Confirms the planning stage produces a detailed graphic and written plan with course lines, waypoints, and clearly marked no-go areas per IMO Res A.893(21) guidelines
Checks that parallel index lines, wheel-over positions, and abort/contingency points are pre-planned for critical legs, not improvised in the moment
Establishes that speed and ETA calculations account for tidal windows, traffic separation schemes, and UKC-critical stretches
Verifies the plan identifies alternative anchorages or bolt-holes for engine failure or deteriorating weather along the route
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Establishes that execution means navigating strictly to the approved plan, with any departure treated as a deviation requiring justification, per STCW Code A-VIII/2
Checks fixes are plotted at the planned interval and compared against the track, with cross-track error monitored on ECDIS
Confirms the OOW's understanding of when a deviation becomes significant enough to require Master notification
Verifies helm/engine orders and course alterations during execution are logged consistently with the plan
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the monitoring stage of passage planning is an ongoing activity throughout the voyage, not a one-time exercise completed before sailing, per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 34 guidance
Checks the process for incorporating new Notices to Mariners, Temporary and Preliminary notices, and navigational warnings into the live plan
Establishes how weather routing updates or revised ETAs trigger a re-appraisal of tidal or daylight-dependent legs
Verifies the Master is kept informed of significant plan changes during the voyage, not just at departure briefing
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the Master reviews and approves the passage plan before the voyage commences, taking overall responsibility per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 34 and ISM Code Section 7
Establishes that approval is a substantive review — draft/UKC, tidal windows, traffic, weather — not a signature applied without scrutiny
Checks that the plan reflects the vessel's actual condition (draft, trim, speed capability) at the time of departure
Verifies any changes requested by the Master during review are incorporated and re-checked before sailing
MasterChief Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms a bridge team briefing is held ahead of critical passage segments (pilotage, restricted waters, TSS crossing) so all watchkeepers share situational awareness, supporting STCW Code A-VIII/2 bridge resource management principles
Checks that a defined management-of-change process exists for deviating from the approved plan underway, including who authorizes it and how it is recorded
Establishes that briefings cover roles, contingencies, and abort criteria for the specific leg, not a generic pre-departure talk
Verifies deviations are reconciled back into the plan or logged as a permanent record, not left as an undocumented one-off
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers understand the difference between safety contour, safety depth, and shallow/deep contours, and set them deliberately for each leg rather than leaving factory defaults, per STCW Code Table A-II/1 ECDIS competence
Checks the safety contour selected reflects the vessel's actual draft plus an appropriate under-keel margin for the charted datum
Establishes the settings are reviewed and adjusted for changing draft (ballast/laden legs) and for waters with different chart datums
Verifies the OOW can demonstrate, not just describe, how to change these settings on the actual unit fitted
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms alarm parameters (anti-grounding look-ahead, off-track limit, CPA/TCPA where integrated) are set appropriately for the waters being transited, not left at a single generic value for the whole voyage
Establishes a genuine alarm-response procedure exists — acknowledge, assess, correct — rather than habitual silencing
Checks alarm logs or audit trail for a pattern of dismissed alarms without corrective action, a known red flag in ECDIS misuse
Verifies the OOW distinguishes between an alarm requiring immediate action and one requiring only awareness
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers can read and interpret Category of Zone of Confidence (CATZOC) diagrams on the ENC and understand what each rating implies about survey accuracy and position/depth reliability
Checks that a lower CATZOC rating along the route triggers a wider UKC margin, a more conservative safety contour, or increased fixing frequency
Establishes CATZOC is considered during the appraisal/planning stage, not discovered as a surprise underway
Verifies the officer can point to at least one area on the actual voyage route where CATZOC influenced a planning decision
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the vessel maintains a current, licensed Electronic Navigational Chart portfolio covering the intended route, updated via weekly Notices to Mariners per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 19/27 carriage and updating requirements
Establishes the process for renewing chart cell licenses before expiry and for procuring additional cells before a route change
Checks how the vessel identifies and manages any gaps in official ENC coverage, falling back to RCDS mode with paper charts as required
