https://www.facebook.com/236193892900014/

Ko Jack, Yangon (2026)

04/08/2026

Was a report available onboard which confirmed that an unannounced remote
navigational assessment, which included review of VDR & ECDIS data by an independent
contractor or specialist company representative, had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

Short Question Text
Unannounced remote navigational assessment

Vessel Types
Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG

ROVIQ Sequence
Documentation, Bridge

Publications
OCIMF A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits
OCIMF: Recommendations on the Proactive Use of Voyage Data Recorder Information (revised edition August 2020)

Objective
To verify the extent of company evaluation and oversight of navigational standards onboard managed vessels.

Industry Guidance
OCIMF: A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits.
Remote navigational assessments using Voyage Data Recorders Companies may consider using Voyage Data Recorders (VDRs) to conduct remote assessments of navigational practices. This may be supplemented by downloading data from ECDIS and other electronic navigation aids.
Remote navigational assessments may be useful when:
• The trading pattern of a vessel makes it difficult to conduct a traditional assessment.
• Following up to verify the correction of non-conformances noted during a traditional assessment.
• Companies want to assess the bridge team in a more natural environment, without them being influenced by the presence of an assessor. Although everyday practices may be more accurately observed through remote assessment, subtler interactions within the bridge team may not be picked up.
• Highlighting where to focus their resources in terms of either assessment or mentoring specific subject matter with traditional assessors.
Using the VDR for remote navigational assessments should be seen as an additional assessment tool, not as a replacement for traditional navigation assessments. Both types of assessment have advantages and limitations and
should not be considered mutually exclusive.
OCIMF: Recommendations on the Proactive Use of Voyage Date Recorder Information (revised edition August 2020)
Navigational assessments using VDR data could be undertaken on board by Masters with their bridge teams, by vessel operators in managing offices, or by using services of an independently contracted third-party company. VDR data will be replayed and analysed against the company SMS, industry best practices and regulatory requirements.
The VDR data is normally used to cover one or more high-risk sections of the voyage, such as canal transits, pilotage
during arrival/departure and/or passage through high traffic density areas such as the Singapore/Malacca Straits or the English Channel.

TMSA KPI 5.4.1 requires that comprehensive navigational audits* are conducted while on passage by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
The audit* may be:
• A company navigational audit* as per 5.3.3; or
• An independent navigational audit* by a suitably qualified specialist contractor.
This fleet audit programme includes a combination of company and independent audits. Where it is impractical for a vessel to be audited within the 12-month period due to trading pattern then an unannounced remote audit by an independent contractor, including VDR downloads may be used. All fleet vessels are audited while on passage at intervals not exceeding 12 months.
*The terminology used in the OCIMF paper “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” will take precedence throughout the balance of guidance.

IMO: ISM Code
The Company should periodically verify whether all those undertaking delegated ISM related tasks are acting in conformity with the Company's responsibilities under the Code
The Company should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company.

Inspection Guidance
This question will only be generated when the vessel operator had indicated, through the pre-inspection questionnaire, that a remote navigational assessment had been undertaken for the vessel being inspected within the previous twelve months.
The inclusion of this question in the CVIQ does not imply an expectation by OCIMF or its members that a remote navigation assessment will be carried out on any vessel at any particular time.
It is not expected that sensitive personal data relating to the assessment of individual performance is contained within the report available onboard. Such assessment, although expected to form part of a remote navigational assessment, should remain confidential.
It is an OCIMF expectation that the assessment report will include brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience.
The inspector is not expected or required to:
• Make a qualitative assessment of the remote navigation assessment report beyond the specific guidance contained herein.
• Make a qualitative assessment of the qualification and/or experience of the independent contractor or specialist company representative undertaking the assessment beyond the specific guidance contained herein.

Suggested Inspector Actions
Review the remote navigational assessment report and verify that:
• The remote navigational assessment included the phases of a voyage as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The remote navigational assessment was unannounced and included the download and review of VDR and ECDIS data.
• Brief details of the assessor’s qualification and experience were included within the report.
• The report was substantially in alignment with the format, and contained information, as suggested by the OCIMF publication “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”.
• Where the report identified areas for improvement there was evidence that follow up had been undertaken by the company and/or vessel as appropriate.

Expected Evidence
• The report for the remote navigational assessment conducted by either an independent contractor or specialist company representative as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The Bridge Log Book to cover the period of the reported remote navigation assessment (for geographical verification purposes only).
• A corrective action plan with due dates for each area for improvement identified during the remote navigational assessment.
• Supporting evidence for each closed area for improvement identified and included in the corrective action plan.

Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation
• The remote navigational assessment report for the assessment declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire was not available onboard.
• The remote navigational assessment did not include review of downloaded VDR and ECDIS data as well as supporting material such as passage plans, under-keel clearance calculations and copies (photos) of paper charts where no ECDIS was carried.
• The remote navigational assessment covered a period solely at anchor or open sea navigation where no navigational challenges were present.
• The remote navigational assessment did not cover the phases of the voyage as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The details of the qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience of the assessor were not included within the report.
• The assessor did not hold or had not held a senior deck officer licence and/or had not sailed as a senior deck officer.
• The remote navigational assessment report was not substantially in alignment with the OCIMF guidance document “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”
• There was no corrective action plan with defined due dates for all areas for improvement identified during the remote navigational assessment.
• There was no evidence that the areas for improvement identified during the remote navigational assessment had been closed out within the due dates indicated within the corrective action plan.

04/08/2026

Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified specialist contractor had been completed while on passage as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

Short Question Text
Dynamic navigational assessment by a specialist contractor

Vessel Types
Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG

ROVIQ Sequence
Documentation, Bridge

Publications
OCIMF A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits

Objective
To verify the extent of company evaluation and oversight of navigational standards onboard managed vessels

Industry Guidance
OCIMF: A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits.
Purpose of a navigational assessment
The purpose of a navigational assessment should be to identify poor practices, to continuously improve navigational standards to ensure safe and efficient voyages and to assure companies that high standards of navigation and watchkeeping are being maintained.
The purpose of closely observing the interaction and effectiveness of the bridge team during pilotage and standby is to evaluate:
• Key behaviours of members of the bridge team.
• Skills of the bridge team
• Interactions between the master and pilot.

Selection of assessors
Navigation assessments should be conducted by an experienced senior deck officer (preferably a Master Mariner with command experience), who is fully up to date with company navigational practices, the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the ICS Bridge Procedures Guide and industry best practices.

TMSA KPI 5.4.1 requires that comprehensive navigational audits are conducted while on passage by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
The audit may be
• An independent navigational audit by a suitably qualified specialist contractor.
The fleet audit programme includes a combination of company and independent audits.
(Best Practice Guidance under TMSA KPI 5.3.3 applies) In addition to a navigational verification assessment*, the purpose of the audit* is to:
• Review and confirm that bridge practices are in compliance with international regulations and company procedures.
• Review and assess the skills and proficiency levels of the bridge team members.
• Review and evaluate the effective functioning of the bridge team during all sections of a voyage.
• Use the opportunity to promote robust navigational practices, chart-work, passage planning and good seamanship.
• Identify any additional training needs, whether this be specific to an individual or a vessel, or a fleet wide need.
• Verify adequate supervision of Junior Officers and training of cadets during critical passages.
• Verify that accurate logs are kept and that adequate record keeping is being undertaken.
*The terminology used in the OCIMF paper “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” will
take precedence throughout the balance of guidance.

IMO: ISM Code
The Company should periodically verify whether all those undertaking delegated ISM related tasks are acting in conformity with the Company's responsibilities under the Code
The Company should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company.

Inspection Guidance
This question will only be generated when the vessel operator had indicated, through the pre-inspection questionnaire, that an appropriate dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified specialist contractor had been conducted on board the vessel being inspected within the previous twelve months.
The inclusion of this question in the CVIQ does not imply an expectation by OCIMF or its members that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist will be carried out on any vessel at any particular time.
It is not expected that sensitive personal data relating to the assessment of individual performance is contained within the report available onboard. Such assessment, although expected to form part of a dynamic navigational
assessment, should remain confidential.
It is an OCIMF expectation that the assessment report will include brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience.
The inspector is not expected or required to:
• Make a qualitative assessment of the navigation assessment report beyond the specific guidance contained herein.
• Make a qualitative assessment of the qualification and/or experience of the contractor undertaking the assessment beyond the specific guidance contained herein.

Suggested Inspector Actions
Review the report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist contractor and verify that:
• The assessment was conducted during the period declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The assessment covered all sections of a voyage as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• Brief details of the assessor’s qualification and experience were included within the report.
• The report was in a similar format, and covered the review items suggested by, the OCIMF guidance paper
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”.
• The report contained information relating to the majority of the best practice guidance points from TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• Where the report identified areas for improvement there was evidence that follow up had been undertaken within a specified timeframe by the company and/or vessel as appropriate.

