A voyage data recorder exists to help investigators find out what happened. The performance standard says so plainly: the information is for use during any subsequent safety investigation to identify the causes of an incident. Every officer on a ship with a VDR knows it is there, and knows it records what is said on the bridge, including the quiet remark, the hesitation and the argument. What happens to that knowledge on a bridge team is not a technical question. It depends on what the company does with the data, and on what the crew believe it does.
What the crew learns from the VDR
If the only time anyone hears about the VDR is after an incident, or when an inspector asks for evidence of an audit, the lesson on board is easy to draw. The VDR is a witness, and it is not on your side. Crews adapt to that belief in predictable ways. Conversation on the bridge becomes careful. Officers say the right words for the record rather than the useful ones. Doubts are kept for later, or not voiced at all.
That is the opposite of what a safe bridge needs. A team that cannot say “I am not happy with this” out loud is the team that most needs the question asked. The recorder was installed to improve safety, and in the wrong culture it can quietly erode the habit that safety depends on: speaking up.
The purpose of the data, and its limits
The international framework is clear about the intention. The IMO Casualty Investigation Code says marine safety investigations are about preventing future casualties, not about apportioning blame or determining liability. The IMO and ILO guidelines on the fair treatment of seafarers after a maritime accident take the same view of how seafarers should be treated during investigations.
It would be wrong, though, to promise a crew that the data will only ever be used that way. The Code does not rule out civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, and authorities, insurers and lawyers may all ask for the recordings after a serious event. A company cannot control what others do with the data. It can be honest about that, and it can be clear about what it does itself.
What a company can decide
Four decisions are within a manager’s control, and all four are policy, not technology:
- Say what the data is for. A short written statement, shared with the crew, covering why the VDR is reviewed, who reviews it and what happens to the findings.
- Limit who sees the audio, and when. Recordings of voices are sensitive. Access should be by named roles, for stated purposes, and logged.
- Share lessons without names. Findings that go to the fleet should describe what happened and what to change. A bulletin that identifies a Master or an officer teaches every other bridge team to be careful.
- Review the good as well as the bad. If a bridge team handled a difficult approach well, say so. A crew that only ever hears about mistakes concludes that the recorder exists to find them.
A test for any VDR review programme
Ask what a bridge team hears after a review. If the feedback is private, specific and balanced, the VDR becomes a mirror, and a good one. If crews learn about it only through disciplinary action or an audit finding, it remains a witness. The same recording, and the same reviewer, can produce either result.
When did your crews last hear something encouraging that came from their own VDR data? If the answer is never, the programme may be generating evidence without building trust.
Accountability still matters
None of this is an argument for looking away. After a serious incident the data must be saved, examined and used honestly, and the people who made poor decisions need to be understood and sometimes held to account. The argument is about everything that happens before that day. The routine use of the recorder shapes how a team talks long before anything goes wrong, and that decides whether the recording, when it is eventually needed, shows a team that was open with each other or one that was quietly guarding itself.
Disclosure: I run VragaMarine, which offers VDR navigational audits. Regulatory references are to IMO resolution MSC.333(90), the IMO Casualty Investigation Code (resolution MSC.255(84)) and the IMO and ILO guidelines on fair treatment of seafarers. Data protection and labour rules on recording voices differ by flag and jurisdiction, and this article is general commentary, not advice.
Capt. Gaurav Khanna is a Master Mariner, the founder of VragaMarine and the editor of Maritime Dossier. He spent 18 years at sea on product tankers and crude carriers, trading the Persian Gulf, the North Sea and the Baltic, before coming ashore in 2013. He then spent 13 years ashore with a Japanese ship management company, rising to Senior Deputy General Manager…
Views expressed are the author's own and do not represent those of their employer.
LinkedIn profile
