Question 1

Meshka was refloated with no substantial damage and no pollution detected, despite carrying around 938,000 litres of oil in its fuel and lubricating tanks. What should this outcome NOT be mistaken for?

Accepted Answer

A demonstration that the underlying causes — ECDIS chart gaps, bridge teamwork, SMS implementation — don't need to be corrected, since no lasting harm occurred The favourable outcome depended on shallow, forgiving ground and a fast, well-executed salvage — not on anything the bridge team did correctly. The underlying causal chain — a missing ECDIS chart cell, inadequate passage planning, deficient bridge teamwork, and SMS implementation gaps — was exactly as serious as if the grounding had occurred in less forgiving conditions. A near-miss outcome is not evidence the causes were minor.

Question 2

You're preparing a passage plan for a coastal leg in a yacht drawing 3.2m. At one point the chart shows a least depth of 3.8m at chart datum. What MUST you check before finalising this leg?

Accepted Answer

The tidal height at the time of transit to confirm sufficient under-keel clearance Charted depths are referenced to chart datum (often LAT), so you must add the predicted tidal height for your transit time to get the actual depth, then compare to your draft plus a safety margin to confirm UKC.

Question 3

During your watch the ECDIS gives a "safety contour crossing" alarm. What is the correct response?

Accepted Answer

Assess the situation against the planned route and charted depths, take action to maintain safe water, and inform the Master if there is any doubt A safety contour alarm indicates the vessel may be approaching water shallower than the set safety contour. It must be investigated against the route and charted information, with avoiding action taken and the Master informed as appropriate — never simply silenced.