Expected Evidence
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified specialist contractor as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The Bridge Log Book to cover the period of the reported dynamic navigation assessment. (for geographical verification purposes only)
• A corrective action plan with due dates for each area for improvement identified during the navigational assessment.
• Supporting evidence for each closed area for improvement identified and included in the corrective action plan.

Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire was not available onboard.
• The dynamic navigational assessment did not cover the stages of the voyage or was not completed during the date range as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The details of the qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience of the assessor were not included within the report.
• The assessor did not hold or had not held a senior deck officer licence and/or had not sailed as a senior deck officer.
• The dynamic navigational assessment report was not substantially in alignment with the guidance document
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” and the best practice guidance under TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• There was no corrective action plan with defined due dates for all areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment.
• There was no evidence that the areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment had been closed out within the due dates indicated within the corrective action plan.

01/08/2026

Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified specialist contractor had been completed while on passage as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

Short Question Text
Dynamic navigational assessment by a specialist contractor

Vessel Types
Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG

ROVIQ Sequence
Documentation, Bridge

Publications
OCIMF A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits

Objective
To verify the extent of company evaluation and oversight of navigational standards onboard managed vessels

Industry Guidance
OCIMF: A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits.
Purpose of a navigational assessment
The purpose of a navigational assessment should be to identify poor practices, to continuously improve navigational standards to ensure safe and efficient voyages and to assure companies that high standards of navigation and watchkeeping are being maintained.
The purpose of closely observing the interaction and effectiveness of the bridge team during pilotage and standby is to evaluate:
• Key behaviours of members of the bridge team.
• Skills of the bridge team
• Interactions between the master and pilot.

Selection of assessors
Navigation assessments should be conducted by an experienced senior deck officer (preferably a Master Mariner with command experience), who is fully up to date with company navigational practices, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the ICS Bridge Procedures Guide and industry best practices.

TMSA KPI 5.4.1 requires that comprehensive navigational audits are conducted while on passage by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
The audit may be
• An independent navigational audit by a suitably qualified specialist contractor.
The fleet audit programme includes a combination of company and independent audits.
(Best Practice Guidance under TMSA KPI 5.3.3 applies)
In addition to a navigational verification assessment*, the purpose of the audit* is to:
• Review and confirm that bridge practices are in compliance with international regulations and company procedures.
• Review and assess the skills and proficiency levels of the bridge team members.
• Review and evaluate the effective functioning of the bridge team during all sections of a voyage.
• Use the opportunity to promote robust navigational practices, chart-work, passage planning and good seamanship.
• Identify any additional training needs, whether this be specific to an individual or a vessel, or a fleet wide need.
• Verify adequate supervision of Junior Officers and training of cadets during critical passages.
• Verify that accurate logs are kept and that adequate record keeping is being undertaken.
*The terminology used in the OCIMF paper “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” will take precedence throughout the balance of guidance.

IMO: ISM Code
The Company should periodically verify whether all those undertaking delegated ISM related tasks are acting in conformity with the Company's responsibilities under the Code
The Company should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company.

Inspection Guidance
This question will only be generated when the vessel operator had indicated, through the pre-inspection questionnaire, that an appropriate dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified specialist contractor had been conducted on board the vessel being inspected within the previous twelve months.
The inclusion of this question in the CVIQ does not imply an expectation by OCIMF or its members that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist will be carried out on any vessel at any particular time.
It is not expected that sensitive personal data relating to the assessment of individual performance is contained within the report available onboard. Such assessment, although expected to form part of a dynamic navigational
assessment, should remain confidential.
It is an OCIMF expectation that the assessment report will include brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience.
The inspector is not expected or required to:
• Make a qualitative assessment of the navigation assessment report beyond the specific guidance contained herein.
• Make a qualitative assessment of the qualification and/or experience of the contractor undertaking the assessment beyond the specific guidance contained herein.

Suggested Inspector Actions
Review the report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist contractor and verify that:
• The assessment was conducted during the period declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The assessment covered all sections of a voyage as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• Brief details of the assessor’s qualification and experience were included within the report.
• The report was in a similar format, and covered the review items suggested by, the OCIMF guidance paper
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”.
• The report contained information relating to the majority of the best practice guidance points from TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• Where the report identified areas for improvement there was evidence that follow up had been undertaken within a specified timeframe by the company and/or vessel as appropriate.

