Global Bunker Prices
Last update --:-- UTC
Home › Bridge › Bridge, Bridge Operations, Safety Management, Voyage Planning

17 February 2026 16 min read Bridge, Bridge Operations, Safety Management, Voyage Planning
Share: X LinkedIn Email

Bridge Resource Management in Voyage Planning: Operational Best Practice and Troubleshooting

Author: MaritimeHub Chief Engineer
Date: 2024-06-25

Contents

Introduction to Bridge Resource Management (BRM) in Voyage Planning

Bridge Resource Management is fundamental to safe and efficient voyage planning on modern vessels. The objective is to maximise the effectiveness of all bridge team members by integrating human, technical, and procedural resources. With stricter regulations and the increasing complexity of navigation systems, a chief engineer can no longer ignore the soft and hard elements of BRM in the planning phase.

Voyage planning is not simply about plotting a line from berth to berth. It requires cohesive teamwork, critical communication, and continuous validation. Failures in BRM, such as hierarchical barriers or lack of cross-checks, are proven contributors to groundings and collisions worldwide. The margin for error at sea is slim, and the voyage plan forms the backbone of every navigational decision.

This article provides an operational, real-world perspective on BRM in voyage planning—how it works, what goes wrong, and how to troubleshoot and escalate effectively. The advice addresses all ranks, from cadet to chief engineer, and is based on shipboard realities, including time pressures, watch handovers, fatigue, paper and ECDIS charts, and operational distractions.

Never underestimate the safety aspect: effective BRM in voyage planning saves lives, equipment, and reputations. Remember, a well-crafted voyage plan, supported by proper team resource management, transforms bridge operations from routine shifts to calculated, team-driven missions.

Essential Elements of BRM Applied to Voyage Planning

BRM is fundamentally about managing all available resources—human, procedural, information, and equipment. Effective voyage planning depends on team awareness and shared mental models. Each person must understand not only their assigned task but how their input fits into the broader plan.

Critical elements include leadership, assertiveness, mutual backup, questioning attitudes, and experience recognition. On every vessel, rank is clearly defined, but dissent must be encouraged where appropriate, particularly if deviation from the plan is suspected. A passive, unchecked environment can be as dangerous as outright negligence. In practice, the best bridge teams build a culture of structured challenge and cross-verification—especially during planning.

Information flow is another keystone of BRM. Incomplete or misunderstood information is a persistent risk factor. For engineers and deck officers alike, regular feedback loops and review points matter. For example, the officer plotting the route on ECDIS must confirm waypoints: a second officer, often the navigator, should independently check these.

Fatigue, distractions, automation complacency, and competing priorities are all enemies of effective BRM. The only protection is formalising resource management as an ingrained behaviour, not an afterthought. Mariners must recognise that good plans anticipate failure points and apply BRM strategies to address them before they become critical.

Team Roles, Responsibilities and Handovers

A clear definition of roles is fundamental for BRM success. In voyage planning, this extends from the master and chief mate down to junior officers and, on large vessels, cadets. The master retains ultimate authority but should delegate plan development to qualified officers, usually the OOW or second mate. The chief engineer’s separate but crucial role involves ensuring the plan accommodates machinery limitations, fuel economy, and maintenance windows.

Failure to define and communicate these roles exposes the vessel to risk. Typical operational error: the OOW plots the passage plan but the bridge team is unclear on alternative safe waters, or who is responsible for fixing positions during a watch. To counter this, planning meetings must produce written records, and every handover should confirm plan details and areas of concern—not just a routine ‘all is well’ exchange.

A real-world best practice is double-checking: one officer develops the plan, another independently verifies and questions it. For example, the officer of the watch may check all charted dangers after the initial plotting. Where integrated ECDIS is used, manual cross-ref check with paper chart backup remains critical.

On a modern vessel, scheduled reliefs and fatigue must be considered. Handovers between shifts should include specific review of voyage plan waypoints, margin for error (XTD settings), CPA limits, and abnormal areas. ‘Hot-seat’ handovers are hazardous—prefer a 10-minute face-to-face review where possible.

Voyage Planning Process: Step-by-Step Mechanisms

The voyage planning process is regulated by SOLAS and defined in four main stages: appraisal, planning, execution, and monitoring. In practice, each stage hinges on the effectiveness of BRM, particularly the feedback between team members at each review point.

The first phase, appraisal, gathers all information—chart corrections, weather forecasts, navigation warnings, NO GO areas, pilot plans, tide data, and standing orders. Chief engineer involvement is vital at this stage—limitations in engine availability, speed constraints, and bunkering impact optimal route selection.

