Question 1

During a stressful multi-day passage, you notice the Chief Officer — normally reliable — has become withdrawn, is making small errors, and snapping at junior crew. What is the most appropriate first step?

Accepted Answer

Speak with the Chief Officer privately, acknowledge the change in behaviour without judgement, and explore whether fatigue, workload, or personal issues are contributing factors Behavioural changes are often early indicators of fatigue or stress that, if unaddressed, can escalate into errors with safety consequences — fatigue is a contributing factor in a significant proportion of maritime incidents per MAIB findings. A private, non-judgemental conversation allows the Master to identify the root cause (workload redistribution, rest hour compliance, personal welfare) and intervene constructively, which is both a leadership duty and an MLC-aligned welfare responsibility.

Question 2

Gard's loss prevention guidance repeatedly highlights that many serious incidents follow a 'normalisation of deviance' — small departures from procedure that become accepted because nothing went wrong before. As Master, what's the most effective way to counter this on board?

Accepted Answer

Actively encourage crew to raise near-misses and procedural drift without fear of blame, and personally follow the same standards you expect of others Gard's guidance on human factors and safety culture identifies normalisation of deviance — where shortcuts that 'worked fine last time' quietly become the new normal — as a precursor to many serious casualties. The most effective defence is an open reporting culture for near-misses and minor deviations, combined with visible leadership from the Master, who sets the tone for what is and isn't acceptable on board.

Question 3

Gard's guidance on near-miss reporting notes that crew sometimes hesitate to report their own minor errors or close calls. As an OOW, why does Gard say this matters for the wider fleet, not just your own ship?

Accepted Answer

Near-miss data, shared and analysed across a fleet (and via schemes like CHIRP Maritime), helps identify recurring risks before they cause a serious incident elsewhere Gard's loss prevention work draws heavily on aggregated near-miss and incident data — including confidential schemes such as CHIRP Maritime — precisely because a near-miss on one vessel is often a warning sign for a hazard that exists across many similar ships. A culture where OOWs report close calls without fear of blame is one of the cheapest and most effective loss-prevention tools available.