the Seafarers’ Act, Annex 1, specify the target trainees, training content, and training duration for various courses, including license acquisition training, license renewal training, refresher training, safety and marine pollution prevention training, and job‑specific training.

In particular, refresher training for licensed officers includes several courses related to ship handling simulators:

Radar Simulator Training: For holders of deck officer licenses (Grades 1–6) assigned for the first time to a radar‑equipped navigational ship; includes training in radar observation, radar fundamentals, and radar navigation over a period of 5 days.

Leadership and Teamwork Training: For those assigned for the first time as deck officers, engineers, operations officers, or electro‑technical officers on coastal passenger ships or merchant ships; provides 3 days of training in effective management and utilization of human resources as members of the shipboard organization.

ECDIS Training: For holders of deck officer licenses (Grades 1–6) assigned for the first time to an ECDIS‑equipped passenger ship or merchant ship; consists of 3 days of training to develop knowledge and skills for the use of ECDIS.

ARPA Training: For holders of deck officer licenses (Grades 1 –6) assigned for the first time to a merchant ship equipped with ARPA; consists of 3 days of training in ARPA operation and simulator‑based exercises.

3. Analysis of Simulator Training Courses

3.1 IMO Model Course

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed a series of model courses under the STCW framework to promote the international standardization of maritime education and training. Simulator-based training is emphasized in courses related to Radar, Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA), Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), and Ship Handling.

Representative model courses closely linked to simulation training include 1.07, 1.08, 1.22, 1.27, and 6.10 (Table 1). Each course specifies training hours and content tailored to its target trainees and training objectives:

Model Course 1.07: For officers in charge of a navigational watch (STCW Code A‑II/1); recommends 66.5 hours in total (31 hours lecture, 30 hours practical exercises, 5.5 hours demonstration). Covers essential navigation skills such as compliance with the COLREGs, manual and automatic plotting techniques, and ARPA operation(IMO, 2017).

Model Course 1.08: For management‑level officers (STCW Code A‑II/2); totals 38 hours (10 hours lecture, 28 hours simulator). Includes radar operation in congested waters, Search and Rescue (SAR) coordination, and Bridge Resource Management (BRM). Emphasizes teamwork and crisis response among bridge team members(IMO, 2019).

Model Course 1.22: For deck officers and masters; 40 hours total (20 hours lecture, 20 hours simulation). Focuses on ship handling, passage planning, emergency response, and BRM through realistic simulation exercises(IMO, 2023).

Model Course 1.27: For deck officers (STCW Code A‑II/1(7)); 40 hours total (27.5 hours lecture, 12.5 hours simulation). Covers ECDIS operation, data accuracy, route planning, and monitoring(IMO, 2012a).

Model Course 6.10: For simulator instructors and assessors; 30 hours total (16.5 hours lecture, 13.5 hours simulation). Covers course design, scenario development, briefing/debriefing, and assessment techniques, in line with STCW Code A‑I/6 and A‑I/12(IMO, 2012b).

Across the IMO model courses, simulation training is not limited to equipment operation but is designed to integrate situational awareness, decision-making, teamwork, communication, and crisis management. Training scenarios are recommended to progress in difficulty, and assessments should be based on clear criteria, with debriefing sessions to provide feedback.

3.2 Standards for Designated Training Institutions

The Standards for Designated Training Institutions is a ministerial notification issued under Article 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Seafarers’ Act, prescribing the criteria for designation of maritime training institutions, which include universities established under the Framework Act on Education offering maritime officer or engineer courses.

Article 7 (Instructor Qualifications) specifies that instructors responsible for simulator-based education and training must have completed manufacturer training or a course in simulator instructional techniques, and must possess practical operational proficiency in the specific simulator used.

Articles 14 (Radar Simulation Training), 17 (Leadership Training), 18 (ECDIS Training), and 25 (Ship Handling Simulator Training) prescribe requirements for curricula, training content, facilities, and instructional conditions for courses utilizing ship handling simulators (Table 2).

The Standards for Designated Training Institutions prescribe the qualifications of instructors responsible for simulation-based training, the curriculum, training content, and facility requirements. However, they do not provide detailed specifications regarding the training duration for each course, nor do they define the procedures for course delivery and assessment methods.

3.3 Status of Simulator-Based Training Operations in Domestic Maritime Education Institutions

Table 3 presents the results of an examination of designation certificates issued to fisheries and maritime universities as designated training institutions. The four universities surveyed were all designated to conduct the simulator-based courses of Radar Simulator Training, ARPA Training, Leadership and Teamwork Training, and ECDIS Training. However, it was found that neither the trainee capacity nor the training duration was consistent across institutions.

For radar training, the maximum number of trainees per course ranged from 35 to 68, while training duration varied from 45 to 86 hours. ARPA training also showed considerable variation, with trainee capacity ranging from 35 to 68 and training duration from 45 to 84 hours. ECDIS training demonstrated a similar pattern, with capacity ranging from 40 to 68 trainees and training duration between 30 and 60 hours. The Leadership and Teamwork course was the only program to show relative standardization, with training duration ranging from 30 to 32 hours.

These differences can be attributed to variations in institutional factors such as facility size, faculty composition, and educational philosophy. However, from the perspective of standardizing seafarer competence, such discrepancies may pose a problem. Even among seafarers holding the same qualification, differences in the quantity and quality of simulation training experience may arise depending on the institution from which they graduated.

