363

1 INTRODUCTION

Seamanship is a term embracing and affecting all

parts of the shipping industry, and it probably relates

to all professional operative activities. The main

seamanship dimensions – skills, knowledge, and

attitude – correlate with the ideals of the term

“competence”.

Competence is measured by the ability to put into

practice the knowledge, skills and attitudes which

have been learned and understood. It is this

integration in practice which is the crucial part, not

simply the acquisition of knowledge and skills [4].

According to the Old Testament [6], the

Phoenicians had knowledge of the sea, i.e., one of the

seamanship-related dimensions. King Solomon chose

Origin and Development of Seamanship Competence

. Johansen

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

ABSTRACT: Seafaring is one of the oldest documented human activities, with a rich heritage created by

generations of seamen. The first boats were developed several thousand years ago, based on primitive

principles, and they were probably not suitable for other than simple purposes. Analyzing the history of boat

building shows a gradual change in designs. These design changes were most likely due to improvements,

related to different aspects of experiences undergone; the changing activity purposes of the boats; and the

continual resolution of a conflict between what is possible and what is desired.

Nevertheless, design changes and different improvements were developed in a relationship between

experiences gained by sailors and shipbuilders. Therefore, the development of seafaring was probably, both

directly and indirectly, based on the experiences of sailors who had gained knowledge of the sea. The first

written documentation to support the relationship between sailors and knowledge of the sea is in the Old

Testament of the Christian Bible, approximately 950 years before Christ. King Solomon of Israel formed an

alliance with the Phoenician king of Tyre, Hiram 1, because he needed the Phoenicians’ ships and naval

expertise.

“And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, sailors that have knowledge of the sea, along with the servants of

Solomon” (1. King IX – 27).

The phrase “sailors with knowledge of the sea” correlates with a partial core of seamanship science. The science

of seamanship is a multi-dimensional expression, which concerns seamen’s complete competence in sailing and

operating a ship.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the origin and development of the ship-operating aspects of seamanship

and shed light on aspects of the development and challenges regarding exercise of seamanship competence-

related maritime education and training (MET).

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of S

ea Transportation

Volume 16

Number 2

June 2022

DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.02.19

364

collaboration with the Phoenicians, not just because of

their sailing knowledge but also because of their

carpentry and shipbuilding expertise and competence.

He thus added carpentry and shipbuilding

competence to the seamen`s knowledge, in addition to

the dimensions of ordinary seafarers’ offshore

operating skills and knowledge. According to this

aspect, Werenskiold states that the Viking

achievements were only accomplished because of

centuries of a systematic transfer of knowledge,

excellent seamanship and skillful shipbuilding [30].

With that statement, he also connects shipbuilding

achievements with the seagoing knowledge

dimensions of seamanship. Carvings and petroglyphs

of different large and advanced ship designs illustrate

the complexity within different ancient ship designs,

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Phoenician ship carved on face of a Sarcophagus,

the face2nd century AD. (Elie plus/CC BY SA 3.0)

Figure 2. Carvings from Alta, Norway. Photo: Alta Museum

If we keep in mind King Solomon’s demand for

different knowledge dimensions, the science of

seamanship then involves both an offshore and an

onshore part of the competence dimensions. This

study will discuss various developmental aspects of

the offshore dimensions of seamanship-related

competence, more specifically, seafarers’ timeless

development of seamanship-based skills, knowledge

and human-related behavior (attitude).

The main principal dimensions related to seafarers’

offshore operational practices, throughout standard

shipping of all ages, could be classified as:

− Navigation – the process associated with voyage

planning and the conduct of voyages.

− Cargo – the process associated with the purpose of

voyages, such as transport of goods, passengers,

weapons and soldiers for warships.

− Maintenance – the process associated with

maintaining the ship’s seaworthiness before and

during the voyage.

− Catering – the process of providing for the crew’s

needs during the voyage [18].

These main principal dimensions of seafarers’

operational practices are based on knowledge and

how to use this knowledge in practice. Regarding the

ability to use knowledge in practice, the Greek

philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) expressed the

following sentence:

We can have plenty of knowledge, but if

something cannot be clearly displayed and used in

practice, it’s really useless.

Aristotle relates this to the intellectual knowledge

forms, techne, episteme and phronesis. Techne refers

to the practical skills or acts necessary to achieve a

defined contextual goal, while episteme refers to

theoretical and scientific independent knowledge or

knowingness about the context. Phronesis refers to

how to practice knowledge-based acts, i.e., overall

practical wisdom (cleverness) or contextualized

knowledge related to developing assessment-based

appropriate acts. This form of knowledge is highly

dependent on and based on experience-based

competence [15].