The planning stage involves drafting primary and secondary routes using paper charts or ECDIS, complete with waypoints, distances, headings, speed bands, and typical passage times. At this stage, both human and machine errors are possible: misreading chart scales, entering wrong coordinates, or misplacing a waypoint may go unnoticed without independent review.

Execution and monitoring stages require continuous attention and validation. For the bridge watch, this includes keeping the plan under real-world scrutiny, keeping the planned and the observed closely aligned, and knowing how and when to escalate deviations. Proper BRM ensures issues are not overlooked or excused.

Charts, Tools, and Navigational Aids: Selection and Verification

Modern bridges blend paper and electronic systems. ECDIS is now mandatory on many vessels, but paper charts may remain in use for backup and reference. Selecting suitable charts—and ensuring they’re fully corrected—is not a clerical exercise. Using an outdated chart or failing to apply corrections can compromise the entire plan.

ECDIS introduces its own failure modes, such as unrecognised software or chart data errors. Operational experience shows that route-checking tools may ‘approve’ a route with insufficient margin from hazards, especially at small scale. It’s best to verify every leg against large-scale coverage, and visually check all waypoints for proximity to shallow water, isolated dangers, and uncharted obstacles.

Audit every chart with recent Notices to Mariners (NTMs) and ensure compliance logs are up to date. Validate all ECDIS alarms using actual visual inspection, not merely automated prompts. After chart selection, cross-check backup arrangements and confirm both paper and electronic systems are consistent.

The primary navigational tool failure modes—dead-reckoning errors, mis-set radars, incorrectly configured GPS—can invalidate even a perfectly plotted plan. Periodically compare manual fixes (visual, radar, GPS) to confirm no systematic error has crept in. A simple method: fix at each change of course, record deviation, and investigate outliers immediately.

Risk Assessment and Error Traps in Voyage Planning

Comprehensive risk assessment is an ongoing process, not a tick-box exercise. All team members, not just the OOW, should be encouraged to voice doubts over the chosen route, especially if transiting pilotage waters, TSSs, or areas with high-density traffic.

Error traps in voyage planning are often human: overlooked charted dangers, misplaced reliance on ECDIS, poor transfer of existing plan data, or ambiguous standing orders. Automation can create a false sense of security. A practical control is the ‘error trap review’, where one officer seeks flaws, not simply checks facts.

Best practice: hold a specific planning review discussion where everyone, not just seniors, can highlight concerns about planned depths, traffic zones, bridge visibility requirements, and environmental protection areas. If discrepancies in risk assessment emerge, escalate to the master for arbitration.

Always consider the ‘what if’ failure modes: loss of main engine, steering failure, and unexpected weather—do the existing plans contain contingencies? If no, plan for alternatives, and brief all watchkeepers accordingly.

Communication and Briefings During Planning and Execution

Bridge communications must be clear, direct, and unambiguous. Effective BRM in voyage planning is only possible when the team communicates findings, uncertainties, and decisions transparently. A plan kept in one officer’s head is not a plan at all.

Verbal briefings—prior to departure and before significant waypoints—must reference specific risk points, ‘alter course’ timings, and anticipated issues such as heavy traffic or shallow patches. Crew should always be made aware of exceptions or restrictions in force (e.g., equipment limitations, local rules). Do not leave critical warnings buried in paperwork.

Checklists are widely used but only as an aid—not a substitute—for communication. Too often, checklists are completed out of routine and not understood. Make sure the responsible officer leads a full route review, gathers feedback, and addresses concerns before sign-off.

During execution, maintain continuous feedback loops: the bridge team should be prepared to challenge unclear instructions, update each other on unplanned changes (e.g., deviation from weather avoidance), and inform on any ECDIS alarms, sensor discrepancies, or outside contacts.

Fatigue Management and Situational Awareness

Fatigue is a persistent and dangerous failure mode, particularly during high-stress periods or lengthy port shifts. Prolonged preparation for departure and arrival, along with night work, can undermine even the best-laid plans. Fatigue impairs judgment, communication, and cross-checking.

Chief engineers and senior officers are responsible for setting expectations: do not compress planning for late hour completion. Rotate duties, and involve fresh officers where possible. In real operations, vigilant team members spot ‘detached’ behaviour—a fatigued officer with dulled responses or missed checklist items. If identified, escalate and rotate immediately.

