SCOTTISH QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY

MARKERS REPORT FORM

SUBJECT: 032-73 Navigation

DATE: 7th October 2020

General Comments on Examination Paper

Although instances of candidates failing to read the questions carefully were not as frequent as recent previous
examinations, there were still numerous cases. The loss of marks caused by this did result in a small number of
candidates not achieving the required standard.
It was also noted that although instances of candidates giving answers to an impractical degree of precision were
much reduced, there were still a few cases, e.g. steaming times to seconds, fuel consumption to 4 decimal places.
It was also noted that that there were only a very few instances of candidates submitting answers which were
clearly implausible. Fuel consumption of 55,600t is an example.
It was noted that candidates’ answers to the descriptive elements of the Paper, e.g. 2(b), 3(c), 5(b) & (c), were
generally poor.
The 3 hours examination time has to be managed and not wasted. It was noted that many candidates failed to
concentrate on the crucial point(s) of the questions, straying into elements that were not asked or were irrelevant
to the question. See comments 3(b) [crossing the traffic lane] and 5(c) [trial manoeuvre plotting].

General Comments of Specific Examination Questions

Question 1.
Generally, this question was well answered, many candidates achieving high marks.
(a) Most candidates were awarded full marks for this part.
Failure to read the question carefully was the most common reason for any loss of marks. Examples: assuming the
210´ was in addition to the 7177´; using the Service Speed data or the Manoeuvring Speed data throughout.
(b) Most candidates had no difficulty with this part. It was noted that only 2 candidates used Plane Sailing.
The most frequent error was the incorrect determination of the sector when determining the Great Circle courses,
e.g. stating 043°T instead of 137°T. As has been stated in previous Marker’s Reports, this error is mainly made by
candidates using the Cosine formulae.
A small number of candidates assumed that the west bound Great Circle initial course was the reciprocal of the
east bound Great Circle initial course.
A small number of candidates wasted time by calculating the west bound Rhumb Line course, presumably failing
to realise that it would be the reciprocal of the east bound Rhumb Line course.
(c) Many candidates did not achieve full marks for this part because they assumed that stating one reason was
sufficient to answer the question. The question clearly states “reasons”.
Many candidates suggested that differing meteorological and/or currents would be experienced on the differing
tracks. A comparison of the Great Circle and Rhumb Line courses, coupled with the very small distance variation,
indicates that the 2 tracks would not diverge very far (less than 20 miles). Hence both tracks would experience the
same elements and so a Great Circle would not gain a meteorological or oceanographic advantage.

Question 2.
(a) As has been stated previously, the use of different colours for the different elements would improve
candidate’s diagrams.
A considerable number of candidates showed no, or very little, change of elements for January and July. This
contradicts the question which stated, “experience significant changes”.
A number of candidates showed the SE Trade winds becoming the SW Monsoons well before the air mass had
crossed the equator and experienced the change in Coriolis.
There were a few examples where the candidate knew that the predominant wind had changed but failed to
appreciate that this must be caused by a change in pressure systems. The result was diagrams showing air masses
moving towards a high pressure system or emanating from a low pressure system.
(b) A few candidates demonstrated a clear understanding and gave a detailed explanation. Many candidates’
explanations were too brief, or their description moved from one fact to another without explaining the link.
Examples of moving from one fact to another without explanation are: “as the sun moves south a high pressure
will form over India”; “the SE trades will become the SW Monsoons” and “the SW Monsoon will affect the
current direction”.
Unsurprisingly, it was noted that candidates who achieved high marks in part (b) had also achieved high marks in
part (a), thus showing the link between understanding and knowledge. Virtually all the candidates who achieved
low marks in part (a) answered part (b) poorly.
The candidates from one college were particularly weak in this question part.

Question 3.
Although most candidates demonstrated a knowledge of the majority of the stated objectives of IMO Routeing
Schemes, a considerable number of candidates had little or no knowledge.
(b) Many candidates wasted time by discussing implications beyond the given scenarios. E.g. (i) states that the
passage is through “the full length of a traffic lane”. Discussing crossing the lane is irrelevant and time wasted.
Similarly, Rule 10 (e)(i) and (f) are related to the actual transit, not the planning of the transit.
A few candidates appeared to be unclear as to the difference between a Traffic Separation Scheme and a Traffic
Lane, (or their incorrect use of abbreviations gave that impression.) A ship cannot proceed “in the general
direction of a TSS”.
The question was linked to Rule 10. General Passage Planning considerations were beyond the scope of the
question and could not be awarded any marks. Additionally, the candidate wasted time considering the irrelevant
points.
(c) The Bridge Team meeting, for the stated scenario, is the Master’s opportunity to discuss important elements
relating to the transit. It is unlikely that the Master will only discuss general watchkeeping duties, e.g. require the
reading/signing of his/her Standing Orders, discussing the importance of the IRPCS. The Master will be outlining
the roles and specific duties of each member of the Bridge Team, emphasising particular aspects of his Standing
Orders that relate to the transit and discussing specific aspects/Rules for potential traffic situations.
The question required “the contents of the discussion”. Some candidates gave detailed and specific duties of each
member of the Bridge Team.
(d) The question related to “immediately prior to the commencement of the transit”. A considerable number of
candidates suggested elements which were clearly in the ‘too late’ category. The Master cannot now require his
Bridge Team to be well rested. It is too late to start testing equipment/steering/engines. Requiring the members of
the Bridge Team to study the planned passage should have been part of the Bridge Team meeting held 12 hours
prior to the transit. Many candidate’s answers to part (d) were more relevant to part (c).
A small number of candidates outlined the duties/responsibilities of each member of the Bridge Team, a loss of
examination time.
The candidates from one college were particularly weak in this question.

