Pioneer. Seven deficiencies were closed using receipts.
After a fatal accident, five of them appeared again.
On 29 July 2021, the skipper of the potting vessel Pioneer fell overboard while returning to Hastings.
The sole deckhand could not pull him back on board.
The skipper was recovered with help from a rescue helicopter. He could not be revived.
The vessel had a 600mm bulwark around the freeboard deck.
There was no effective equipment for recovering an unconscious person from the water.
The deckhand's first attempt to send a Mayday failed. The successful call came almost 30 minutes later.
This looks like a straightforward vessel-level failure.
Missing equipment. No drills. Poor emergency preparation.
Much of that is true.
But Pioneer had already passed through the inspection system.
During the November 2020 inspection, seven deficiencies were recorded. Receipts and delivery notes were later accepted as evidence that the required equipment had been purchased.
The deficiencies were closed.
The Small Fishing Vessel Certificate was issued.
After the accident, inspectors recorded 21 deficiencies. Five had already been noted during the earlier inspection.
The equipment reportedly purchased to close those deficiencies was found neither on board nor in the vessel's storage shed.
The report also concluded that the earlier inspection was probably not conducted using the prescribed aide-memoire. Deficiencies including the low bulwark and restricted wheelhouse visibility were likely missed.
The inspection system had a verification gap.
Instructions to surveyors did not explicitly require a return visit. Documentary evidence could close a deficiency without somebody confirming the final condition on board.
The system relied on trust.
That is not a minor administrative weakness.
A receipt can show that somebody bought an item. It cannot show where that item is today. It cannot confirm installation, condition, accessibility or crew readiness.
The deficiency may be closed in the database while the exposure remains on deck.
For a DPA, Fleet Manager or surveyor, closure needs a defined standard of evidence.
Which deficiencies require physical verification?
Who confirms that the equipment belongs to that vessel?
Who checks that it remains available and ready for use?
And what triggers escalation when the evidence does not prove the operational condition?
If your close-out process accepts documents, what independently confirms that the risk was actually removed?
#MaritimeSafety #Auditing #MarineAccidentInvestigation #FishingVessels #ManOverboard
