Berth-to-Berth Passage Planning: Principles, Preparation and Safe Execution

• takes into account relevant ships’ routeing systems,
• ensures sufficient sea room for safe passage,
• anticipates known navigational hazards and adverse weather,
• and considers applicable marine environmental protection measures.

IMO Resolution A.893(21) then explains how that requirement should be put into practice. It makes clear that all information relevant to the contemplated voyage should be considered and that the ship’s progress should be closely and continuously monitored throughout execution of the plan.

This means a passage plan is not complete merely because it exists. It must be safe, practical, updated, understood by the bridge team and actively used.

Stage 1: Appraisal

Appraisal is the information-gathering stage. It is the part of the process where the bridge team builds the knowledge base required to design a safe route.

Typical information reviewed at this stage includes:

• official charts and publications,
• Notices to Mariners and chart corrections,
• sailing directions and port information,
• weather forecasts and seasonal conditions,
• tides, tidal streams and currents,
• draft, trim and under-keel-clearance requirements,
• maneuvering characteristics of the vessel,
• cargo-related limitations,
• routeing systems and reporting requirements,
• pilotage arrangements,
• security considerations,
• and local restrictions from company, charterer or terminal instructions.

Appraisal should also consider the vessel itself. A large loaded tanker, a feeder container ship, a bulk carrier in ballast and a high-speed passenger vessel may all transit the same area differently because of draft, stopping distance, maneuverability, speed and visibility from the bridge.

A common planning weakness is beginning directly with route plotting before the appraisal stage is complete. When that happens, the route may look technically correct on the chart but still fail to account for tidal windows, draft limitations, heavy-weather exposure, expected traffic concentration or port-specific constraints.

Stage 2: Planning

Once appraisal is complete, the bridge team develops the route in detail.

This stage includes selecting the intended track and identifying all navigational control measures needed along the route. Depending on the vessel and area, the plan may include:

• courses and wheel-over positions,
• distances and leg times,
• no-go areas and safety contours,
• cross-track limits,
• clearing bearings and parallel-index lines,
• minimum UKC values,
• speed adjustments,
• reporting points,
• pilot boarding positions,
• traffic-separation compliance,
• abort points,
• contingency anchorages,
• and critical equipment or manpower requirements.

If ECDIS is used, route-checking functions should support the plan, but they should not replace navigator judgment. A route that passes the ECDIS safety check is not automatically a good route. The bridge team must still assess chart quality, CATZOC or survey reliability where relevant, environmental conditions, and whether the route remains operationally sensible.

A professional passage plan should also include what the team will do if the original intention cannot safely continue. This is where contingency planning becomes essential. For example, if visibility deteriorates before a pilot boarding ground, if traffic delays entry, or if machinery or steering performance changes, the bridge team should already know the safer alternatives.

Stage 3: Execution

Execution is the stage where the ship follows the plan, but not blindly.

The Master remains responsible for deciding whether and how the plan will be executed, taking account of prevailing conditions. Passage execution requires practical judgment about:

• actual weather,
• traffic density,
• vessel performance,
• pilot advice,
• tidal state,
• and any change from planned assumptions.

Execution also includes ensuring the bridge is appropriately manned and that the bridge team understands the plan. A well-prepared passage plan that is not properly communicated to the OOW, lookout or pilot loses much of its safety value.

During execution, the vessel may need changes in speed, bridge manning, machinery readiness or navigational method according to the phase of the voyage. Restricted waters, narrow channels and port approaches usually require a more intensive bridge organization than open-ocean legs.

Stage 4: Monitoring

Monitoring is where many accidents are either prevented or allowed to develop.

The bridge team must continuously verify that the vessel remains on the intended route and that the assumptions behind the plan remain valid. Monitoring includes:

• frequent position fixing,
• checking cross-track error,
• confirming course and speed,
• observing traffic movement,
• verifying under-keel clearance,
• monitoring weather and visibility,
• checking equipment status,
• and ensuring the ship remains clear of hazards.

Good monitoring is not just “staying on the line.” A vessel can remain on track and still become unsafe because of squat, current, traffic, degraded visibility, shallow-water interaction or loss of position-source integrity.

Independent verification remains essential. Even when ECDIS is the primary means of navigation, bridge teams should use other available means—such as radar, visual bearings, echo sounder trends and parallel indexing—where appropriate to confirm the vessel’s actual situation.

Pilotage and Shared Responsibility

One important professional principle is that the passage plan remains relevant even when a pilot is on board.

The pilot contributes local expertise, but the Master and bridge team remain responsible for the safety of the vessel. The planned route, critical UKC areas, wheel-over points, speed expectations, no-go zones and contingency arrangements should be understood by the ship’s team, not treated as matters transferred entirely to the pilot.

A berth-to-berth plan should therefore support the Master–pilot exchange, not be replaced by it.

Common Errors in Passage Planning

Some of the most common failures include:

• treating passage planning as an ECDIS data-entry exercise,
• using copied plans without voyage-specific review,
• weak appraisal of weather, currents or draft constraints,
• inadequate contingency planning,
• overreliance on one source of navigational information,
• poor communication of the plan to bridge-watch officers,
• and failing to update the plan when circumstances change.

Another frequent error is assuming that the voyage plan is complete once signed. In reality, the real test of a passage plan is not whether it looks neat in the file, but whether it actively supports safe decisions on the bridge.

Professional Takeaway

Berth-to-berth passage planning is best understood as a continuous navigational safety process, not a pre-departure formality.

Its four stages—appraisal, planning, execution and monitoring—work together to reduce uncertainty, improve bridge-team preparedness and support timely decision-making from departure to arrival.

The strongest professional principle is this:

A passage plan is only effective when it is voyage-specific, risk-aware, understood by the bridge team and actively monitored throughout the voyage.

References

International Maritime Organization. (1974). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended. International Maritime Organization.

International Maritime Organization. (1999). Guidelines for voyage planning (Resolution A.893(21)). International Maritime Organization.

International Maritime Organization. Safety of navigation. International Maritime Organization.

International Maritime Organization. Electronic nautical charts (ENC) and Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS). International Maritime Organization.

International Hydrographic Organization. Standards in force. International Hydrographic Organization.