Verifies update application is logged with source, date, and edition, not just a claim that the ECDIS auto-updates
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers understand which sensors (GPS/GNSS, gyro, speed log, AIS) feed the ECDIS and can verify each is delivering valid data, not just trusting the displayed position
Establishes the vessel meets SOLAS carriage requirements for a back-up arrangement — dual ECDIS or ECDIS plus adequate paper chart folio — per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 19
Checks the procedure for detecting and responding to a sensor fault or loss of GPS signal on the primary unit
Verifies the backup unit or paper folio is actually ready for immediate use, not stowed and out of date
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers understand that RCDS mode (using a raster chart rather than a vector ENC) requires an appropriate, corrected paper chart folio to be carried and used alongside it per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 19 guidance
Checks the vessel's chart portfolio genuinely supports full fallback to paper navigation for the entire intended route, not only partial coverage
Establishes officers can identify, without hesitation, which areas of the current voyage rely on RCDS or would require a paper fallback
Verifies paper charts held as fallback are corrected to the latest Notice to Mariners, matching the same currency standard expected of the ENC
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers do not rely on a single GNSS-derived position alone, cross-checking with visual bearings, radar ranges/bearings, or parallel index lines where available, consistent with good watchkeeping practice under STCW Code A-VIII/2
Establishes the officer understands the relative accuracy and failure modes of each fixing method (visual bearing error, radar parallax, GNSS outage/spoofing)
Checks that cross-checks are actually logged, not just described as a general habit
Verifies awareness of how to detect a GNSS position that has silently jumped or frozen
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms fixing frequency is scaled to the level of navigational risk — wider intervals in open ocean, materially tighter intervals in coastal, confined, or high-traffic waters, per STCW Code A-VIII/2 watchkeeping principles
Checks the passage plan specifies the intended fixing interval for each leg, not left to individual OOW judgment on the day
Establishes evidence in the deck log that the interval was actually followed and increased as the vessel approached danger
Verifies the OOW can justify the chosen interval by reference to speed, proximity to hazards, and UKC margin, not a generic answer
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms a documented minimum UKC policy exists in the SMS, specifying a minimum static clearance appropriate to bottom type and sea state
Establishes the policy is genuinely applied leg-by-leg on the passage plan, with the resulting minimum charted depth calculated and marked, not just stated in general terms
Checks that the policy accounts for critical restricted stretches (bar crossings, channels) separately from open-water minimums
Verifies the Master and OOWs can explain the numeric UKC figure being used for the current voyage without hesitation
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms officers understand that squat (increased draft due to vessel speed in shallow/confined water) must be added to static draft when calculating available UKC
Checks the squat calculation method used (formula or company table) is appropriate to the vessel type and the channel's depth-to-draft ratio
Establishes the calculated squat allowance was actually applied to reduce the planned speed or increase the required charted depth for the critical stretch
Verifies awareness that squat increases in narrow/canal-effect channels beyond the open-water formula estimate
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms tidal height is correctly applied to charted depth at the critical shallow point, using the appropriate tidal reference station and correction method
Establishes a genuine tidal window (earliest safe arrival to latest safe departure at the restriction) is calculated and stated in the passage plan, not just 'high water'
Checks the contingency if the vessel is running early or late against the tidal window — alternative speed, anchoring to wait, or an abort decision
Verifies officers can explain secondary port tidal corrections where the critical point isn't a standard port
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms watch composition decisions follow STCW Code A-VIII/2 principles — considering visibility, traffic density, proximity to navigational hazards, and workload — rather than a fixed one-size-fits-all arrangement
Checks that a dedicated, properly stationed lookout is provided whenever circumstances require it, separate from any helmsman duty
Establishes the Master's standing orders specify when the OOW must not be left alone on watch
Verifies actual watch rosters and log entries reflect lookout assignment consistent with the conditions logged at the time
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the Master's standing orders contain specific, unambiguous criteria for calling the Master (restricted visibility, traffic conflict, equipment failure, deviation beyond a stated margin) per good bridge management practice under STCW Code A-VIII/2