Phronesis can be associated with seamanship, due

to its intellectual virtue-based knowledge associated

with performing practice. Aristotle stressed the

importance of phronesis because of its relevance to

intellectual activity in interaction with practice

(praxis). He argued that phronesis occurred in an

interaction between the general and the concrete,

based on cognitive aspects such as consideration,

discretion and choice. Flyvbjerg (2004) expands this,

stating that techne can be translated or explained as a

methodological knowledge or awareness, related to

how to use your phronesis-based knowledge, i.e.,

skills, in practice [10].

Aristotle’s argumentation about human and

intellectual virtue could also easily be associated with

the science of seamanship, through his reference to

attitudes that make a man good; this goodness may,

for example, relate to how seafarers perform their

practice. A prerequisite of being able to develop

phronesis as an intellectual virtue associated with the

practice of an art is that one is in possession of

accumulated experiential knowledge. This results in

basing actions or decisions on careful experience-

based assessments that lead to appropriate

consequences [15].

Phronesis as a knowledge form can be understood

as equivalent to ever-increasing instrumental thinking

related to the professional education and professional

practice of, e.g., seafarers. It is, therefore, essential to

take a step back when practicing professional teaching

and education of this profession. Practice of

seamanship is perhaps more dependent on practical

wisdom than instrumental thinking. There will be no

thorough discussions about Aristotle’s given

philosophical considerations, beyond the

argumentation regarding whether there is a

relationship between the different knowledge

dimensions and seamanship.

365

2 BACKGROUND

This study is based on the assumption that

competence in seamanship represents a form of

professional art or ideal of the seafarer’s practice. This

means art or practice based on maritime education

and training, experience, maritime law, rules and

regulations, etc. Competence in seamanship links,

both directly and indirectly, to humans’ behavior

while performing their practice. Human behavior sets

the standard for all human factor-related

performances, including human errors. Both human

behavior and human error deal in some way with

elements of human psychology. There are many

factors related to the seafarer’s psychological health.

According to MacLachlan [22], stress represents such

a factor, probably triggered by perception of risk,

challenges and demands that exceed seafarers’

available resources. MacLachlan defines maritime

psychology as:

The study and practice of the interplay between

human behavior and the maritime environment.

The maritime environment related to practicing

seamanship competence has undergone some

changes, which may have been psychologically

challenging for seafarers. Larger and more advanced

ships, greater mechanization and reduced manning,

followed by subsequent fatigue, represent some

examples of such challenges [22].

Different research shows that 75-96 per cent of

maritime accidents are directly or indirectly caused by

some form of human error [12]. There are different

opinions about the underlying causes of these human

factor-related accidents. Still, some of these accidents

relate to poor situational assessment, situational

awareness, forehandedness and practical wisdom, in

advance, during and after accidents [16]. The link

between the performance of seamanship competence

and human factor-based accidents shows that the

content or essence of the term “seamanship” should

be discussed and nuanced. Clarifying the content and

essence is also important because the term is used in

different contexts. It is essential to say something

tangible about the essence and content of seamanship,

because seafarers have been, and still are, convicted of

executing bad seamanship.

The most important nautical rules for navigation

are covered by the “Convention of the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

(COLREG)”. Rule 2 in this convention is designated

the responsibility rule, which provides the captain,

owner and crew with recommendations and

requirements to comply with the other COLREG rules

[31]. In addition, Allen [2] designated rule 2 as “The

Rule of Good Seamanship and the General Prudential

Rule”. Allen’s designation of Rule 2 represents the

prerequisites for the seaman's practice, regarding

compliance with the more general COLREG rules [2].

According to International Maritime Organization

(IMO), rule 2 requires you to follow both the COLREG

rules and “the ordinary practice of seamen”:

Your responsibility is not only to follow the

COLREGs – you are also responsible for doing

everything necessary to avoid the risk of collision and

the dangers of navigation. [31]

This means that ship officers on watch must

always use common sense, which can be associated

with both phronesis (practical wisdom) and good

performance of seamanship-based competence.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the

Sea (UNCLOS) [29] requires all nations to ensure that

vessels sailing, flying their flag, are at all times in the

charge of masters and officers who possess

appropriate qualifications in seamanship, fully

conversant with the nautical rules of the road.

Maritime education and training (MET) must

therefore focus on learning outcome related to the

seamen’s ideal – seamanship – i.e., improving the

awareness of human elements and factors.

3 METHODOLOGY

This study was based on a comprehensive and

extensive literature research related to existing and

relevant research aspects of the current topic that have

been chosen to take a closer look at the following

objectives: preventing accidents related to human

elements.