Expected Evidence
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified specialist contractor as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The Bridge Log Book to cover the period of the reported dynamic navigation assessment. (for geographical verification purposes only)
• A corrective action plan with due dates for each area for improvement identified during the navigational assessment.
• Supporting evidence for each closed area for improvement identified and included in the corrective action plan.

Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire was not available onboard.
• The dynamic navigational assessment did not cover the stages of the voyage or was not completed during the date range as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The details of the qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience of the assessor were not included within the report.
• The assessor did not hold or had not held a senior deck officer licence and/or had not sailed as a senior deck officer.
• The dynamic navigational assessment report was not substantially in alignment with the guidance document
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” and the best practice guidance under
TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• There was no corrective action plan with defined due dates for all areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment.
• There was no evidence that the areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment had been closed out within the due dates indicated within the corrective action plan.

01/08/2026

Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed while on passage as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

Short Question Text
Dynamic navigational assessment by a company representative

Vessel Types
Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG

ROVIQ Sequence
Bridge, Documentation

Publications
OCIMF A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits

Objective
To verify the extent of company evaluation and oversight of navigational standards onboard managed vessels

Industry Guidance
OCIMF: A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits.
Purpose of a navigational assessment
The purpose of a navigational assessment should be to identify poor practices, to continuously improve navigational standards to ensure safe and efficient voyages and to assure companies that high standards of navigation and watchkeeping are being maintained.
The purpose of closely observing the interaction and effectiveness of the bridge team during pilotage and standby is to evaluate:
• Key behaviours of members of the bridge team.
• Skills of the bridge team
• Interactions between the master and pilot.

Selection of assessors
Navigation assessments should be conducted by an experienced senior deck officer (preferably a Master Mariner with command experience), who is fully up to date with company navigational practices, the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the ICS Bridge Procedures Guide and industry best practices.

TMSA KPI 5.3.3 requires that comprehensive navigational audits* are conducted while on passage by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative.
In addition to a navigational verification assessment*, the purpose of the audit* is to:
• Review and confirm that bridge practices are in compliance with international regulations and company procedures.
• Review and assess the skills and proficiency levels of the bridge team members.
• Review and evaluate the effective functioning of the bridge team during all sections of a voyage.
• Use the opportunity to promote robust navigational practices, chart-work, passage planning and good seamanship.
• Identify any additional training needs, whether this be specific to an individual or a vessel, or a fleet wide need.
• Verify adequate supervision of Junior Officers and training of cadets during critical passages.
• Verify that accurate logs are kept, and that adequate record keeping is being undertaken.
*The terminology used in the OCIMF paper "A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits" will take precedence throughout the balance of guidance.

IMO: ISM Code
The Company should periodically verify whether all those undertaking delegated ISM related tasks are acting in conformity with the Company's responsibilities under the Code
The Company should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company.

Industry Guidance
This question will only be generated when the vessel operator had indicated, through the pre-inspection questionnaire, that an appropriate dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been conducted on board the vessel being inspected within the previous two years.
The inclusion of this question in the CVIQ does not imply an expectation by OCIMF or its members that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative will be carried out on any vessel at any particular time.
It is not expected that sensitive personal data relating to the assessment of individual performance is contained within the report available onboard. Such assessment, although expected to form part of a dynamic navigational
assessment, should remain confidential.
It is an OCIMF expectation that the assessment report will include brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience.
The inspector is not expected or required to:
• Make a qualitative assessment of the navigation assessment report beyond the specific guidance contained herein.
• Make a qualitative assessment of the qualification and/or experience of the company representative
undertaking the assessment beyond the specific guidance contained herein.

Suggested Inspector Actions
Review the report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative and verify that:
• The assessment was conducted during the period declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The assessment covered all sections of a voyage as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• Brief details of the assessor’s qualification and experience were included within the report.
• The report was in a similar format, and covered the review items suggested by, the OCIMF guidance paper
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”.
• The report contained information relating to the majority of the best practice guidance points from TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• Where the report identified areas for improvement there was evidence that follow up had been undertaken within a specified timeframe by the company and/or vessel as appropriate.

