Fill in the correct form of the word in capital letters
The code requires that all personnel involved in the safety management system have an adequate UNDERSTANDof relevant rules, regulations, codes and guidelines, and that they take timely CORRECT actions to correct any DEFICIENT found. It was held that:
the master’s repeated breach of the convention showed that he did not have adequate u nderstanding of the relevant rules; and
the non-conformity note issued by the designated person ashore following the port state control inspection in the Netherlands was not a timely corrective action, as he should have made further inspections or interviews to check that the master and crew actually complied with the rules and INSTRUCT given.
Court of Appeal decision
On November 15 2010, following an appeal by the owners, the Court of Appeal reversed the district court JUDGE. The owners argued that the designated person ashore could not have prevented the grounding. The designated person ashore had ordered the master to comply with the CONVENE, both through oral instructions and by issuing a non- conformity note. He could not have expected that FAR steps were necessary.
In relation to the unseaworthiness issue, the owners argued that the vessel had a safety management system, including a bridge watch system that complied with the International Safety Management Code. The crew was experienced, well-qualified and equipped with necessary EQUIP, manuals and instructions to perform the voyage safely. The fact that the master did not ROUTINE use a designated lookout during navigation in DARK did not render the vessel unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage.