1 Identify the origin, content, core and rationale of

seamanship

2 Identify development aspects affecting seamanship

competence demands

3 Identify perquisites for practicing seamanship

competence

4 Identify the development of MET related to

objectives 1, 2 and 3

Articles and extracts from various books were

collected from different online databases, such as

Google Scholar, Researchgate, Sciencedirect, UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea [29] and the

International Maritime Organization (IMO), and then

reviewed. The spread across time eras shows the

width of the literature search; excerpts from the Old

Testament of the Bible and Aristotle’s Nicomachean

Ethics are examples of how far back in time the study

extends.

The first research objective of this study was to

identify the origin, content, core, and rationale of

seamanship. The reason for this focus is that

seamanship-based competence must form a basis for

the development of all MET and, in this regard,

implement appropriate methods for assessing

learning outcomes, based on seamanship-competence-

related performances.

The second research objective concentrated on

some important developments affecting the

prerequisites for practicing seamanship competence

related to ship-technical developments, the

implementation of rules and regulations and,

increasingly, economic and efficiency aspects within

the shipping business. This part of the search

concerned a review of the literature dealing with

possible aspects affecting the practice of seamanship

competence, i.e., seamen’s knowledge, skills and

human-related behavior (attitude), from the 17th

century to the present time.

366

Table 1. Influences related to the development of seamanship competence

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Technological advances influencing seamanship competence Rules and regulations influencing seamanship competence

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The use of sextant and chronometer, 17th century Implementation of the Plimsoll mark, i.e., basis for the

From sail to machine propulsion, 18th century Load Line Convention, 1890

The use of gyrocompass, 19th century Establishment of the International Maritime Organization

The use of radar, 19th century (IMO), 1948

Communications systems, 19th century Implementation of the SOLAS Convention, 1974

The use of electronic charts (ECDIS), 19th - 20th centuries Implementation of the STCW-95-Convention, 1978

Autonomous marine operations, 19th - 20th centuries Implementation of the Maritime Labor Convention,

Automatic Identification System (AIS), 19th - 20th centuries Convention on the Supervision of Seafarers’ Working

and Living Conditions ILO No. 178, 1996

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1 and Figure 3 show this study’s suggestions

regarding the factors influencing seamanship-related

competence developments, and a scaffold showing

some relevant driving forces leading to these

influences.

The third research objective for this study

concerned the identification of prerequisites for

practicing seamanship competence by MET, focusing

on human elements. This part of the research

concerned a review of the literature dealing with

possible human elements that may challenge the

performance of seamanship competence.

The fourth research object concerned MET related

to a focus on aspects that may have a negative effect

on the exercise of the required seamanship-based

competence.

Figure 3. Figure 4. Driving forces leading to the

development of seamanship competence

4 DEFINITION OF SEAMANSHIP

A rough definition of seamanship was presented in

the Abstract, but the definition is probably more

complicated. The executive seamanship competence is

based on experiences seafarers, at any given time,

have acquired from ancient to present times. These

experiences have led to different technological

improvements and innovations in all shipping

business dimensions, e.g., shipbuilding and various

ship equipment. Wikipedia defines seamanship as:

The art of operating a ship or boat. It involves

topics and development of specialized skills

including: navigation and international maritime law;

weather, meteorology and forecasting; watch

standing; ship-handling and small boat handling;

operation of deck equipment, anchors and cables;

rope work and line handling; communications;

sailing; engines; execution of evolution such as

towing; cargo handling equipment, dangerous

cargoes and cargo storage; dealing with emergencies;

survival at sea and search and rescue; and firefighting.

This definition is based on the development of

different specialized operating skills, but other

definitions balance the content of the science with

more human-related aspects.

Knudsen established a relationship between the

science of anthropology and seamanship, by

introducing the term “anthropoship” as an analogy

with seamanship. Based on this relationship, Knudsen

defined seamanship as:

A blend of professional knowledge, professional

pride, and experience-based common sense” [20].

This definition is based more on the connection

between aspects of the human element dimension and

practicing aspects like operating knowledge and

skills. Knudsen’s [20] understanding of seamanship

has its basis in the context of its use as:

The notation where seafarers unite their

professional skills with human competencies and

common sense.

Figure 4. Definitions, Airmanship training for Modern

Aircrew [8]

In some points, seamanship could be compared

with airmanship, because both sciences are multi-

dimensional terms with an operative approach, which

367

involves aspects of both cognitive and physical skills,

situated knowledge and awareness of self-efficacy and

human competence like discipline or attitude. As with

seamanship, airmanship has no universally accepted

definition. Figure 4 shows some of the expressions

that cover the core of airmanship.

