Ferry Service Safety Excellence
Manage MCA compliance, crew certifications, and vessel safety with digital tools designed for passenger maritime operations.
The Challenge
Ferry operators face unique compliance pressures where a single Port State Control detention can cost tens of thousands in lost sailings and reputational damage. Crew certifications (STCW, Certificates of Competency, ENG1 medicals) expire at different times for each seafarer, while ISM Code compliance requires continuous evidence of safety management system effectiveness. MCA inspections and classification society surveys demand immediate access to complete documentation. Paper-based systems cannot track the complexity of maritime compliance, and gaps discovered during inspection mean vessels cannot sail.
How Assistant Manager Solves Ferry Services Compliance
Each module is designed to address the specific challenges ferry services businesses face every day.
Checklist Management
Ferry operators need vessel-specific checklists that match their Safety Management System, with different requirements for domestic and international operations, and integration with ISM non-conformity management
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Pre-departure safety checks are rushed to meet sailing schedules, with forms completed retrospectively rather than during actual checks
Safety equipment defects go unnoticed, PSC inspectors find discrepancies between recorded and actual status, and vessels risk detention
- Life-saving appliance and fire-fighting equipment inspections are tracked on paper with no visibility of what is due across the fleet
Equipment inspections are missed, servicing dates pass, and PSC inspections identify expired certifications that prevent sailing
- Bridge equipment checks, navigation system verifications, and chart corrections are documented inconsistently between watches
MCA inspections find gaps in bridge documentation, and incident investigations reveal equipment was not properly verified before sailing
The Solution
How Checklist Management Helps
Digital checklists for all safety equipment inspections, bridge checks, and drill records, with scheduling based on regulatory requirements and real-time completion visibility
Every safety check is documented with evidence at the time it occurs, equipment servicing dates are tracked automatically, and PSC inspectors see comprehensive organised records
Use Cases:
- • Pre-departure safety equipment checks with sign-off
- • Liferaft and LSA servicing schedule tracking
- • Fire-fighting equipment inspection and testing
- • Bridge equipment verification before sailing
- • Chart and publication correction log
- • Emergency drill documentation with timing records
- • Muster station and evacuation equipment checks
Feature Screenshot
Checklist Management
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Pre-departure safety checks are rushed to meet sailing schedules, with forms completed retrospectively rather than during actual checks
Real Scenario
"A PSC inspector asks to see the muster list used in the morning's drill. The completed drill record doesn't match what crew can recall doing. The inspector notes the drill was 'administratively completed' rather than actually conducted. The vessel is detained pending proper drill."
Example 2: Life-saving appliance and fire-fighting equipment inspections are tracked on paper with no visibility of what is due across the fleet
Real Scenario
"During a PSC inspection, the inspector checks liferaft servicing certificates. Two rafts have expired service dates - one by four months. The paper tracking system in the office shows them as current because nobody updated it after the last survey delay."
Example 3: Bridge equipment checks, navigation system verifications, and chart corrections are documented inconsistently between watches
Real Scenario
"A grounding incident occurs. Investigation asks to see bridge equipment check records. Different officers use different check formats, several days have no records, and the chart correction log is three weeks behind. MCA notes inadequate bridge documentation."
Employee Scheduling
Ferry crew scheduling must verify not just availability but certification status for specific positions - a Master certificate doesn't expire but medical certificates, STCW endorsements, and flag state endorsements all have different validity periods
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Crew are scheduled without real-time verification that their Certificates of Competency and STCW endorsements are current for their assigned role
PSC inspections find crew serving in positions for which their certificates have expired, resulting in deficiencies and potential detention
- ENG1 medical certificate expiries are tracked separately from other certificates, and crew join vessels without current medicals
Crew without valid ENG1 certificates work aboard, invalidating safe manning requirements and creating regulatory breaches
The Solution
How Employee Scheduling Helps
Crew scheduling integrated with certificate databases that prevents assignment of seafarers with expired CoCs, STCW endorsements, or ENG1 medicals to vessel positions
Only fully certificated crew are assigned to vessels, certificate expiries are flagged before crew changes, and safe manning requirements are always met with verified certificates
Use Cases:
- • Crew rostering with CoC verification by position
- • STCW endorsement checking for assigned duties
- • ENG1 medical certificate status integration
- • Safe manning document compliance verification
- • Relief crew scheduling with qualification matching
- • Hours of rest compliance in scheduling
- • Multi-vessel crew rotation with certificate tracking
Feature Screenshot
Employee Scheduling
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Crew are scheduled without real-time verification that their Certificates of Competency and STCW endorsements are current for their assigned role
Real Scenario
"A PSC inspector reviews crew certificates and finds the Chief Engineer's CoC expired two weeks ago. The vessel has been sailing with an uncertified chief engineer. The deficiency requires immediate crew change before the vessel can sail."