Establishes officers understand that calling the Master early is expected behavior, not a sign of weakness, reinforcing an open bridge culture
Checks for evidence the criteria are actually followed — genuine call-out log entries correlating with logged trigger events
Verifies the OOW can recite several specific call-out triggers without needing to check the book
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms Master's standing orders are current, specific to the vessel and trade, and readily accessible on the bridge, not a generic template
Establishes each watchkeeping officer has read and signed the standing orders, with a genuine acknowledgment process rather than a single blanket signature sheet
Checks that standing orders are reviewed and reissued when the Master changes or trading pattern changes significantly
Verifies content covers navigation, safety, and communication expectations comprehensively, matching what officers describe in interview
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the Master issues specific, dated night orders addressing that night's actual navigational circumstances, not a repeated boilerplate entry
Checks every officer who stood a watch during the period signed the night order book before or at the start of the watch, evidencing they actually read it
Establishes night orders reference specific hazards, traffic, or instructions relevant to the passage that night
Verifies the Master reviews and closes out the book periodically, following up on any noted watch issues
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms a defined restricted-visibility procedure is implemented immediately conditions close in — reduced speed, engines on standby, sound signals, radar/ARPA fully utilized, per COLREGS Rule 19 and good practice
Establishes heavy-weather procedures address securing for sea, watertight integrity checks, and course/speed adjustment to reduce slamming or parametric rolling risk
Checks the Master is notified without delay when visibility restricts or heavy weather is expected, consistent with standing orders
Verifies these transitions are actually logged with times, so the inspector can see the procedure was followed rather than just described
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms a genuine master/pilot exchange takes place on boarding, covering the passage plan, vessel particulars, manoeuvring characteristics, and any defects affecting handling, per good practice under SOLAS Ch. V and IMO guidance
Checks that the exchange is two-way — the pilot also briefs the bridge team on the local passage plan, tugs, and berthing arrangement
Establishes the pilot card is completed accurately and handed over, not a stale or generic copy
Verifies the exchange is documented (checklist or log entry) so it's demonstrable rather than just claimed
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the presence of a pilot does not relieve the Master and OOW of the responsibility to independently monitor position, track, and traffic throughout pilotage, per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 34 principles
Checks the bridge team continues plotting fixes, using parallel indexes, and cross-checking the pilot's intended actions against the agreed plan
Establishes a clear, rehearsed process exists for the Master or OOW to challenge or intervene if the pilot's action appears to place the vessel at risk
Verifies interventions or close calls during past pilotages are logged and reviewed, not brushed aside out of deference to the pilot
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the pilot ladder (or combination arrangement) is rigged in full compliance with SOLAS Ch. V Reg 23, including length, securing points, steps condition, and access to the deck
Checks that a genuine pre-use inspection is carried out before every transfer, not assumed adequate because it was fine the last time
Establishes the responsible officer overseeing rigging understands the specific SOLAS V/23 criteria (spreader positioning, step spacing, handholds) rather than a general impression of 'looks fine'
Verifies records of pilot ladder inspection/maintenance are kept and any pilot complaint about the arrangement is tracked and actioned
MasterChief OfficerBosun
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms combination arrangements (accommodation ladder plus pilot ladder) comply with SOLAS Ch. V Reg 23 geometry and securing requirements, and that mechanical pilot hoists, where fitted, are not used unless specifically approved
Checks the deck watch understands the additional inspection points unique to combination rigs — trapdoor, platform, securing of the accommodation ladder to the ship's side
Establishes crew are trained in rigging combination arrangements correctly, referencing recognized industry guidance such as ISO 799 in addition to SOLAS
Verifies communication with the pilot boat/launch coxswain confirms the arrangement height and side before the transfer begins
MasterChief OfficerBosun
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms additional precautions are applied for night or adverse-weather pilot transfers — improved lighting of the boarding area, lifebuoy with self-igniting light and buoyant line ready, and a heaving line available, per SOLAS V/23