Kern [17] explains the essence of airmanship

competence, by using an element consisting of six

properties:

1 Judgment: all elements of airmanship will support

good judgment in decision-making. Making

appropriate decisions in abnormal and emergency

conditions is dependent on appropriate situational

assessment. Situational assessment is a trait of

airmanship, which shall continuously be

developed.

2 Situational awareness: the very basis for assessing

situations with a view to performing appropriate

actions with the desired outcome i.e., to have a

perception of what has happened, is happening

and may happen ahead (forehandedness).

3 In-depth knowledge: a pilot should have broad

knowledge, as this will be the nature that supports

an airmanship-based mindset.

4 Airmanship is founded on skills (expertise).

5 Airmanship is founded on proficiency (ability).

Good expertise and capabilities in a pilot include

both technical and non-technical skills.

6 Discipline is the main foundation of airmanship,

since it is the basis for the ability and willingness

to fly the aircraft safely [17].

These airmanship competence elements form the

basis of an Airmanship Model, developed by Kern, as

shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The Airmanship model [17].

In the figure, the pillars of airmanship competence

consist of six common areas of different knowledge

properties (expertise) of expert airmen:

Expert airmen have a thorough self-understanding

of their aircraft, their team i.e., crew, their

environment, the risk picture and the mission. When

all of these knowledge areas are in place, the expert

aviator can exercise a consistently good judgment

based on a high state of situational awareness [17].

All dimensions of Kern`s airmanship model are

comparable to the core of the operative, onboard

dimensions of seamanship. The safety aspects of

practicing airmanship and seamanship have

similarities, like the possible fatal outcome when poor

practice is exercised.

The definition of seamanship concerns all

mentioned dimensions, but it may relate more to

Kern`s main principles of airmanship (Figure 6):

judgement and situational awareness. Principles of

both airmanship and seamanship include a

forehanded-based capability of rational thinking,

behavioral capabilities and characteristics, combined

with good judgment, wise decision-making and self-

discipline, etc. These intellectual properties or

characteristics may increase the safety elements and

minimize the occurrence of underlying or latent

human-element related errors; they should, therefore,

play a part in the definition.

5 DEVELOPMENT-REVIEW OF “MODERN”

SEAMANSHIP PERSPECTIVES

Seamanship reflects characteristics and aspects that

usually concern exercising different practices of the

seamen’s competence, i.e., skills, knowledge and

attitude. From the 17th century to the present time,

the preconditions for practicing seamanship have

gone through some significant changes, both

technological and safety-related; see Figures 3 and 4.

One of the most significant technological safety-

related advances was probably the introduction of the

sextant in combination with the chronometer. This

introduction made it possible for sailors to calculate

their latitude and longitude, i.e., fix and secure their

positions at sea. Positioning at sea was previously

random and represented serious safety challenges and

possible hazards related to safe navigation.

The shift from sail to machine-powered ships also

represented a significant technological upheaval in

practicing seamanship. Before this introduction, the

art of sail rigging played an important role in the

seamen’s practice. Rigging sail ships was about

handling different parts of the sailing gear and hemp

ropes. This rigging competence is no longer required

onboard conventional machine-driven ships [3].

Nevertheless, rigging is still used as an expression of

making the ship ready for sailing.

Throughout the 20th century until today, various

technological developments have made ships more

advanced. Some systems have made it possible to sail

ships, more or less autonomously, based on advanced

data. In addition, modern communication systems

have enabled shipping companies to control and take

decisions onshore. These developments represent new

examples of competence challenges in practicing

seamanship in a wise way.

Safety aspects have a significant impact on

seamen`s security at sea. From ancient times, seamen

did not know how long their trips at sea would last or

if they would return alive.

The implementation of different safety-related

rules and regulations, in combination with better and

safer ships, has led to increased probability of seamen

returning safely.

One of the first significant contributions to safety

and reliable positioning was the implementation of

the Plimsoll mark, i.e., the basis for the Load Line

Convention [31]. After observing great loss of life and

368

costs because of shipwrecks during the 18th century,

Samuel Plimsoll wrote the book “Our Seamen”. This

was supposed to shed light on the different causes of

shipwrecks, leading to regulations to prevent

shipwrecks. According to Plimsoll, overloaded ships

were a significant cause of shipwrecking in this

period. That motivated him to start a campaign

against this problem, because he believed the cause of

this loss was easily preventable. Plimsoll`s campaign

led to the passage of the “Unseaworthy Ships Bill”

[27], by making the following appeal to the Board of

Trade.

Let provision be made for painting on the ship`s

side what the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce calls

the “maximum load line”, and that no ship under any

circumstances be allowed to leave port unless that line

be distinctly visible at or above the waterline; and let

this fact be ascertained and communicated to the

Board of Trade by a photograph of the vessel's side as

she leaves the port or dock [25].

