QUESTION 5.7.2

Incident and near-miss reporting

Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNGDocumentation, Interview - Rating

What is being checked

The inspector is checking whether the company process for incident and near-miss reporting is understood, applied onboard and capable of producing traceable decisions and improvement rather than completed forms alone.

Ready onboard

0/6 complete

DEFINED PROCESSThe procedure defines scope, responsibility, timing and reportable events, immediate notification, no-blame reporting, classification, investigation trigger and feedback.CURRENT EXAMPLESelect a recent case and trace it through crew report, logbook, defect record, investigation and fleet feedback.CREW PARTICIPATIONRelevant officers and ratings can explain their role and provide an example of using the process.QUALITY CHECKEntries are specific, timely and supported by conditions or evidence rather than copied wording.FOLLOW-UPActions have owners, due dates, risk-based priority, verification and escalation when overdue.FEEDBACKLessons are communicated to affected personnel and incorporated into plans, training or procedures where necessary.

Practice questions

Answer aloud, then open the preparation point.

1What is the purpose of incident and near-miss reporting?

Explain how it controls reportable events, immediate notification, no-blame reporting, classification, investigation trigger and feedback and give a recent shipboard example.

2Show one complete example.

Trace crew report, logbook, defect record, investigation and fleet feedback from initiation to verified closure.

3Who verifies the quality of the process?

Identify the responsible shipboard and shore roles and how weak or overdue entries are challenged.

4How are ratings involved?

Give a specific example of participation, feedback or use rather than relying only on signatures.

5What changed because of the last finding?

Identify the control, equipment, training or planning change and show that effectiveness was checked.

Where an observation may arise

PROCEDURE GAP

The process did not define reportable events, immediate notification, no-blame reporting, classification, investigation trigger and feedback.

FORMALITY ONLY

Records were generic, copied or completed after the event without supporting evidence.

NO PARTICIPATION

Personnel affected by the process could not explain it or provide an example.

WEAK FOLLOW-UP

Actions lacked ownership, due date, verification or overdue escalation.

REPEAT ISSUE

The same weakness recurred without effective learning: near misses were suppressed, reclassified or closed without useful action.

RECORD CONFLICT

Dates or facts did not reconcile across crew report, logbook, defect record, investigation and fleet feedback.

Master's practical note

Select the most recent imperfect example, not the neatest one. A functioning safety-management process should expose weakness, assign action and verify improvement.

Equipment boundary and references

Equipment boundary: This guide addresses onboard implementation. Company reporting thresholds, shore investigation authority and confidentiality controls remain governed by the SMS.

References

OCIMF SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 1, Version 1.0, Question 5.7.2
ISM Code section 9
OCIMF TMSA Element 8

Last reviewed: 2026-09-13