Following a position excursion, a DPO logs it as "weather-related deviation" in the DP log without investigating whether a reference system failure was a contributing factor. What is wrong with this approach?

A. Weather attribution is acceptable provided the wind and sea state were above the ASOG amber limit

B. Nothing — weather is always the most likely cause of any excursion

C. The only problem is that the DPO should have used the correct weather code in the log format

D. A blanket weather attribution is an inadequate root cause analysis — if reference failure contributed, that is a DP system safety issue requiring investigation and potentially IMCA reporting. Attributing excursions to weather without checking other contributing factors is a form of normalisation of deviance that masks potential DP system degradation

A. Only incidents where a structure was struck or a person was injured

B. Only incidents where the vessel moved more than 50 metres from its setpoint

C. Reporting is voluntary — the vessel operator decides whether to submit a report

D. Any unintended, uncontrolled vessel movement (excursion) or loss of position, thruster runaway (drive-off), loss of redundancy that constituted a genuine risk to the operation, or any DP-related event that could have resulted in a collision, grounding, or loss of life — regardless of whether actual contact or damage occurred

A. A standardised category of DP incident in which the vessel experienced an unintended and uncontrolled excursion from its position setpoint, or a loss of position — the defining characteristic is that the excursion was uncontrolled (not intentional or commanded by the DPO)

B. A report submitted by the client after a DP vessel leaves their location

C. Any movement of a DP vessel, including planned transits

D. A category of vessel that exclusively carries out DP operations