The International Convention for the Safety of Life

at Sea [26] is the most important requirement

concerning increased safety on merchant ships. This

convention was originally adopted in 1914, as a

response to the Titanic disaster of 1912, setting safety

standards for the construction, equipping and

operation of ships [31].

The International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978 (STCW) additionally represents

increased safety, by setting standards and

requirements for the qualification of ships’ officers

and other personnel, for merchant ships [31].

The aspects affecting “modern” seamanship

competence that are included in this paper are

important and selected as examples focusing on

competence development.

Despite technological developments, improved

safety regulations, and requirement standards,

seamanship will always represent a way to perform a

practice through wise decision-making, based on

situation awareness and assessment.

6 TRANSFER OF SEAMANSHIP COMPETENCE IN

MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Prince Henry the Navigator established the first MET

school in 1419 [7]. In these MET schools, students

were educated in navigation, map-making, and

science, in order to sail [8]. This establishment marked

the start of a gradual change from traditional practice-

oriented offshore (learning by doing) fields to more

onshore-based learning fields. In modern MET,

students are educated in almost exclusive onshore

learning fields, followed by a mandatory offshore

trainee period, all regulated by the STCW convention.

This study will not discuss any specific learning

activities or strategies for how to learn to practice

seamanship competence but, rather, prerequisites for

executing this competence. MET schools must provide

students with an educational outcome, in accordance

with meeting minimum STCW qualification standards

of competence. Part A of the STCW convention is

mandatory. This part indicates the detailed minimum

standards of competence at management, operational

and support level, required for seagoing personnel.

Standard of competence is the level of proficiency

to be achieved for the proper performance of

functions on board ship in accordance with the

internationally agreed criteria as set forth herein and

incorporating prescribed standards or levels of

knowledge, understanding and demonstrated skills

[31].

Knowledge, understanding and demonstrated

skills related to these prescribed STCW standards

correlate with the more operational aspects of

performing functions on board a ship, i.e., the ideal of

practicing seamanship competence. Ship officer

students must prove they have an above minimum

standard of competence through MET, before

qualifying for the acquisition of a ship officer

certificate. This should enable them to practice this

competence in a good way. Nevertheless, marine

accidents frequently occur, directly as a result of

deficient or incorrect use of this minimum standard of

competence. However, as mentioned earlier, 75-96 per

cent of the underlying causes relate to human

elements, leading to human error.

Regarding human elements, Knudsen [20]

introduced the concept of anthropoship as an analogy

with seamanship, based on common features of his

own research in human knowledge (anthropology).

This analogy represents a connection between human

elements and practicing a minimum standard of

competence. Human elements become further

highlighted in MacLachlan`s [22] research volume,

which brings together organizational and health

psychology within the maritime field. The following

issues are examples of important maritime

psychological factors [5]:

− Specification of work roles

− Manning hours and ratios

− Working conditions

− Trauma and reactions associated with incidents

and accidents

− Fatigue

− Lack of privacy

− Opportunities to socialize, etc.

These maritime psychological factors relate to the

occurrence of occupational stress, which, according to

MacLachlan et al. [21, 23], is influenced by factors

such as the globalization of shipping, increased

automation and mechanization of work functions,

improvement in navigation techniques, crew number

reduction and multicultural crewing, etc.

Occupational stress or stress depends on each

individual perception of a situation or the assessment

of the stressfulness of a situation. This perception can

lead to stress-related reactions when individuals

perceive that the intensity of stress factors overcomes

the ability to cope with these factors.

Knudsen [19], MacLachlan [23] and Carter &

Shreiner [5] highlighted aspects of human elements

representing prerequisites for practicing seamanship

competence.

According to the causal link to maritime accidents

made by Hanzu-Pazara et al. [12], there is reason to

believe that STCW should focus on and implement

369

sufficient human element-based requirements in the

standard of competence. Therefore, MET schools must

consider these requirements, in addition to

traditionally prescribed standards or levels of

knowledge, understanding and demonstrated skills.

The imminent goal regarding this aspect is to give

students the best prerequisite to practice proper

seamanship competence.

7 DISCUSSION

7.1 General

The science of seamanship is probably a concept or

term that holds different philosophical contents.

Seamen, who can think and philosophize or reflect,

may have better prerequisites for performing good

seamanship when challenging situations occur. To be

able to philosophize over a term or a concept may

give a performer more robustness, accordingly, to

think outside the “box”.

To carry out daily activities at sea, both individuals

and crew must take appropriate situation-based

decisions. Not all decisions require thorough active

mental processes to assess possible desired outcomes.