Question 4.
(a) Co-Tidal Co-Range charts are part of the required HND Under Pinning Knowledge. Co-Tidal Co Range charts
was a topic asked in the November 2018 examination. It was therefore surprising that many candidates did not
know how to calculate the required time and height of High Water. The most frequent errors relating to the Co-
Tidal Co-Range chart were:
- Using the MHWI at the required position as the HW time correction;
- Applying the 25 minute time correction incorrectly;
- Using the difference in Mean Spring Ranges as the correction for HW height;
- Incorrectly calculating the height correction ratio;
- Incorrect interpolation of MHWI and MSR values;
Many candidates who incorrectly calculated the HW height correction ratio used 2.3÷2.9. These candidates
should have realised their error as their calculated HW height was less than that stated for Port Dickson. This
would be contrary to the two MSR values.
Other errors, not related to the Co-Tidal Co-Range chart, were:
- Failure to realise that Ship Time and Port Dickson Standard Time were one hour apart;
- Using Long/Time instead of Zone to align the time systems;
(b) Most candidates were able to calculate a time and speed required.
A small number of candidates used Nautical Twilight. As this is before the commencement of the ‘star
observation period’ it cannot be considered as the commencement of daylight.
Question 5.
(a) The majority of candidates demonstrated competence regarding making an appraisal of the plot.
The most frequent plotting error was the incorrect calculation of WO.
The most frequent error in the appraisal was determining the Aspect. A considerable number of candidates stated
values in excess of 180°.
Candidates should consider the likely precision of manual plotting and the validity of stating courses to ½° and
times to seconds.
(b)(i) Many candidates failed to focus on the actions required “in such a developing situation”, instead listing
general watchkeeping duties. [see also comments relating to Q3(c)] Examples are: keep a good lookout; obey
IRPCS; use Parallel Indexing(!); maintain UKC; obtain compass error.
The Standing Orders cannot specify the requirements for every possible traffic situation. It would therefore be
dangerous for the Master to specify that the ship must be brought to a stop immediately (example Target C) or
that 5 or more short blasts must be sounded (own ship may be the ‘Give Way’ but lacking sea room to
manoeuvre).
Some candidates suggested increasing the Bridge Team with extra lookouts but failed to consider that a helmsman
would be a prudent measure.
In view of Paragraph 3 of MGN 324 Amendment 1, it is unlikely that the Master’s Standing Orders will require
the OOW to use VHF to contact other ships.
(ii) The Master will need sufficient information to quickly assess the situation, superfluous information will
detract from this. Examples of superfluous information are: the leeway effect; the Aspect of every target.
Only a small number of candidates considered that ‘confirmation that all of the Master’s Standing Order
requirements had been completed’ would be relevant. Answers could also have been improved by the OOW
identifying the relevant targets, visually and on the radar.
(c) This part was not well answered because the vast majority of candidates considered that one factor alone was a
sufficient answer. The question used the word “discuss”.
Most answers only stated the effect of each manoeuvre on the CPA of each of the 3 targets. Very few candidates
linked the manoeuvres to the relevant IRPCS e.g. Rule 8(a), (c) & (d) and Rule 17 (c).
Only a very small number of candidates gave thought to the consequence of each manoeuvre if the action was
misjudged/insufficient or equipment failed e.g. failure of the steering gear after the a/c to starboard had
commenced.
A considerable number of candidates considered that immediately taking all way off would result in all targets
passing clear. Target C would have a CPA of approx. 4 cables.
Some candidates considered an a/c to port would be compromised if Target A also a/c to starboard. This valid
discussion point could have been improved by also considering the distance from Target A and whether the
situation could have been further resolved in the event of Target A’s simultaneous a/c to starboard.
A few candidates plotted trial manoeuvres. This was an unnecessary use of exam time. Candidates at
Management Level should be able to visualise the general effect of a manoeuvre.
The IRPCS do not state that an alteration of course to port is not permitted.
A small number of candidates inexplicably considered that Rule 19 was applicable and/or that the scenario was in
a TSS.
(d) Many candidates correctly related the IRPCS justification under Rule 2. However, Rule 17(c) could also have
been cited as the wording includes “if the circumstances of the case admit”.
The candidates from one college were particularly weak in this question.