Example 2: ENG1 medical certificate expiries are tracked separately from other certificates, and crew join vessels without current medicals
Real Scenario
"During an MCA inspection, an AB's medical certificate is found to have expired three months ago. They joined the vessel two months ago and nobody checked. The operator faces questions about their crew joining procedures."
Time Clock & Attendance
Ferry crew hours of rest are governed by both MLC and STCW with different requirements for different trades - systems must check against the applicable regulations for each vessel and route
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Hours of rest records are maintained on paper with crew self-recording, making verification of compliance impossible
PSC inspectors find hours of rest violations or inconsistent records, resulting in deficiencies that require immediate crew changes
- Watch schedules don't automatically account for hours of rest requirements, and violations are only discovered after they occur
Crew accumulate rest violations that become evident during inspections, requiring immediate roster changes and demonstrating inadequate compliance systems
The Solution
How Time Clock & Attendance Helps
Digital hours of rest recording with automatic compliance checking against MLC and STCW requirements, integrated with watch schedules to prevent non-compliant roster planning
Hours of rest are recorded accurately with automatic violation detection, watch schedules are validated for compliance before implementation, and PSC inspectors see reliable verified records
Use Cases:
- • Digital hours of rest recording with validation
- • Watch schedule compliance checking before implementation
- • MLC 2006 hours of rest compliance monitoring
- • STCW rest period verification
- • Overtime and additional duty recording
- • Port turnaround rest period tracking
- • Non-conformity flagging for rest violations
Feature Screenshot
Time Clock & Attendance
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Hours of rest records are maintained on paper with crew self-recording, making verification of compliance impossible
Real Scenario
"A PSC inspector reviews hours of rest records. Paper records show compliance, but cross-checking with voyage logs and witness statements suggests actual hours were different. The discrepancy results in a serious deficiency."
Example 2: Watch schedules don't automatically account for hours of rest requirements, and violations are only discovered after they occur
Real Scenario
"Analysis of hours of rest records during an ISM audit reveals systematic minimum rest period violations on one vessel. The watch schedule design made compliance impossible, but nobody had checked until the auditor identified the pattern."
Training & Development
Maritime training compliance involves multiple overlapping requirements - STCW, flag state, MCA, company SMS - that must all be tracked together to ensure crew are fully compliant
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- STCW certificates, flag state endorsements, and company training requirements all have different expiry dates tracked in different systems
Certificates expire without renewal, crew serve with invalid documentation, and PSC inspections identify compliance gaps
- Vessel-specific familiarisation training is not systematically documented, and crew join without evidence of completing required familiarisation
PSC inspectors find no evidence of familiarisation, and incident investigation reveals crew were not trained on vessel-specific systems
The Solution
How Training & Development Helps
Unified certificate tracking across CoCs, STCW endorsements, flag state documentation, and company training, with vessel-specific familiarisation checklists and sign-off workflows
Every certificate for every crew member is tracked with expiry alerts, familiarisation is documented with specific sign-off, and PSC inspectors see complete training and certification records
Use Cases:
- • STCW certificate tracking with all endorsements
- • Flag state endorsement expiry management
- • Company-specific training requirements
- • Vessel familiarisation checklist and sign-off
- • Emergency team assignment training verification
- • Refresher training scheduling (STCW, firefighting, etc.)
- • New joiner induction documentation
Feature Screenshot
Training & Development
Real-World Examples
Example 1: STCW certificates, flag state endorsements, and company training requirements all have different expiry dates tracked in different systems
Real Scenario
"A Master's STCW Basic Safety Training certificate expired during a voyage. Nobody noticed because it was tracked separately from their CoC. PSC inspection at the next port identifies the deficiency - the vessel has been sailing with inadequately certified command."