Some decisions are based on recognizable preferences

for choice options, i.e., situations known to

individuals and crew based on previous experiences.

However, sometimes circumstances will arise where

previous experience-based actions do not give the

desired solution. In those situations, decisions need to

be based on an active mental process of problem

exploration and the evaluation of solutions [13]. In the

decision-making areas we focus on here, decision-

making problems tend to be complex, as the involved

choices often interact and provide many solutions,

with outcomes that can be difficult to predict [28]. The

main seamanship dimension, related to uncertain

solution outcomes, may, therefore, be an executive

cognitive dimension between different subordinate

seamanship-related dimensions and the ability to

assess where these dimensions are to be used.

Seamanship may thus connect to other disciplines,

where the use of different actions must be put in

context with the knowledge to assess where to use

these actions to perform. This fits well with the

features of phronesis, which is a form of situated-

based expertise, performed based on knowledge,

competence and common sense.

The Wikipedia definition of seamanship does not

explicitly mention the words: safety, leadership,

humbleness, forehandedness, knowledge, judgment,

situation awareness, safety awareness, situation

assessment, safety assessment, etc. It just defines

technical and skill-based competence aspects of the art

of operating a ship or boat. If one sees the seamanship

competence exclusively from different views of

technical skills or acts, then the human behavior factor

and cognitive error aspects will disappear or at least

be downgraded.

7.2 Seamanship -developmental aspects (1700 – 2020)

Technological developmental aspects relate first of all

to seamen’s skills and acts, i.e., how they perform

seamanship-related activities. Nevertheless, the

overall goal of all mentioned developments, no matter

what effect these had on the seamanship dimensions,

was safety and efficiency.

Before the introduction of the sextant and the

chronometer, seafarers did not manage to fix exact

ship positions at sea. Lack of ability to know the ship’s

position led to major navigational challenges that

contributed to insecurity, fear and stress for seamen,

regarding safe sailing. The introduction of the sextant

and the chronometer became a must for new

seamanship-related competence in fixing the ship’s

position. This development made a major

contribution to improving the safety aspects for

seamen. The introduction of the gyrocompass, marine

radar, ECDIS and autonomous electronic equipment

also had the same impact on seamanship, i.e., the

introduction of new seamanship-related competences,

and a positive impact on safety aspects.

The shift from sail to machine propulsion led to

new machine-engineering content of seamanship

related competencies and, through that, a goodbye to

former sail-rigging competences.

This shift also led to significant changes associated

with the human factor. The size of the crew decreased,

when shifting from sail- and steam-powered ships to

Diesel machine-powered ships. Full-rigged sailing

ships needed a large crew, of approximately 50-60

people, just to handle the sailing gear. This was also

the case for steamships, which required a large crew

to keep a steam machine going. The Titanic

engineering crew, for instance, consisted of 317 men:

25 engineers, 10 electricians, 13 stoker foremen, 163

stokers, 73 coal trimmers and 33 greasers. Of these

engineers, 249 were directly involved in the steam

production: stoker foremen, stokers and coal trimmers

(titanicfacts, n.d.). The size of such a large crew on a

ship is a challenge because of the possible mental

stress from gathering many people in small and

closed areas for extended periods. The facilities for the

crew on board these ships were not satisfactory,

compared to modern standards. Modern ships of the

same size as a full-rigged sailing ship or a steamship

have a crew of just 10-12 people. It is reasonable to

believe that this consideration had an essential degree

of impact on the human psychosocial environment,

i.e., conditions for the performance of good

seamanship. This shift was probably one of the most

significant change-makers of these dimensions of the

content of seamanship.

Technological developments in communication

affected seafarers’ way of performing their profession,

by enabling, ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore

communication. Ship-owners no longer needed to rely

on the initiative and skill of the shipmaster to protect

their interests. They could now make their own

operational and management decisions from their

own offices. The shipmaster, who was previously

charged with the full responsibility for the success of a

voyage, now found his power to carry out his

responsibility greatly diminished.

370

The rapidly increasing quality and availability of

radio communications has meant that masters are

more and more likely to contact shore managers

before reaching decisions. Increasingly, the master is

seen as one of a chain of managers, yet his

responsibility for the safety of his ship and of those on

board has not in any way been reduced by the greater

ease of communications [18].

Despite these dimensions of seamen’s control of

and responsibility for the ship, communication has

increased the safety aspects considerably. It has made

it possible to, for instance, call for assistance when

needed.

