Question 1

The Master reviews a risk assessment that states a risk has been reduced to ALARP ('as low as reasonably practicable') but provides no detail on what alternative control measures were actually considered and why they weren't adopted. Is the bare statement 'reduced to ALARP' sufficient on its own?

Accepted Answer

No — demonstrating ALARP requires showing the actual reasoning: what risk reduction measures were identified, evaluated, and why further measures were judged grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained; an unsupported assertion of 'ALARP' without that reasoning doesn't actually demonstrate the standard has been met ALARP is a standard that has to be demonstrated through reasoning, not simply asserted — a credible ALARP determination shows what measures were considered, what was implemented, and why anything further would have been grossly disproportionate. A bare label without that reasoning is exactly the kind of weak documentation that wouldn't withstand scrutiny if examined after an incident.

Question 2

A cadet is told that risk assessment on board isn't just one document but happens at four different levels, including something as informal as a quick personal check before starting a task. What are these four levels, broadly?

Accepted Answer

Generic risk assessments (company-level), task-based risk assessments (onboard, specific to the job), toolbox talks (discussing the assessment with those doing the work), and personal/dynamic assessment (an individual's ongoing informal check while working) COSWP describes a four-level structure: generic risk assessments set by the company, task-based risk assessments (TBRA) carried out onboard for specific jobs, toolbox talks that walk the team through the TBRA before work starts, and personal/dynamic risk assessment carried out informally by the individual as work proceeds.

Question 3

An OOW is about to lead a small team in a non-routine, high-risk job — entry into a void space that hasn't been entered in months. A generic company risk assessment exists for enclosed space entry in general. What additional level(s) of assessment does the OOW need before this specific job can proceed?

Accepted Answer

A task-based risk assessment specific to this entry and these personnel, followed by a toolbox talk walking the team through its findings before work begins Generic risk assessments don't capture ship- and task-specific factors at the time of the job — a non-routine, high-risk task like this needs its own task-based risk assessment, with a toolbox talk to brief the team on its findings before starting.