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. 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

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

A. 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

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

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

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

C. 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)

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