Norway Deck Officer Class 1 (Master Mariner) common mistakes
Norway Deck Officer Class 1 (Master Mariner) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When computing a great-circle or Mercator sailing, the candidate substitutes the mean latitude for the mid-latitude in the plane/parallel sailing formula, or applies the great-circle distance formula directly to a Mercator chart without converting to rhumb-line values, producing courses that do not close on the destination.
Training centres drill the formulas in isolation, and candidates memorise 'mid-lat' as a phrase without internalising that the correct mid-latitude is derived from the meridional parts (Mercator) or from the vertex/waypoint geometry (great circle). Under exam time pressure they grab the nearest latitude figure on the plotting sheet.
What to do instead
Work each sailing problem in a fixed written sequence: list knowns, state the formula and the definition of every term, compute the auxiliary latitude (or meridional parts) explicitly in a labelled line, then check the answer by a second method (e.g. verify the final bearing reverses to the initial bearing ±180°, or that DLat and Departure reconcile). Do ten mixed problems per week under timed conditions until the sequence is automatic.
On a celestial sight reduction the candidate records the sextant altitude without applying index error, dip, refraction, or semi-diameter in the correct sign order, so the intercept is wrong by several miles and the position line is plotted with the wrong azimuth convention (Zn measured from north versus from south).
The correction chain has many small sign decisions, and candidates learn it as a table to memorise rather than as a physical model of where the light actually goes. Azimuth convention errors persist because plotting software hides them.
What to do instead
Rehearse the correction chain as a narrative: what the sextant reads, what the index error does, what dip does to the horizon, what refraction does to the apparent body, what semi-diameter does for Sun/Moon. Write the sign of each correction beside the number before adding. For azimuth, always state 'Zn = true bearing from north, measured clockwise' and sanity-check against the body's rough bearing by eye or compass.
In stability calculations the candidate uses the metacentric height as the sole measure of stability, ignoring the righting-lever curve, the angle of vanishing stability, and the effect of a free surface; or applies the 'add weights' formula with the KG of the weight taken from the wrong datum (keel versus baseline versus deck).
Textbook problems reward a single GM number, so candidates stop there. Datum confusion arises because different load lines and ship particulars use different references, and the candidate does not re-read the question's stated datum.
What to do instead
For every stability question, state the datum explicitly, convert all vertical positions to that datum, then compute KG, GM, and FSC separately. Where a curve is involved, sketch it and mark the required angles. Practise the four standard cases (add/remove/move/suspend) with a free-surface correction each time, and always finish by checking the result against the IMO intact stability criteria.
The candidate answers a damaged-stability or flooding question using only the intact GM, without accounting for the added weight of ingressed water, its free surface, and the loss of buoyancy, and without applying the damage stability criteria (residual freeboard, range of positive stability, maximum heel).
Damage stability is taught late in the syllabus and often as a separate module, so candidates fail to connect it to the intact calculations they have drilled. The concept of permeability is abstract and easily skipped.
What to do instead
Build a single worked template for flooding: define the flooded compartment, its permeability, the lost buoyancy or added weight, the new KG including free surface, then test against the applicable damage criteria. Work through one full example per compartment type (side, bottom, end) and compare the 'lost buoyancy' and 'added weight' methods to see they agree.
In collision-regulation questions the candidate identifies the correct rule number but gives the wrong action: for example, stating that the give-way vessel in a crossing situation should alter course to starboard and pass ahead when the geometry requires a substantial alteration to pass astern, or misapplying Rule 13 (overtaking) to a vessel that is not yet past the 22.5° abaft the beam.
Candidates memorise rule headings rather than the geometry and the purpose behind each action. Exam scenarios are drawn to test the boundary conditions (the sector boundaries, the 'in sight' precondition, restricted visibility), and rote recall fails there.
What to do instead
Learn each rule with its geometric diagram in mind and state the boundary angle in the answer. For every scenario, first classify the situation (in sight or restricted visibility, meeting/crossing/overtaking), then state the rule that applies, then the required action and its purpose. Practise drawing the 22.5° sectors and the crossing geometry from memory.
