Question 1

The MAIB found Crystal Stream's safety management was inadequate in addressing navigational watchkeeping practices, risk assessments, and crew medical/fitness for duty, and recommended improvements aligned with the Fishing Safety Management Code. What if you were reviewing your own vessel's safety management system for lone watchkeeping &mdash; what should a meaningful risk assessment for this specifically cover?

Accepted Answer

Concrete measures: planned rest periods that are actually tracked against working time minimums, a functioning watch alarm connected to the autopilot and tested regularly, defined circumstances requiring a second person on watch (e.g. restricted visibility, fatigue indicators, busy waters), and a process for a crew member to flag concerns about the watchkeeper's fitness The MAIB's recommendations point at the Fishing Safety Management Code precisely because Crystal Stream's safety management existed on paper without addressing the practical realities of lone night watchkeeping &mdash; rest planning, a working watch alarm, and a defined trigger for a second person on watch. A risk assessment that just restates "remain alert" gives the watchkeeper no system to fall back on when their own judgement (the thing fatigue degrades first) is what's being relied upon.

Question 2

Under the ISM Code and as reinforced in Gard's guidance to Members, the Master's overriding authority to make decisions for the safety of the ship and protection of the environment can be overruled by a commercial instruction from the company, such as a charterer's order to sail on schedule.

Accepted Answer

False False. Gard's guidance to Members consistently stresses that the ISM Code (element 5) gives the Master overriding authority and responsibility for safety and pollution prevention decisions — and that companies must ensure this authority is not undermined by commercial pressure. A charterer's or owner's commercial instruction never overrides the Master's safety judgement; Masters who feel pressured are advised to record their decision and reasoning and report it to the company and, where relevant, to their P&I correspondent.

Question 3

A crew member identifies that a piece of safety equipment does not match what is listed on the safety equipment plan. What is the correct way to handle this under the SMS?

Accepted Answer

Raise it as a non-conformity/observation through the SMS reporting process so it is recorded, investigated, corrected, and — if it reflects a wider issue — used to improve procedures or the safety equipment plan itself The ISM Code requires a system for reporting non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences so they can be analysed and corrective/preventive action taken — quietly fixing an issue without recording it loses this opportunity for systemic improvement.