Question 1

RISQ Q3.16-3.17 require an effective chart/publication management system and verification that "appropriate" (not just "any") charts and publications were used on the previous voyage, specifically citing the largest scale chart available for each stage of a passage. Why does scale matter as a distinct inspection point, separate from simply confirming the chart is up to date?

Accepted Answer

A chart can be perfectly corrected to the latest Notices to Mariners and still be unsafe for the task if its scale is too small to show the detail needed for close-quarters navigation — currency and appropriateness for the specific water/phase of passage are two separate requirements that both have to be satisfied This distinction matters in practice — a coastal or pilotage transit plotted only on a small-scale ocean chart can miss critical detail (shoals, wrecks, traffic separation features) even if that chart's corrections are completely current. RISQ's guidance is explicit that large-scale charts must be used for coastal/pilotage planning and course-alteration points specifically because currency and scale-appropriateness are independent failure modes.

Question 2

RISQ Q3.18 asks an inspector to verify ECDIS competency by requesting the Master/watchkeeper to demonstrate live functions (safety settings, voyage plan checks, manual position fixing, CATZOC/SCAMIN knowledge, contingency action for ECDIS failure) rather than simply reviewing a training certificate. Why does the inspection rely on live demonstration over documentary evidence here?

Accepted Answer

A certificate proves training was completed at some point, not that the officer retains functional competence with the specific equipment fitted on this vessel — RightShip's own guidance explicitly lists the functions to be demonstrated in front of the inspector because a paperwork-only check cannot distinguish genuine competence from a forgotten or never-applied skill This mirrors the same Human Factors principle seen in SIRE 2.0: documentary compliance and demonstrable competence are assessed as two separate things. RISQ's own guide to inspection for Q3.18 explicitly lists "basic functionality... in the presence of the inspector" as the verification method — a deliberate design choice, not an inspector preference.

Question 3

RISQ Q3.12 requires the Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System (BNWAS) to be operational underway AND at anchor, with required tests conducted and recorded. Why does RISQ specifically call out "at anchor" rather than only "underway"?

Accepted Answer

BNWAS exists to detect watchkeeper incapacitation/absence, which is a real risk at anchor as well as underway — anchor watch failures (dragging anchor undetected, drifting into a shipping lane) have caused real casualties, so the alarm's value does not disappear just because the vessel is not making way A common assumption is that watchkeeping risk is purely an underway phenomenon — RISQ's explicit "at anchor" requirement corrects that assumption. An unmonitored anchor watch can fail just as seriously: dragging anchor in worsening weather, traffic encroachment, or a medical incapacitation are all anchor-watch failure modes BNWAS is designed to catch.