Incident Analysis and Mitigation Strategy Report 2 MARB01

School of Maritime Studies

Module: MARB01 – Advanced Navigation and Bridge Resource Management

Academic Year: 2024/25
Module Instructor: Professor [Your Name/Dept. Head Name]

Assessment Brief

1. Assessment Title: Incident Analysis and Mitigation Strategy Report

2. Module Code: MARB01

3. Assessment Number: 2 (of 2)

4. Weighting: 60%

5. Submission Date and Time: Friday, 28th March 2025, by 23:59 GMT

6. Submission Method: Via the LJMU ‘Canvas’ Assignment Portal.

7. Learning Outcomes Assessed:
Upon successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:

• C1: Critically analyse complex navigational incidents by synthesising technical data, human factors, and procedural contexts.

• C2: Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of Bridge Resource Management (BRM) principles and their application in a high-pressure operational environment.

• C3: Formulate and justify robust, evidence-based recommendations to enhance safety culture and prevent incident recurrence within a maritime organisation.

• C4: Communicate complex technical and operational findings in a clear, structured, and professional manner suitable for a senior management audience.

8. Task:
You are required to produce a 3,000-word (±10%) professional report that critically analyses the provided “MV OCEAN PATHFINDER” navigational incident scenario.

Your report must be structured as follows:

• Section 1: Introduction & Incident Synopsis (approx. 500 words): Briefly outline the incident, identifying the key vessels, location, environmental conditions, and the primary sequence of events leading to the adverse outcome.

• Section 2: Critical Analysis of Causative Factors (approx. 1,500 words): This is the core of your report. You must critically examine the incident using a systematic framework (e.g., SHELL model, Swiss Cheese Model, or a similar accepted model). Your analysis must include, but not be limited to:

  • Technical & Navigational Factors: Equipment use, adherence to COLREGs, passage planning adequacy.

  • Human Element & BRM: Situational awareness, communication, challenge and response, decision-making, fatigue, and leadership on the bridge.

  • Procedural & Organisational Factors: Company Safety Management System (SMS) effectiveness, training adequacy, and safety culture.

• Section 3: Mitigation Strategies and Recommendations (approx. 750 words): Based on your analysis, propose specific, actionable, and justified recommendations for the maritime company involved. These should be targeted at preventing a recurrence and improving overall operational safety. Link your recommendations directly to the deficiencies identified in Section 2.

• Section 4: Conclusion (approx. 250 words): Summarise the key findings of your analysis and the overarching importance of your recommendations.

• References & Appendices: Not included in the word count. All sources must be cited using the Harvard Referencing System.

9. The Scenario: “The MV OCEAN PATHFINDER Incident”

(This is a fictional scenario created for this assessment)

On the 15th of February 2024, the container vessel MV OCEAN PATHFINDER was on a ballast voyage from Rotterdam to Liverpool in challenging conditions: SW Force 7, moderate sea state, and intermittent heavy rain showers reducing visibility. The vessel was equipped with modern integrated navigation systems (INS), including two operational RADARs (ARPA) and ECDIS as the primary means of navigation.

At approximately 22:00 UTC, while approaching a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in the English Channel, the OOW (Chief Officer) identified a target on the RADAR, later confirmed to be the product tanker MT CHEMICAL VENTURE, on a crossing course. The OOW was alone on the bridge, as the Master was in his cabin and the Able Seaman (AB) was on a scheduled break.

Initial VHF communication was unclear due to channel congestion. The OOW, relying heavily on the ECDIS display, assumed “give-way” obligations were clear. He made a series of small, late course alterations that failed to meet the requirements of the COLREGs. The Master was not called to the bridge until a close-quarters situation had developed. Despite last-minute, full astern engine orders, a collision occurred, resulting in significant structural damage to both vessels and a minor pollution incident from the MT CHEMICAL VENTURE.

Preliminary investigation notes highlight: a discrepancy between RADAR and ECDIS information that was not cross-checked; an over-reliance on a single navigational instrument; and a failure to call the Master or establish a proper navigational watch during a period of high traffic density.

10. Assessment Criteria:
Your work will be assessed against the following criteria:

• Knowledge & Understanding (25%): Demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of COLREGs, BRM principles, navigational practices, and safety management systems.

• Critical Analysis & Argument (35%): Depth and systematic nature of the incident analysis. Ability to identify root causes, not just symptoms, and to synthesise human, technical, and organisational factors.

• Recommendations & Application (25%): The quality, practicality, and justification of the proposed mitigation strategies. Evidence of innovative and professional thinking.

• Structure, Presentation & Academic Integrity (15%): Clarity, logical flow, professional report format, grammatical accuracy, and correct use of the Harvard referencing system.

11. Important Notes:

• Late Submission: The University’s standard penalties for late submission will apply. Please refer to the Taught Student Regulations.

• Academic Integrity: This is an individual assignment. All sources of information must be appropriately referenced. Unauthorised collusion or plagiarism will be treated as a serious academic offence and will be dealt with under the University’s Academic Integrity Policy. All submissions will be processed through Turnitin.

• Support: For support with academic writing and referencing, please contact the LJMU Student Advice and Wellbeing team. For module-specific queries, please attend the scheduled tutorial sessions or post on the Canvas discussion board.

References/Bibliography

1. EMSA (European Maritime Safety Agency). (2024). Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2024. Lisbon: EMSA.

2. Grech, M. R., & Lutzhoff, M. (2020). Automation and the ‘Electronic Captain’: The impact of integrated navigation systems on situational awareness and bridge team performance. Journal of Navigation, 73(5), 1019-1037.

3. Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2021). *Safety in Shipping: The Human Element 2.0 – A contemporary review of non-technical skills in maritime bridge operations*. Safety Science, 144, 105468.

4. Schröder-Hinrichs, J. U., Baldauf, M., & Kataria, A. (2022). From Safety-I to Safety-II in maritime risk management: A practical framework for applying resilience engineering. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 21(2), 193-213.

5. International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). (2023). Bridge Procedures Guide (6th Ed.). London: Marisec Publications.