Situational awareness is tightly coupled with vigilance. BRM must ensure that at least one watchkeeper is fully alert at all times. Brief rest intervals, targeted handovers during high-tempo phases, and monitoring for signs of cognitive overload are essential.

Best practice is to plan for fatigue: assign backups for key planning steps, establish rest policies, and avoid critical operations at crew change over. Remember, even the best navigator makes errors under fatigue; structured team support minimises these risks.

Automation, Alarms, and ECDIS: Best Practice and Pitfalls

ECDIS has transformed modern navigation but is not infallible. Systemic over-reliance on electronic tools breeds complacency and can mask underlying errors. For example, ‘route accepted’ on ECDIS does not always guarantee safe water at all states of tide, especially where software or sensor integration is suboptimal.

Bridge teams must understand both the capabilities and limitations of their ECDIS system. Failure modes include: loss of position input, incorrect alarm settings (e.g. cross track distance too low), and ‘alarm fatigue’—where repeated non-critical alarms prompt watchkeepers to ignore real warnings.

Operational troubleshooting includes periodic alarm functionality tests, verification that backup (paper) plans are available and correct, and real time cross-referencing—using radar overlays, echo sounder data, and visual fixes. During passage, log all ECDIS alerts and check for recurring anomalies.

Alarms must be analysed: if a depth alarm triggers, do not silence—investigate, correlate with charted depth and tide, and adjust route or reduce speed as necessary. Escalate failures in sensor data, and never assume ‘software knows best’. Overconfidence in digital charts was a factor in several recent groundings.

Failure Modes, Incidents and Case Studies

Numerous incident investigations highlight recurring failure modes during voyage planning. Typical errors include: omission of TSSs, incorrect waypoint entry (decimal degree confusion), duplicated or missing waypoints, unmarked hazards, and route plans not updated for last-minute notices or pilot instructions.

A maritime case study: a vessel grounds inside a port approach. Root cause analysis shows the planned route missed a newly charted shoal. The bridge team failed to apply the last set of corrections, and no independent review was conducted before approval—a pure BRM breakdown.

Another frequent mode involves misinterpretation of radar or ECDIS displays. Overlapping vector symbols, graphical clutter, or poor scaling can mask dangers. A second watchkeeper reviewing the plan could have detected the error, but single-point planning is common due to time or fatigue.

When incidents occur, effective BRM focuses on cause, not blame. It is crucial to document, debrief, extract lessons, and implement controls. The next plan should formally address every root cause highlighted.

Checks, Measurements, and Continuous Monitoring

Checks and periodic measurements underpin safe operations. During planning, verify route distances (using dividers or electronic tools), check cross track distances around dangers, and document safe passing distances. After plotting, have an independent check of all positions, courses, and distances.

During execution, follow a strict regime of position verification: compare GPS, radar, visual, and echo sounder data at each leg and at every turn. Log deviations promptly—any difference above 0.2 nautical miles between planned and observed must be investigated.

Watchkeepers should measure own-ship performance against plan: speed over ground (SOG), progress to next waypoint, and compliance with bridge standing orders. The OOW must be ready to halt, re-plan, or escalate if deviations persist. Beware of creep—small errors uncorrected may accumulate into significant risk.

Continuous monitoring also applies to machinery: engine parameters, fuel rates, and vibration data during critical phases can affect the execution phase. Bridge and engine room must keep lines open, especially when altering speed or navigating restricted waters.

Troubleshooting, Escalation, and Decision Support

Troubleshooting in voyage planning takes two forms: ‘paper troubleshooting’—finding route/project errors before departure—and in-situ troubleshooting when discrepancies or failures arise during the voyage.

For paper troubleshooting, adopt a forensic mindset: examine plotted waypoints for unexplained kinks, abrupt course changes, or proximity to charted dangers. Review ECDIS outputs against large-scale charts. If in doubt, request assistance or escalate to a more experienced officer or the master.

During execution, classic troubleshooting steps include: confirm position via independent means (e.g., visual bearings, radar ranges, and GPS). For example, an unexpected ECDIS alarm for deviation from route may indicate a sensor fault—not necessarily that the ship is off position. Log the anomaly, check other data, and consult bridge team before acting.

If time is critical (approaching danger), follow standing orders: take all way off, sound emergency alarms, call master or pilot, and inform engine room. Do not hesitate to escalate—most casualties result from delayed action, not overreaction.

Shipboard Best Practice and Reporting Culture

Effective BRM is reinforced by consistent, open, and just reporting. The master sets tone, but all ranks must support a culture where near misses, errors, and uncertainty are reported and addressed—not hidden. Reporting is not about punishment but improvement.