The establishment of the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) marked the start of an organized

regulation of all ship traffic, followed by the

implementation of different conventions for the

specification of regulations and requirements. The

motives were to increase the safety and environmental

aspects of all sea activities. The most important IMO

conventions related to these aspects are Safety Of Life

At Sea (SOLAS), Maritime Pollution (MARPOL) and

STCW. One of the first and probably most important

positive influences on the safety aspects was the

introduction of the Plimsoll load limit mark. In

addition to introducing load limit marks, the

responsibility for compliance with these marks was

now given to the shipmaster. This responsibility was

previously determined by the ships’ owners, which

often led to overloaded and unsafe ships. The

introduction of the Plimsoll mark led to a marked

decrease in overload-related ship accidents and made

the basis for the SOLAS and MARPOL-related Load

Line Convention. All these IMO regulations are based

on experience from accidents and incidents, with the

intention of increasing the safety of seafarers.

Implementation of the Maritime Labor Convention

[24], together with economic aspects, has had some

impact on seafarers’ ability to perform. The MLC was

implemented to regulate and secure seafarers’ welfare

regarding living and working conditions. Since the

implementation, different economic aspects have

challenged the MLC’s content. Previous challenging

working conditions were replaced with new ones, led

by a growing demand for economically related

efficiencies. These aspects have caused some

challenging changes, affecting the content of the

MLC’s five code titles, followed by: increasing

workload, decreased crew levels and less time in the

harbor [18].

In addition to decreasing in size, ships’ crews have

become more internationalized through the increased

global seafarer labor market. This change has been

challenging, as it has increased the language and

cultural differences between crew members.

Multilingual and multicultural crews have led to the

adaption of new knowledge and skills in

multicultural understanding, to perform good

seamanship [19].

These mentioned aspects of seamanship-related

impacts are just a selected number of the most

important ones. It is probable that other aspects have

also had a great impact, but those mentioned are

meant to show only some of the complexity of the

development of seamanship.

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Seamanship is a term dealing with various practical,

cognitive and philosophical aspects that easily could

be compared to other disciplines, where the

individual professional practice is based on cognitive

capacity and overall competence. The quest for

seamanship competence is based on a lifelong

endeavor regarding experience-based

forehandedness, situational awareness, situation

assessment, developmental knowledge, practical

wisdom, common sense and professional- and

prudent judgment, etc.

Flyvbjerg`s [9] definition of Aristotle’s expression,

phronesis, relates strongly to the ideal of good

seamanship:

The person possessing practical wisdom has

knowledge of how to behave in each particular

circumstance that can never be equated with or

reduced to knowledge of general truths. Phronesis is a

sense of the ethically practical rather than a kind of

science [9].

According to Flyvbjerg [9], phronesis requires

consideration, prudence, judgment, choice and, above

all, experience. It concerns the variable, the particular,

the concrete, practical knowledge and practical ethics.

Phronetic behavior goes beyond analytical rationality

and is situational, experience-based, and intuitive.

Phronesis represents a cognitive capacity, among

other things, for choosing the proper situational

techne (action). According to these considerations, the

function of phronesis can be a contextual experience-

based cognitive-capacity umbrella that results in

prudent seamanship-related actions. Effective actions

always relate to techne-based skills, judgment,

understanding, insight and acts according to the

technological and scientific epistemic knowledge [11].

This means that all these knowledge dimensions are

dependent on each other and influenced by new, both

technologically and human factor-based,

developments. If seamanship is compared to the

Aristotelian knowledge forms, then seamanship will

also be affected and continuously in a change, based

on the always-scientific developments.

The challenges of any technological development

are that “modern seamanship” has more or less

transformed every seaman into a form of an

automated device that performs increasingly minor

and repeated physical and procedural tasks. The

complexity of modern ships gives seamen at a certain

level (ship officers) large amounts of information,

which have been proven to challenge their ability to

think, sort, and reflect upon challenges that arise.

This complexity has, more or less, transformed

traditional practicing seamen into technological

operators, subordinate to and managed by the

shipping company.

According to King [18], seafarers are no longer the

masters but the servants of the technology that makes

their seafaring possible. He states that sailors’

experience-based skills, knowledge and attitudes have

been made redundant or subordinate, by the

introduction of new technology and regulations:

The man contributes less in terms of operational

decisions and control. Technology has fundamentally

371

altered the role of seafarers. Wooden ships and iron

men, iron ships and wooden men – a sailor’s aside,

once used to put down those who chose to serve in

the new-fangled steamers, records more than the

diminution of human physical prowess [18].

King’s [18] statement could easily be one

important factor for the occurrence of unwanted

events, because good seamanship practice concerns

following new technology and regulations and, on the

other hand, deviating from these aspects, according

to, i.e., the in-extremis doctrine [1]. Exercising good

seamanship may concern the measures that are

exercised in situations where deviations from the

regulations are the most appropriate.

Admiral of the U.S. Navy, Chester W. Nimitz,

made the following observation, regarding the

relationship between science, organization and good

seamanship:

To ensure safety at sea, the best that science can

devise, and that naval organization can provide must

be regarded only as an aid, and never as a substitute

for good seamanship, self-reliance, and sense of

ultimate responsibility which are the first requisites in

a seaman [14].

REFRENCES

1. Allen, C.: Admiralty’s In Extremis Doctrine: What Can

Be Learned from the Restatement (Third) of Torts

Approach? Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce. 43,

155 (2012).

2. Allen, C.H.: Farewell`s Rules of the Nautical Road. ,

Naval Institute Press (2005).

3. Biddlecombe, G.: The Art of Rigging by George

Biddlecombe. Dover Publications (1990).

4. Calman, K.: Medical Education: Past, Present and

Future. Churchill Livingstone (2006).

5. Carter, T., Schreiner, A.: The NCMM/IMHA textbook of

maritime medicine. Second edition. Archives des

Maladies Professionnelles et de l’Environnement. 74, 5,

576 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.admp.2013.07.174.

6. Christian Bible: Old Testament (1. King IX – 27).

7. Dong, W.: Research on Maritime Education and

Training in China: A Broader Perspective. TransNav, the

International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety

of Sea Transportation. 8, 1, 115–120 (2014).

https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.08.01.13.

8. Ebbage, L., Spencer, P.D.: Airmanship Training for

Modern Aircrew. BAE Systems Bristol (United

Kingdom) Advanced Technology Centre (2004).

9. Flyvbjerg, B.: Making Social Science Matter: Why Social

Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001).

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503.

10. Flyvbjerg, B.: Phronetic planning research: theoretical

and methodological reflections. null. 5, 3, 283–306

(2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000250195.

11. Halverson, R.R.: Representing Phronesis: Supporting

Instructional Leadership Practice in Schools.

Northwestern University (2002).

12. Hanzu-Pazara, R. et al.: Reducing of maritime accidents

caused by human factors using simulators in training

process. Journal of Maritime Research. 5, 1, 3–18 (2008).

13. Hayes-Roth, B., Hayes-Roth, F.: A Cognitive Model of

Planning. Cognitive Science. 3, 4, 275–310 (1979).

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0304_1.

14. Heinl, R.D.: Dictionary of Military and Naval

Quotations. Naval Institute Press (2014).

15. Hovdenak, S., Wiese, E.: Fronesis: veien til profesjonell

lærerutdanning? Uniped. 40, 2, 170–184 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2017-02-06.

16. Johansen, K., Batalden, B.M.: Active learning for

enhanced understanding of “Ship Damage Stability.”

Proceedings of the 6th Teaching & Education

Conference, Vienna. 45–67 (2018).

17. Kern, T.: Redefining Airmanship. McGraw-Hill

Companies (2017).

18. King, J.: Technology and the seafarer. null. 2, 1, 48–63

(2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/21533369.2000.9668307.

19. Knudsen, F.: Paperwork at the service of safety?

Workers’ reluctance against written procedures

exemplified by the concept of ‘seamanship.’ Safety

Science. 47, 2, 295–303 (2009).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.04.004.

20. Knudsen, F.: Seamanship and Anthropoship: Reflecting

on Practice. Arbejdsmedicinsk Afdeling, Sydvestjysk

Sygehus (2005).

21. MacLachlan, M. et al.: Maritime health: a review with

suggestions for research. International Maritime Health.

63, 1, 1–6 (2012).

22. MacLachlan, M.: Maritime Psychology. Springer (2017).

23. MacLachlan, M. et al.: Psychosocial and organizational

aspects. In: Carter, T. (ed.) Textbook of Maritime

Medicine. (2013).

24. MLC: Maritime Labour Convention. International

Labour Standards Department (2006).

25. Plimsoll, S.: Our seamen. An appeal. University of

Michigan Library (1873).

26. SOLAS: International Convention for the Safety of Life at

Sea. (1974).

27. The Merchant Shipping Act: The Life-boat, (1875).

28. Timmermans, H. et al.: Analysing space-time behaviour:

new approaches to old problems. Progress in Human

Geography. 26, 2, 175–190 (2002).

https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph363ra.

29. UNCLOS: The United Nations Convention on the Law

of the Sea. (1982).

30. Werenskiold, P.: The most sophisticated and successful

high-speed ships for their time. Proceedings of the 11th

International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,

FAST2011. (2011).

31. Introduction to IMO,

https://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx, last

accessed 2022/05/20.