Checks the responsible officer assesses sea state and vessel motion before committing to a transfer, with authority to request the Master slow down, alter course to create a lee, or delay transfer if conditions are unsafe
Establishes crew standing by at the transfer point are briefed on man-overboard response specific to a pilot transfer incident
Verifies lighting and emergency equipment at the pilot station are checked and functional before every night transfer, not assumed serviceable
MasterChief OfficerBosun
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms watchkeepers actively tune and optimize the radar display (gain, sea/rain clutter, range scale appropriate to the situation) rather than leaving it on default automatic settings throughout the watch
Checks that radar performance monitor checks are carried out at the required interval and logged, per manufacturer/SMS requirements supporting SOLAS Ch. V Reg 19 carriage standards
Establishes ARPA settings (vector mode, trails, acquisition) are used deliberately to support collision avoidance decision-making
Verifies officers can demonstrate switching range scales and adjusting clutter controls live on the actual unit
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms watchkeeping officers actively use parallel indexing as a real-time monitoring technique in coastal and confined waters, not only as a passage-planning theory exercise
Checks that index lines are set against a genuinely fixed, radar-conspicuous reference (headland, charted object) appropriate to the current leg
Establishes the officer can explain what deviation from the index line would mean operationally and at what point it should trigger action
Verifies parallel indexing is referenced in the passage plan for legs where it was intended to be used, and is actually running on the unit during the watch
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms AIS static and voyage-related data (draft, destination, ETA, navigational status) is actively maintained and updated by the bridge team, supporting the carriage and performance standards of SOLAS Ch. V Reg 19
Checks the officer understands AIS is a decision-support tool, not a substitute for radar/visual collision avoidance, and can articulate its known limitations (target dropout, spoofing, unreliable turning target vectors)
Establishes navigational status is switched correctly as the vessel's actual condition changes
Verifies the AIS unit's own position/heading sensor inputs are checked periodically for validity
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms the echo sounder is switched on and actively monitored whenever the vessel is in waters where depth is a meaningful safety factor, not just left off by default
Checks depth readings are logged at an appropriate interval, or that a continuous trace/recording is retained and reviewable
Establishes the OOW cross-checks displayed echo sounder depth against charted depth as a sanity check on position
Verifies the alarm setting on the echo sounder is configured appropriately for the vessel's draft and UKC policy
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms gyro compass error is checked regularly by an accepted method (azimuth, transit bearing, or comparison with an independent heading source) and logged, supporting reliable heading data feeding radar/ARPA and ECDIS
Establishes a current magnetic compass deviation card exists, derived from an actual swing within a reasonable period, and is displayed near the compass
Checks that gyro error is applied correctly when converting between true and compass/gyro bearings during navigation and collision avoidance
Verifies both gyro and magnetic compass errors are cross-checked against each other periodically as an integrity check
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms azimuth/amplitude or transit bearing checks are performed at a frequency consistent with company procedure and good practice, typically each watch or at defined intervals, not sporadically
Checks that all watchkeeping officers, not just one favored officer, are performing and logging these checks across the roster
Establishes the officer understands the calculation method (azimuth tables, almanac, or electronic aid) well enough to perform it without being talked through it
Verifies a significant or sudden change in compass error is investigated rather than simply logged and ignored
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms GMDSS equipment (DSC, batteries, EPIRB, SART) is tested at the required daily and weekly intervals per SOLAS Ch. IV and STCW Code A-IV/2 competence for GMDSS operators
Checks radio log entries record each specific test performed, with results, not a single generic weekly tick
Establishes the designated GMDSS operator(s) hold valid GOC/ROC certificates appropriate to the equipment fitted
Verifies continuous listening watch on appropriate distress frequencies is maintained per the vessel's sea area designation
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms watchkeeping officers can demonstrate, not just describe, the practical response to a received distress alert on the actual GMDSS equipment fitted
Checks understanding of false distress alert cancellation procedure, since accidental activation and correct cancellation is a common real-world scenario