Record keeping is central: maintain detailed logs of handovers, planning discussions, review findings, and incident debriefs. Incorporate lessons learned into future planning cycles. Where practical, run simulated reviews—use the bridge team to replay planning errors and test escalation pathways.

Best practice includes formal pre-departure briefings, doubly-redundant checks for chart corrections, annual BRM refresher training, and ongoing encouragement for challenges and verification at all levels. The best run ships treat BRM failures as preventable, not inevitable.

In summary, every team member must feel able to speak up, challenge, and offer ideas to improve plans and procedures—without fear of retribution. The cost of silence is always higher than the brief discomfort of reporting a mistake.

Summary and Continuous Improvement

In every phase of voyage planning, Bridge Resource Management transforms risk into managed, coordinated action. BRM is not a regulatory hoop, but a safety-critical set of behaviours that drives operational excellence and saves lives. Chief engineers and officers must promote assertive, questioning, and resilient teams.

Continuous improvement is the only viable strategy in maritime operations. Review past failures, institutionalise lessons learnt, and reinforce the expectation that everyone, from cadet to chief, contributes to safer voyage planning. Updates in regulation, equipment, and practice should result in re-training and procedural review—not simply be noted and disregarded.

Successful BRM is visible in quiet watches, orderly handovers, and incident-free passages. It is a culture as much as a process, and its value cannot be overemphasised. Finally, invest in systems and people such that your next voyage plan is safer and smarter than your last.

Review Questions

  1. What are the four main stages of voyage planning as outlined by SOLAS?
  2. How does effective BRM reduce the likelihood of navigation errors during voyage planning?
  3. In practice, what are the most common human failure modes during passage plan creation?
  4. When and how should independent verification of a plotted route be conducted?
  5. Describe a method for detecting ECDIS chart data errors before departure.
  6. What are the roles of junior officers and cadets within the BRM framework during planning?
  7. How can you tell if a colleague is suffering from operational fatigue, and what steps should you take?
  8. What is ‘alarm fatigue’ in the context of ECDIS, and how can the bridge team mitigate it?
  9. Why is escalation important when voyage plan discrepancies are detected during execution?
  10. Explain the concept of ‘structured challenge’ during a planning meeting.
  11. What operational checks should be carried out during the execution phase to ensure plan adherence?
  12. How can you ensure that chart corrections and NTMs are fully applied to both ECDIS and paper backups?
  13. List three typical real-world incident causes related to poor BRM in voyage planning.
  14. When should the master or pilot be called during an in-situ deviation from the plan?
  15. What is the significance of documenting handover discussions in the ship’s log?
  16. Describe steps for reviewing a route on ECDIS to prevent proximity to dangers.
  17. Why must backup passage plans be maintained and regularly verified?
  18. What are the advantages of formal pre-departure briefings in BRM?
  19. How does open reporting culture contribute to continuous shipboard improvement?
  20. Outline a typical troubleshooting process following a positional discrepancy during passage.

Glossary

  • BRM (Bridge Resource Management): The coordinated use of human, engineering, and procedural resources to optimise bridge operations.
  • ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System): Mandatory digital chart system for large and new vessels used in voyage planning and monitoring.
  • OOW (Officer of the Watch): The officer in charge of navigational watch, with responsibility for maintaining safe navigation.
  • Appraisal: The stage in voyage planning involving data collection and hazard assessment prior to planning the route.
  • Cross Track Distance (XTD): The maximum allowable vessel deviation from the planned track, set to avoid dangers.
  • NO GO area: Charted area where the vessel must not enter, typically due to insufficient depth.
  • CPA (Closest Point of Approach): The minimum predicted distance between two vessels on crossing or meeting courses.
  • Standing Orders: Written directives by the master specifying requirements for bridge operations and escalation.
  • NTM (Notice to Mariners): Official updates to navigational charts and publications.
  • Fatigue: Reduced mental awareness and alertness due to prolonged work or insufficient rest, major contributor to errors.

ASCII Diagrams

[Bridge Team Structure Example]

       Master
         |
   -------------
   |     |     |
OOW 2/O  C/O  Cadet

(Arrows indicate escalation and handover pathways)

[Voyage Planning - Route and Danger Zones]

   (N)
    |
    |-----------------------------
    |           X                |
    |        NO GO Area          |
    |                            |
----|----------------------------|----
    |             * (Waypoint)   |
    |                 |          |
    |                 | Track    |
    |                 |          |
----------------------------------

Symbols: X = hazard, * = waypoint, | = track