The important thing to remember when gathering evidence is that the more evidence the better - that is, the more evidence you gather to demonstrate your skills, the more confident an assessor can be that you have learned the skills not just at one point in time, but are continuing to apply and develop those skills (as opposed to just learning for the test!). Furthermore, one piece of evidence that you collect will not usualy demonstrate all the required criteria for a unit of competency, whereas multiple overlapping pieces of evidence will usually do the trick!
From the Wiki University
What evidence can you provide to prove your understanding of each of the following citeria?
Plan and prepare stability testing
|
|
Applicable stability criteria for class of vessel and its operations are identified and confirmed against regulatory requirements Completed |
Evidence:
|
Differences between Uniform Shipping Laws (USL) and National Standard for Commercial Vessels (NSCV) standards for assessing stability are identified and applied to survey plan as required Completed |
Evidence:
|
Information and data is used to establish and verify stability characteristics required for safe operation Completed |
Evidence:
|
Types of stability related hazards that may occur during all types of operations are identified Completed |
Evidence:
|
Range of intended and/or likely vessel loading conditions are accurately identified and their impact on stability is assessed Completed |
Evidence:
|
Calculate vessel trim and stability
|
|
Simplified stability calculations are performed to assess compliance with applicable stability criteria Completed |
Evidence:
|
Stability assessment methods for equivalent solutions are applied as necessary according to regulatory requirements Completed |
Evidence:
|
Trim, draughts and freeboard are measured accurately to safely and efficiently allow assessment of compliance with criteria Completed |
Evidence:
|
Effects of weight distribution that may compromise vessel safety are included in stability assessment Completed |
Evidence:
|
Computer-based stability programs are used as appropriate to assist with assessing compliance Completed |
Evidence:
|
Results are verified to confirm compliance Completed |
Evidence:
|
Vessel is not put at risk during assessment Completed |
Evidence:
|
Apply tests, assessments and theories to confirm compliance
|
|
Tests and assessments that could assist to confirm stability compliance are verified and carried out according to safety instructions Completed |
Evidence:
|
Small angle stability theories are used to establish metacentric height (GM) through transverse movement of weights across vessel deck Completed |
Evidence:
|
Causes of inaccuracies and limitations of assumptions in tests, assessments and theories are interpreted accurately and considered in stability assessment report Completed |
Evidence:
|
Identify other impacts on stability calculations
|
|
Types and effects of damage on vessel stability are identified and considered according to regulatory requirements Completed |
Evidence:
|
Damage stability considerations are accurately identified and effect of damage is correctly quantified Completed |
Evidence:
|
Operational impact on stability is identified and considered in compliance assessment Completed |
Evidence:
|
Vessel safety management plan is reviewed to ensure known or likely impacts on stability are included Completed |
Evidence:
|
Document and report findings
|
|
Records are maintained and reports are prepared according to regulatory and organisational guidelines Completed |
Evidence:
|
Survey report is completed according to regulatory requirements Completed |
Evidence:
|