Example 2: Vessel-specific familiarisation training is not systematically documented, and crew join without evidence of completing required familiarisation
Real Scenario
"A fire incident occurs. Investigation asks for evidence of crew familiarisation with this vessel's fire-fighting systems. No documentation exists - crew were 'shown around' but nothing was recorded. The investigation notes inadequate familiarisation."
HR Management
Ferry operators must maintain comprehensive crew documentation for MLC compliance, with documents accessible both aboard and ashore for inspection purposes
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Seafarer employment documentation (SEA, MLC evidence, original certificates) is scattered between vessel, shore office, and individual crew
PSC inspectors cannot verify employment arrangements, and auditors find incomplete documentation that questions MLC compliance
- Crew change documentation - joining reports, sign-off procedures, and handover records - varies between vessels and is often incomplete
Crew changes create compliance gaps, and incidents reveal no evidence of proper handover between outgoing and incoming crew
The Solution
How HR Management Helps
Centralised seafarer documentation with SEA templates, joining/sign-off checklists, and secure document storage accessible to vessel and shore
Every crew member has complete verified documentation, SEAs are standardised and always available, and crew changes follow documented procedures with handover records
Use Cases:
- • Seafarer Employment Agreement management and storage
- • MLC 2006 documentation compliance
- • Original certificate verification and recording
- • Crew joining checklist and documentation
- • Sign-off and repatriation records
- • Handover documentation between crew
- • Crew conduct and performance records
Feature Screenshot
HR Management
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Seafarer employment documentation (SEA, MLC evidence, original certificates) is scattered between vessel, shore office, and individual crew
Real Scenario
"An MLC inspection requests Seafarer Employment Agreements for all crew. Three SEAs are missing, two are unsigned, and one doesn't include the required MLC terms. The inspector detains the vessel until documentation is corrected."
Example 2: Crew change documentation - joining reports, sign-off procedures, and handover records - varies between vessels and is often incomplete
Real Scenario
"An incident occurs days after a chief officer crew change. Investigation reveals no documented handover between the outgoing and incoming officers. Critical vessel-specific information wasn't communicated. The investigation notes inadequate crew change procedures."
Risk Assessment
Ferry operations face unique risks from vehicle decks, passenger volumes, and varied routes - assessments must be specific to actual operations rather than generic maritime templates
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Risk assessments are created for ISM compliance but not updated when operations, routes, or vessel configurations change
Incidents occur in circumstances where the risk assessment is outdated, and investigation reveals failure to assess actual current risks
- Passenger-specific risks (accessibility, medical emergencies, vulnerable passengers) are assessed generically rather than for specific operations
Passenger incidents occur where the generic assessment didn't address the specific hazard, and complaints reveal inadequate risk consideration
The Solution
How Risk Assessment Helps
Route-specific and operation-specific risk assessments with review triggers when conditions change, and passenger-focused risk assessments for accessibility and special needs
Every operation has current specific risk assessment, changes trigger review requirements, and passenger safety is specifically addressed with appropriate controls
Use Cases:
- • Vehicle deck operation risk assessments
- • Route-specific navigation risk assessments
- • Passenger embarkation and disembarkation assessments
- • Accessibility risk assessments for mobility-impaired passengers
- • Heavy weather operation assessments
- • Night sailing specific risk assessments
- • Port-specific berthing and manoeuvring assessments
Feature Screenshot
Risk Assessment
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Risk assessments are created for ISM compliance but not updated when operations, routes, or vessel configurations change
Real Scenario
"A passenger is injured by a vehicle moving on the car deck in rough weather. The risk assessment for car deck operations doesn't address vehicle movement in heavy weather - it was written when the vessel operated a more sheltered route."
Example 2: Passenger-specific risks (accessibility, medical emergencies, vulnerable passengers) are assessed generically rather than for specific operations
Real Scenario
"A mobility-impaired passenger is injured during an emergency drill because the muster process wasn't adapted for their needs. The risk assessment mentions 'passengers with reduced mobility' but doesn't specify the controls for drill participation."
