Question 1

In the Isabell/Vega incident, the company SMS clearly defined the owner's representative's authority relative to the master's before the accident.

Accepted Answer

False False. The SMS never clearly defined the owner's representative's role or authority relative to the master's — an ambiguity MAIB found made the master's position practically untenable at the moment it mattered most.

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.