In the Pelican of London investigation, what gap in the vessel's risk assessment for gangway rigging did the MAIB identify regarding who was considered at risk?

A. The risk assessment correctly identified all gangway users

B. There was no risk assessment process onboard at all

C. The risk assessment only failed to consider weather conditions

D. The risk assessment had misidentified the population at risk, not considering that any gangway user — including trainees and members of the public — could slip, stumble, or fall while boarding or leaving the vessel

A. Follow the company manual, since it is the vessel's day-to-day reference document

B. Follow whichever is easier to implement operationally

C. Follow the more stringent WAH Regulations 2010 / MGN 410 requirement, since it is statutory law and takes precedence over COSWP guidance where the two conflict — the company manual itself should also be flagged for update

D. Average the two requirements to find a middle ground

A. Yes, since the vessel does sometimes carry out SAR work

B. Yes, provided the Master documents the decision in the deck log

C. No — the derogation only applies to the specific provision that cannot be complied with due to characteristics peculiar to the SAR/civil protection activity itself; it cannot be stretched to cover routine height-work tasks unrelated to that activity

D. Yes, but only if the vessel is flagged in a Red Ensign Group register