4. Standardized Operational Framework for Ship Handling Simulator Training

In Korea, simulator-based training is currently implemented in maritime officer training institutions; however, improvements are required in the standardization of training hours and content. In line with IMO recommendations, the following standardized operational framework is proposed for domestic simulator-based maritime training.

4.1 Standardized Training Hours and Scenarios

First, ECDIS training should be set at a minimum of 40 hours. The IMO Model Course 1.27 clearly recommends conducting ECDIS training for at least 40 hours, whereas the current Seafarers’ Act specifies a three-day course, creating a gap between domestic requirements and international standards. This discrepancy indicates a need for legislative revision. The Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology already operates a five-day (40-hour) ECDIS program, and other institutions may provide longer courses if necessary. However, no trainee should receive significantly fewer hours of training than the Model Course recommends, as this minimum threshold is essential to meet international standards and to ensure that trainees acquire the operational proficiency and situational awareness required for safe ECDIS use.

Second, scenario standardization is essential. A national-level development of standardized training scenarios is proposed, linked to the National Competency Standards (NCS) in the field of ship operations. By basing simulator scenarios on NCS navigation competency elements—such as position fixing, ship handling, and maritime communication in English—standardized simulator exercises can be developed to strengthen the linkage between practical skills required in industry and the maritime training curriculum.

Examples of standardized scenarios include: entry into and departure from ports with moderate traffic and VTS communications; crossing and overtaking situations in restricted visibility and dense traffic; passage through narrow channels with strong currents; and emergency situations such as sudden engine failure during a head-on encounter in a traffic lane. Each scenario should include clearly defined objectives and instructor guidelines for execution and debriefing. Common scenarios will ensure that trainees nationwide face comparable challenges, creating a form of standardized experience and facilitating the sharing of outcomes and lessons learned between institutions.

As an analogy, the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act in Korea specifies detailed standards for driving tests in Annexes 24 and 25, including functional test items (e.g., hill start, signal intersection navigation, right-angle parking, acceleration course) and road test criteria (e.g., minimum route length of 5 km, at least one lane change, one left turn, and one complete stop at a pedestrian crossing). While such specific assessment criteria cannot be directly applied to maritime licensing due to fundamental differences in the domains, a comparable level of fairness and consistency should be achieved in the maritime field. Therefore, a national-level standard for simulator training and assessment is indispensable to ensure fairness, consistency, and credibility in maritime officer licensing.

4.2 Instructor Qualification Requirements

Even the most well-designed simulator training program can lose its effectiveness if instructors are not adequately prepared; therefore, strict qualification standards for simulator instructors are essential.

All instructors responsible for simulator-based training should hold a Simulator Instructor Certificate in accordance with IMO Model Course 6.10. This certification can be obtained through an approved instructor and assessor training program. If an instructor has not completed the official 6.10 course, they should complete equivalent training before independently conducting simulator sessions. This requirement ensures consistent instructional competency among instructors across institutions.

In addition to specialized simulator instructional training, instructors should be experienced navigators. The ideal instructor profile would be a master mariner with substantial bridge experience or, at minimum, a chief mate license holder who has completed the aforementioned instructional training. Instructors must possess practical seagoing experience directly relevant to the training content they deliver, enabling them to effectively bridge theoretical knowledge and real-world application.

5. Conclusion

This study analyzed the current status of ship handling simulator training in domestic maritime officer education institutions and, through comparison with international standards and domestic regulations, presented the necessity and specific directions for standardization. The analysis revealed that, despite being the same type of training, there are considerable differences among institutions in terms of training hours, detailed content, and delivery methods. Such inconsistencies can act as constraints in ensuring uniform development of core competencies among seafarers.

The IMO Model Courses and the STCW Convention clearly define the objectives, minimum training hours, scenario design, and assessment methods for simulator-based training. These international standards should be systematically reflected in the domestic maritime education system and operational practices. To achieve this, a revision of relevant provisions in the Seafarers’ Act is necessary. In particular, key simulator-based courses such as ECDIS, Radar/ARPA, and Leadership and Teamwork should ensure compliance with the minimum training hours and standardized scenarios recommended by international standards, and instructor qualifications should be managed in accordance with the requirements of IMO Model Course 6.10.

In the future, the development of national-level standardized scenarios, unification of training and assessment criteria, and enhancement of instructor competency will be essential to minimizing disparities in training quality among institutions and to ensuring that seafarers’ practical skills are reliably secured. This will enable simulator training to evolve beyond mere equipment operation toward comprehensive training that cultivates situational awareness, crisis response, teamwork, and decision-making skills.

In conclusion, the standardized operational framework and improvement measures proposed in this study can serve as a foundation for the future enhancement of the domestic maritime education and training system. Moreover, they will contribute to compliance with international maritime safety standards and strengthen the global competitiveness of the shipping industry.

Nevertheless, this study has certain limitations. First, while the analysis covered IMO Model Courses and selected cases from domestic maritime universities, it did not extend to empirical validation through experimental implementation or systematic measurement of learning outcomes. Second, the scope of the investigation was largely confined to domestic institutions, and thus did not sufficiently incorporate comparative insights from overseas best practices in simulator-based training. These limitations highlight the need for further research. Future studies should include empirical evaluations of training effectiveness as well as broader international case analyses, in order to reinforce the validity and applicability of the proposed standardization framework.