Accident & Incident Records
Ferry operators must report incidents to MAIB, MCA, flag state, and classification society depending on type - integrated reporting ensures all requirements are met
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Marine incidents must be reported to multiple authorities (MAIB, MCA, flag state) within specific timeframes, but initial reports vary in completeness
Mandatory reports are late or incomplete, and subsequent investigation finds inadequate incident documentation that suggests poor safety culture
- Passenger injuries and near-miss incidents are under-reported because crews don't recognise reporting requirements or fear consequences
Patterns that could prevent serious incidents aren't identified, and ISM auditors find inadequate reporting culture
The Solution
How Accident & Incident Records Helps
Structured incident reporting with automatic authority notification determination, investigation workflow, and non-punitive near-miss reporting to encourage comprehensive safety reporting
Every incident is documented completely at first report, mandatory notifications are automatically identified and tracked, and near-misses are reported for proactive safety improvement
Use Cases:
- • Marine casualty reporting with MAIB notification
- • Passenger injury documentation and investigation
- • Crew injury recording with MLC requirements
- • Near-miss reporting for safety improvement
- • Vehicle incident documentation
- • Security incident reporting
- • Environmental incident and pollution reporting
Feature Screenshot
Accident & Incident Records
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Marine incidents must be reported to multiple authorities (MAIB, MCA, flag state) within specific timeframes, but initial reports vary in completeness
Real Scenario
"A collision occurs. The initial report to MAIB is made within the deadline but lacks key details. MAIB requests additional information that takes days to compile because the original incident documentation was incomplete."
Example 2: Passenger injuries and near-miss incidents are under-reported because crews don't recognise reporting requirements or fear consequences
Real Scenario
"An ISM audit reviews incident records and finds very few near-miss reports. Conversations with crew reveal many minor incidents go unreported because 'nothing will change' and they might 'get in trouble'. The auditor raises a non-conformity for inadequate reporting culture."
COSHH Assessments
Ferry operations involve both operational chemicals (paints, cleaners, fuels) and cargo hazards (vehicle fuels, dangerous goods) - both require COSHH consideration specific to the enclosed shipboard environment
The Problems
Why This Matters for Ferry Services
- Marine paints, cleaning chemicals, and engine room products are used without crew seeing or understanding COSHH assessments specific to marine use
Chemical exposure incidents occur because crew don't know the hazards in enclosed shipboard spaces where ventilation may be limited
- Cargo-related hazardous substances on vehicle ferries (fuel in vehicles, dangerous goods vehicles) are not systematically assessed for crew exposure
Crew are exposed to hazards from cargo without assessment or control, and incidents cannot be properly managed because hazards are unknown
The Solution
How COSHH Assessments Helps
COSHH assessments for all shipboard chemicals accessible on vessel, with cargo hazard assessment integration and emergency response information for dangerous goods
Every chemical product aboard has accessible COSHH documentation, cargo hazards are assessed and communicated, and emergency responders know what substances are present
Use Cases:
- • Marine paint and coating assessments
- • Engine room chemical assessments
- • Deck cleaning product documentation
- • Galley cleaning chemical assessments
- • Fuel handling and bunkering assessments
- • Cargo spillage response information
- • Enclosed space entry chemical considerations
Feature Screenshot
COSHH Assessments
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Marine paints, cleaning chemicals, and engine room products are used without crew seeing or understanding COSHH assessments specific to marine use
Real Scenario
"A crew member is overcome by solvent fumes while painting in an enclosed space. They didn't know additional ventilation was required - the COSHH assessment mentioned enclosed spaces but the crew member never saw it. Emergency response is compromised by lack of chemical information."
Example 2: Cargo-related hazardous substances on vehicle ferries (fuel in vehicles, dangerous goods vehicles) are not systematically assessed for crew exposure
Real Scenario
"A fuel leak from a vehicle on the car deck creates fumes. Crew respond without knowing the correct PPE or ventilation requirements. The cargo manifest showed the vehicle but nobody had assessed the hazard from fuel leakage or communicated response procedures."
Results Ferry Services Businesses Achieve
Other Transport Solutions
Navigate Compliance with Confidence
Join ferry operators using Assistant Manager to maintain the highest standards of maritime safety.