Expected Evidence
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The Bridge Log Book to cover the period of the reported dynamic navigation assessment (for geographical verification purposes only).
• A corrective action plan with due dates for each area for improvement identified during the navigational assessment.
• Supporting evidence for each closed area for improvement identified and included in the corrective action plan.
Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation
• The report for the dynamic navigational assessment declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire was not available onboard.
• The dynamic navigational assessment did not cover the stages of the voyage or was not completed during the date range as declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The details of the qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience of the assessor were not included within the report.
• The assessor did not hold or had not held a senior deck officer licence and/or had not sailed as a senior deck officer.
• The dynamic navigational assessment report was not substantially in alignment with the guidance document
“A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” and the best practice guidance under TMSA KPI 5.3.3.
• There was no corrective action plan with defined due dates for all areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment.
• There was no evidence that the areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment had been closed out within the due dates indicated within the corrective action plan.

31/07/2026

Crew Evaluation
Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a static navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

Short Question Text
Static navigational assessment

Vessel Types
Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG

ROVIQ Sequence
Documentation, Bridge

Publications
OCIMF A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits

Objective
To verify the extent of company evaluation and oversight of navigational standards onboard managed vessels

Industry Guidance
OCIMF: A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits.

Static Assessment.
A static assessment, which may be conducted in port, should include as a minimum a review of passage plans, chart corrections, navigational records, navigational equipment, compliance with company procedures and documentation.

Selection of assessors
Navigation assessments should be conducted by an experienced senior deck officer (preferably a Master Mariner with command experience), who is fully up to date with company navigational practices, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the ICS Bridge Procedures Guide and industry best practices

TMSA KPI 5.2.2 requires that there is a procedure in place for appropriate shore-based personnel to conduct navigational verification assessments.
The assessment, which may be conducted in port, includes as a minimum a review of passage plans, chart corrections, navigational records, navigational equipment, compliance with company procedures and verification of the master’s navigational audit.
All fleet vessels are assessed at intervals not exceeding 12 months.
The navigational verification assessment is followed by a report where identified corrective actions are assigned, verified and closed out in a specified time period.

IMO: ISM Code
The Company should periodically verify whether all those undertaking delegated ISM related tasks are acting in conformity with the Company's responsibilities under the Code

The Company should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company.

Inspection Guidance
This question will only be generated when:
• The vessel operator had indicated that an appropriate static navigational assessment had been conducted on board the vessel being inspected within the previous twelve months and,
• A dynamic navigational audit had not been completed by a member of the company staff within the previous twelve months.
The inclusion of this question in the CVIQ does not imply an expectation by OCIMF or its members that a navigational verification assessment by an appropriate member of the shore-staff will be carried out on any vessel at any particular time.
It is an OCIMF expectation that the assessment report will include brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience.
The inspector is not expected or required to:
• Make a qualitative assessment of the static navigation assessment report beyond the specific guidance contained herein.
• Make a qualitative assessment of the qualification and/or experience of the company representative
undertaking the assessment beyond the specific guidance contained herein.

Suggested Inspector Actions
Review the static navigation assessment and verify that:
• The assessment was conducted on the date declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• The report was in a similar format, and covered the review items suggested by, the OCIMF publication “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits”.
• Brief details of the assessor’s qualifications and experience were included within the report.
• The report contained information relating to the best practice guidance points from TMSA KPI 5.2.2
• Where the report identified areas for improvement there was evidence that follow up had been undertaken within a specified timeframe by the company and/or vessel as appropriate.

Expected Evidence
• The report for the static navigational assessment declared by the operator through the pre-inspection questionnaire.
• A corrective action plan with due dates for each area for improvement identified during the static navigational assessment.
• Supporting evidence for each closed area for improvement identified and included in the corrective action plan.

Potential Grounds for a Negative Observation
• The report for the static navigational assessment declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire was not available onboard.
• The details of the qualifications and pertinent seafaring experience of the assessor were not included within the report.
• The assessor did not hold or had not held a senior deck officer licence and / or had not sailed as a senior deck officer.
• The static navigational assessment report was not substantially in alignment with the guidance document “A Guide to Best Practice for Navigational Assessments and Audits” and the best practice guidance under TMSA KPI 5.2.2.
• There was no corrective action plan with defined due dates for all areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment.
• There was no evidence that the areas for improvement identified during the dynamic navigational assessment had been closed out within the due dates indicated within the corrective action plan.

Ko Jack

04/08/2026

04/08/2026

01/08/2026

01/08/2026

31/07/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request