Establishes familiarity with the vessel's own distress communication procedure, including notifying the Master and the nearest MRCC
Verifies officers know the location and operation of portable GMDSS equipment (SART, portable VHF) in addition to the fixed installation
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms steering gear tests are performed within the required period before departure, covering main and auxiliary steering systems and changeover between control positions, per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 26
Checks the same standard of testing is applied before arrival into port/pilotage waters, not only on departure from the previous port
Establishes the rudder angle indicator, steering control transfer procedure, and emergency steering communication method are all verified during the test, not just that the rudder moves
Verifies test results and any defects found are logged and reported, with corrective action tracked to closure
MasterChief OfficerChief Engineer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms emergency steering drills are conducted at the required interval (at least every three months per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 26) and include a realistic loss of main steering scenario
Checks that communication between the bridge and steering compartment is genuinely tested using the designated backup method (sound-powered phone, portable radio) in case normal communication also fails
Establishes personnel who would operate emergency/local steering are specifically trained and can locate and operate the gear without direction
Verifies drill records note the time taken to establish emergency steering control, tracked for trend/improvement
MasterChief OfficerChief Engineer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms bridge officers understand the purpose and basic operation of the Voyage Data Recorder, including how to trigger a manual data save following an incident, per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 20
Checks the vessel's procedure identifies who is responsible for initiating the save and within what timeframe, to prevent automatic overwrite of relevant data
Establishes routine VDR performance checks (annual performance test) are current and on file
Verifies officers know how to preserve both the fixed VDR capsule data and any float-free capsule where fitted, without needing to consult documentation under pressure
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms an anchoring plan is prepared in advance, including selected position, anchor and chain length appropriate to depth and holding ground, and calculated swinging circle checked against surrounding hazards and other anchored vessels
Checks a proper anchor watch is maintained with a defined position-monitoring method and dragging alarm/parameters set on ECDIS or GPS
Establishes the OOW knows the specific criteria (bearing drift, GPS position change, chain tension) that would indicate dragging, and the escalation procedure if it occurs
Verifies weather and holding-ground considerations (wind forecast, tidal stream, bottom type) were factored into the anchor position and scope of chain veered
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms newly joined navigating officers complete documented familiarization with all bridge navigation equipment specific to this vessel — ECDIS, radar/ARPA, GMDSS, steering, GPS — before assuming unsupervised watchkeeping duties, per SOLAS Ch. V Reg 27 and ISM Code Section 6.3
Checks the familiarization is genuinely vessel- and equipment-specific (make/model), not a generic company checklist signed on arrival day
Establishes a period of supervised watchkeeping or handover with the outgoing officer occurred before the new officer stood an unsupervised watch
Verifies the officer can independently operate the key safety-critical functions of each system when asked to demonstrate
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms watchkeeping officers hold genuine, applied working knowledge of the COLREGS — not memorized rule numbers — including head-on, crossing, and overtaking situations and the give-way/stand-on obligations that follow
Checks understanding of when a stand-on vessel must take action under Rule 17 if the give-way vessel fails to act
Establishes the officer can reason through a scenario rather than only reciting rule text, reflecting real interview practice used in vetting assessments
Verifies understanding extends to restricted visibility (Rule 19) and traffic separation scheme conduct (Rule 10), not just open-water crossing rules
MasterChief Officer2nd Officer
What the Inspector Expects
Confirms NAVTEX and Enhanced Group Call (SafetyNET) messages are received, logged, reviewed, and filed by area and category, with relevant warnings cross-checked against the current route per SOLAS Ch. IV/V requirements
Checks the officer understands basic tropical revolving storm avoidance principles (dangerous semicircle, navigable semicircle, recommended avoidance manoeuvre) and can apply them to the vessel's actual position relative to a stated storm track
Establishes a weather routing service or equivalent process is used on ocean passages, with routing advice actually reflected in course/speed decisions
Verifies obsolete or superseded NAVTEX/EGC messages are cleared from the log/board rather than left cluttering current warnings