When planning a passage the candidate plots the track but omits the under-keel clearance calculation, the squat allowance, the effect of chart datum and tide, and the abort/ contingency positions; or fails to mark no-go areas, safety depths, and the contingency anchorages required by the passage plan.
Passage planning is often taught as a plotting exercise rather than a risk assessment. Candidates underestimate the written appraisal and monitoring sections and treat the plan as the line on the chart.
What to do instead
Use a fixed passage-plan checklist: appraisal (charts, publications, notices, weather, traffic), plan (track, courses, distances, waypoints, wheel-over points, no-go areas, abort points, contingency anchorages), execution, and monitoring. For each leg compute UKC from charted depth plus tide minus draught minus squat minus allowance, and write the figure on the plan.
On watchkeeping and bridge-resource questions the candidate describes the master's or OOW's duties in generalities ('keep a proper lookout', 'call the master if in doubt') without naming the specific triggers, the passage-plan deviation limits, the use of the bridge checklists, or the handover content required by STCW.
Candidates have absorbed the culture of watchkeeping but not the documentary specifics. The exam wants the actual content of the handover, the defined limits, and the escalation criteria, not reassurance.
What to do instead
Learn the STCW watchkeeping principles as a list of concrete items: handover content (position, course, speed, traffic, weather, machinery status, standing orders, special instructions), the conditions requiring a call to the master (reduced visibility, traffic density, track deviation beyond the plan limit, machinery or steering failure, doubt), and the use of checklists. Practise writing a model handover and a model master's standing order.
In meteorology the candidate describes a weather system by name without explaining the wind shift, pressure trend, and sea state the vessel will actually experience, and cannot interpret a synoptic chart's isobar spacing, front position, or the difference between the forecast and observed conditions.
Meteorology is often revised as vocabulary (depression, anticyclone, front) rather than as a forecasting skill. Candidates do not practise reading actual charts or comparing a forecast to an observation.
What to do instead
For each system, write the expected sequence: pressure trend, wind veer/back, visibility, precipitation, sea state, and the time of onset relative to the front. Practise interpreting a chart by stating the wind at three chosen positions from the isobar orientation and the hemisphere rule. Compare a 24-hour forecast with the observed log and explain the differences.
On dangerous-goods and cargo questions the candidate answers from general knowledge of the IMDG Code without citing the class, division, packing group, segregation requirement, or the document (DG declaration, stowage plan, dangerous goods manifest) that must be carried, and confuses the IMDG segregation table with the vessel's own stowage requirements.
The Code is large and candidates avoid the tables, relying on memory of headline classes. Segregation is taught as 'keep them apart' rather than as a defined table with specific codes.
What to do instead
Work the segregation table directly: given two UN numbers, look up the class and division, then read the segregation code and convert it to the required horizontal and vertical separation. Learn the documentation set (DG declaration, packing certificate, stowage plan, manifest) and the emergency procedures (EmS, MFAG). Do twenty look-up exercises until the table is familiar.
On maritime law and conventions the candidate names a convention but cannot state its application threshold (tonnage, voyage type, date of entry into force), the flag-state versus port-state versus coastal-state obligations, or the difference between a certificate, a survey, and an inspection; and confuses MARPOL Annexes or the ISM/ISPS documentation requirements.
Conventions are revised as a list of acronyms. The examiner tests the boundaries: which ships are exempt, who enforces, what document proves compliance. Candidates who memorise names without thresholds fail these boundary questions.
What to do instead
For each convention (SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, MLC, ISM, ISPS, COLREG, Load Lines) write a one-page card: scope and application threshold, flag-state obligation, port-state control right, certificate issued and its validity, and the survey/inspection regime. Learn the MARPOL Annexes by number and substance. Then answer past-style boundary questions ('does this apply to a 400 GT domestic vessel?') until the thresholds are secure.