The crew member, once removed from duty, discloses they have been struggling with alcohol dependency for some time and asks for help rather than simply being dismissed. How should a responsible company approach this?

A. Genuine dependency automatically excuses the safety breach with no disciplinary consequence at all

B. There is no realistic way to support a crew member with this kind of issue within the shipping industry

C. A disclosure of dependency should be ignored entirely, with the matter treated purely as a disciplinary issue

D. Zero tolerance for the safety breach itself can coexist with a genuine support pathway for the individual's underlying health issue — many companies offer access to counselling, rehabilitation support, or a structured return-to-work process as a separate track from the disciplinary consequence of the specific policy breach

A. Report your concern immediately to the officer in charge or master — do not attempt to assess "how drunk" they are yourself or decide whether it is serious enough to mention; this is exactly the kind of judgement call that should be escalated, not made informally by a peer

B. Confront them aggressively in front of other crew members

C. Quietly cover for them yourself without telling anyone in authority

D. Say nothing and hope they are fine to stand the watch as normal

A. Ignore the report entirely unless the individual visibly stumbles or shows obvious impairment

B. Follow the ship's drug and alcohol testing procedure (commonly a breathalyser test, with results and chain of custody documented) rather than relying on a subjective assessment alone, and stand the individual down from safety-critical duty pending the result if there is genuine cause for concern

C. Make a personal judgement about whether they "seem fine" and allow the watch to proceed without any formal testing

D. Immediately announce the suspicion to the entire crew before any testing has taken place