Nothing needs inventing. It needs adopting.

Everything a ship needs for a second chance already exists.

Last Sunday I proposed that a finding rectified before the inspector leaves is recorded as closed and kept for learning, with no ship’s name on it. Nothing about it needs inventing. It needs adopting.

Aviation has run it since 1976. A pilot reports an honest mistake to NASA, the name comes off, no penalty follows, and the industry learns.

The people who know a ship best are the ones living on it. Whether the crew finds a fault or the inspector does, if it is rectified before the inspector leaves, or a plan for it is agreed, it should not go on the report against them. That is the second chance. A crew that is not penalised for being transparent is a crew that stays transparent. In my experience it lifts them, and a lifted crew is a safer ship.

In my opinion the current system runs against transparent reporting. The ship and the fleet with the fewest findings get celebrated, so the incentive is to report less. Has it reduced incidents? Has it made our seafarers better? Do we have the answers?

Before anyone invents another inspection regime, the decision makers of this industry should sit down and take the full view, from the seafarers, from the people running the ships, and from the industry as a whole. That conversation can start here. If you have sailed, inspected, managed or owned a ship, your voice belongs in it. Add it under the LinkedIn post and I will bring every one into the posts that follow.

The second chance is not a failure. It is an opportunity to improve.