## 6 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Additional Requirements**} \\ \hline ✓ & Experience of seagoing service (Regulation II/1) \\ ✓ & Fail-safe to the intermittence of data communication (Regulation II/1 and/or Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Basic knowledge of wireless communication \& data transfer (Table A-II/1) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Possible Strengthening of Current Requirements by Adding Detailed Competence} \\ \hline ✓ & Bridge resource management (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Application of leadership and teamwork skills (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Terrestrial and coastal navigation (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Electronic systems of position fixing and navigation (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Watchkeeping (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Radar navigation (Table A-II/1) \\ ✓ & Navigation using ECDIS (Table A-II/1) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Increase of Importance of Competence Requirements for In Table A-II/1 For Acquiring Competence of RO} \\ \hline ✓ & Navigation competence (e.g., Terrestrial and coastal navigation, Radar navigation) \\ ✓ & Knowledge of regulatory framework (e.g., COLREG) \\ ✓ & Theoretical and fundamental knowledge (e.g., Meteorology, Ship manoeuvring and handling, \\  & electronic navigation system) \\ ✓ & Practical ability related to navigation equipment (e.g., ECDIS, ARPA/Radar, Steering control system) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Decrease of Competence Requirements} \\ \hline ✓ & Celestial navigation (Position fixing skill by using sextant) (Table A-II/1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Proposal on possible change on the STCW Convention (Summary). (e.g., target speed, target location, target distance and target course for Level 1 SA, Impact of traffic condition, type of situation of the target for Level 2 SA, planned movement of the target and planned traffic congestion for Level 3 SA). This can lead to two implications. First, OOW and RO trust the information from ship sense regarding the targets and objects that might directly risk accidents. Experts indicated that they attach an exceptionally high value to ship sense and utilise the information from bridge navigation items such as ECDIS and ARPA only for confirming and supplementing ship sense. Thus, the shortage of ship sense immediately induces the failure of situation awareness. Another implication is the complexity of acquiring the target-related SA, especially in Level 2 and 3 SA. These items of SA are linked with various sources of lower Level SA although the process is not 'linear' but 'dynamic' [48]. For example, the information on the deviation between current speed and planned speed in Level 2 SA is linked mostly only with ship speed in Level 1 SA. On the other hand, an expert pointed out that OOWs and ROs need various kinds of Level 1 SA including own ship's position and speed of the target to be aware of the situation on the impact of traffic condition. The intricate connection between different Level SA would induce uncertainty and lead to a high lack of the required information. Regarding competence (G5 and G6, RQ2), all experts stressed that it is impossible for novice officers qualified as OOW of Regulation II/1 in the STCW Convention to have a duty of RO. The results can classify additional competence in three ways. The first additional point is the accurate recognition of the situation, including spatial awareness, appropriate prediction of future status by utilising the information from bridge navigation items and the remaining ship sense when required information is partly failed. An expert pointed out that this competence is opposite to what he has learned from instructors and taught to cadets. Crews have learned their competence for navigation in which they rely on ship sense even without electronic navigation equipment. Once acquiring this competence, they can handle the equipment well. Conversely, ROs should heavily rely on the MASS system's navigation items at RCC with limited ship sense in many cases.