Competency requirements and the sense of responsibility are changing. The transition to methanol, LNG or eventually ammonia changes not just the engine room but also the competency profile of the crew. A chief engineer who has operated HFO-fuelled two-stroke engines for 20 years must understand entirely new safety protocols for a methanol dual-fuel propulsion system: inertisation, gas detection, purge procedures and the specific toxicity risks of methanol.
This creates uncertainty. And uncertainty is one of the strongest drivers of turnover. When a seafarer feels he must operate a system he does not fully understand and for which he has not been adequately trained, the probability increases that at his next contract he will choose an employer operating conventional vessels.
Training, clear procedures and perceived safety. The three decisive factors for crew retention in the context of alternative fuels are: the quality of training, the clarity of operational procedures and the subjective sense of safety amongst the crew.
Training is not merely about formal STCW certification. The IMO has set a framework with the IGF Code and associated training requirements, but the difference between a two-day classroom course and a week-long simulator training with practical exercises on an actual dual-fuel system is considerable. Operators who invest in high-quality training signal to their crews: we take your safety seriously.
The quality of operational procedures becomes apparent in whether the Safety Management System documents actually reflect the new fuel systems or whether they still describe the conventional plant. A second engineer who faces a methanol leak and finds only generic emergency procedures in the SMS loses confidence in his employer.
The IGF Code (International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels) has defined the framework for safety requirements on vessels with alternative fuels since 2017. The associated STCW Regulation V/3 requires a specific basic training for crew members on IGF Code ships and advanced training for key positions.
In practice, several problems arise. First: training capacity is limited. There is only a modest number of training facilities worldwide that offer practical instruction on actual dual-fuel systems. Most courses are classroom-based and convey theoretical knowledge but not operational confidence.
Second: the technologies differ considerably. An LNG dual-fuel system on a Wärtsilä 50DF operates entirely differently from a MAN ME-LGIM methanol system. A generic IGF training course does not cover the specific procedures of the respective propulsion system. Operators must therefore organise OEM-specific training in addition to the formal certification.
Third: with ammonia, we are still at the beginning. The toxicity of ammonia requires an entirely different safety concept compared to LNG or methanol. Personal protective equipment, gas detection systems and emergency procedures must be specifically designed for ammonia's properties. The training standards for this are still being developed.
The labour market is already responding. Manning agencies report that seafarers with IGF certification and practical dual-fuel experience can command higher salaries. This shifts the cost calculation for operators and makes retention even more important, as every trained engineer who leaves the company must be expensively replaced.
The cost of losing personnel in the context of alternative fuels exceeds normal crew change costs. In addition to the usual USD 3,000 to 12,000 for flights and agency fees, specific training costs must be added. An IGF Advanced Training costs between USD 2,000 and 5,000 per person. OEM-specific training for a particular dual-fuel system can add a further USD 3,000 to 8,000.
Then there is the time factor. A new chief engineer on a methanol vessel needs at least two to three months to fully master the specific systems and procedures on board. During this period, operational effectiveness is lower, error risk is higher and the burden on the rest of the engine room crew increases.
Operators who adapt their retention strategy to the energy transition early gain a measurable competitive advantage. They build competency within the organisation rather than constantly purchasing it anew.
Maersk took a pioneering role with its orders for methanol dual-fuel container vessels from 2021 onwards. What is often overlooked: in parallel with the vessel orders, the company had to build a comprehensive crew training programme. This included not only the formal IGF certifications but also practical training on the specific MAN B&W ME-LGIM engines and associated fuel systems.
Stena Line had already been operating the Stena Germanica on methanol propulsion since 2015. Experience showed that initial crew scepticism transitioned to routine after six to twelve months of practical experience – provided the training was sufficient and procedures were clearly documented.
These examples illustrate: retention in the context of alternative fuels is not a soft topic. It is a business necessity that determines the success or failure of the energy transition in vessel operations.
Operators should evaluate their retention strategy against four questions: first, does the current training programme cover the specific systems of the fleet or only the generic IGF requirements? Second, have the SMS documents been adapted to the new fuel systems? Third, is there a structured feedback system that captures crew uncertainties early? Fourth, are salaries and contract conditions adjusted to the market value of dual-fuel-qualified personnel?
If all four can be answered with yes, the foundation is solid. If one or more must be answered with no, there is a concrete need for action.
Technical departments and HSQE directly affect the manageability of new systems. When the shore-based technical department decides which dual-fuel system to order, it simultaneously makes a retention decision. A system that is more complex than necessary increases training requirements and error risk. HSQE departments that develop safety procedures for new fuels determine how safe the crew feels when operating the system.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting