Why Good Officers Make Poor Calls: Plan Continuation, Confirmation Bias and Normalisation of Deviance
Terms: plan continuation, confirmation bias, anchoring, normalisation of deviance, automation complacency, social conformity
Seen in our case library: El Faro, Jabal Hafit / Nirali, Meshka, Herald of Free Enterprise, Viyada Naree
Relevant to: anyone who makes or contributes to a decision on a ship
Why Good Officers Make Poor Calls
A cognitive bias is a predictable shortcut in thinking. It is not stupidity or carelessness. Everyone has them, and they matter most under pressure, tiredness and time stress. The skill is not to avoid biases, which is impossible, but to build the team and the plan so they are caught.
| Bias | What it is | On a ship | Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan continuation | The tendency to keep going with the plan after the situation has changed | Sailing on with a forecast that has gone stale | El Faro: the plan relied on a forecast about twelve hours old |
| Confirmation bias | Looking for information that supports what you already believe | Reading a vessel on radar as passing clear because you expect it to | Jabal Hafit / Nirali |
| Anchoring | Fixing on the first piece of information and adjusting too little | Taking a weather assessment made at 0910 as true at 0930 | Viyada Naree: weather rated 'very low risk' and not revisited |
| Normalisation of deviance | A shortcut or deviation that has not hurt anyone so far becomes the norm | Drifting outside the lane, bow doors left to the last person to check | Herald of Free Enterprise; Meshka |
| Automation complacency | Trusting a system more than it deserves | Treating AIS or ECDIS as truth when it disagrees with the radar or the window | Gard: AIS-assisted collisions |
| Social conformity | Going along with the group even if you doubt it | The mate who sees the problem and the team that has already decided | See the authority gradient guide |
What The Cases Have In Common
- The warning was there. A forecast. A radar target. A sea state. A deviation. The bias is about what was done with it.
- Nobody had decided in advance what would make them stop. That is why the limits in IMCA SF 17/26 not being measurable matters. Without a number, the plan keeps going.
- The team had a view, and it was not tested. Confirmation bias needs an audience that agrees.
Tools That Work
- Decide the stop conditions before you start. Write them as numbers. ‘If the roll exceeds…’, ‘if the range closes inside…’, ‘if the forecast is older than…’
- Ask what would change our mind. If nothing would, that is the bias talking.
- Check with an independent source. If ECDIS and radar disagree, treat the disagreement as the warning rather than deciding which one is right.
- Give someone the job of disagreeing. A deliberate devil’s advocate in a crisis or a plan review.
- Take a time-out. At a planned point, stop and ask whether the plan still fits the situation.
- Use PACE. A junior who hints is a signal the team is not listening.
Test Your Knowledge
Think you've got this covered? Put it to the test in Crew Connect's free Knowledge Checker — try a quick leadership round and see how you score.
Related Reading
Could You Have Prevented It?
Test your judgement in Crew Connect's Decision Simulator — real incident patterns, real consequences, free to try.
Try the Decision Simulator Free →Ready to advance your maritime career?
Free verified profile. Certificate tracking. Get found directly by shipping companies — no crewing agent, no placement fees.
Create Free Profile — 60 SecondsBrowse maritime jobs by rank & sector