A prospective new crew member's references check out well, but during the interview the Master notices some inconsistencies in their account of previous sea time. What should the Master do before signing them on?

A. Sea time claims cannot be verified, so the issue should be dropped

B. Ask a more junior crew member to verify the candidate's claims informally

C. Investigate further — verify sea service via Discharge Books/CoC records and direct contact with previous employers where possible, since inconsistencies could indicate gaps in genuine experience relevant to the role's safety responsibilities; the Master has a responsibility for the competence of those signed on, particularly for safety-critical positions

D. Proceed with signing on, since references were positive and inconsistencies in interviews are common nervousness

A. It only accepts reports from cargo ship crew, not yachts

B. It is a crewing agency for yacht jobs

C. CHIRP Maritime is a confidential, voluntary reporting programme for near-misses and safety concerns across the maritime industry (including yachting), allowing issues to be raised and shared as anonymised "Maritime Feedback" without identifying the reporter or vessel, helping the wider industry learn from incidents that might otherwise go unreported

D. It is a mandatory daily logbook for engine room readings

A. Weather forecasts are only relevant for ocean crossings, not coastal passages

B. A single mobile phone weather app is sufficient for all passages

C. Multiple sources — e.g. official forecasts (Met Office/NOAA shipping forecasts, NAVTEX weather messages), GRIB files for route-specific wind/wave data, and synoptic charts — should be cross-checked, since no single source is infallible and trends/discrepancies between sources can highlight uncertainty in the forecast

D. Only the forecast for the departure port matters; conditions en route and at the destination are not needed