A survey of 808 shipmasters and deck officers has highlighted the scale and operational impact of bridge alerts, with many respondents reporting that alert volume and repetition can affect the ability of bridge teams to identify and respond to important warnings.
The International Federation of Shipmasters’ Associations (IFSMA) conducted an online survey among its member associations and their Shipmaster and deck officer membership from 17 August to 16 September 2026. Responses were based primarily on the respondent’s current or most recently served ship.
The survey findings are intended to inform IFSMA’s consideration of bridge alert management in discussions at the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and the Navigation, Communications and Search & Rescue (NCSR) Sub-Committee. They will also provide information that IFSMA member organisations can use to raise awareness of the issue within their regions.
The results indicate that bridge alerts are a frequent feature of shipboard operations. In low-density traffic or deep-sea areas, 66.7% of respondents reported normally receiving between one and five bridge alerts per hour, while 14.2% reported six to ten alerts per hour. In pilotage, coastal or high-density traffic areas, reported alert rates were considerably higher.
The usefulness of alerts also varied. During low-density or deep-sea operations, 30.7% of respondents considered most alerts necessary or useful, while 23.7% considered all or almost all necessary or useful. During pilotage, coastal or high-density operations, 30.7% said some alerts were necessary or useful.
A significant finding concerns repeated alerts. Of 804 respondents, 67.8% reported receiving repeated alerts relating to the same issue. Almost half (48%) said alerts could distract the bridge team from other tasks, while 22.3% reported that alerts could be difficult to distinguish from each other.
The survey also asked whether the number or characteristics of alerts had ever made it more difficult for the bridge team to identify or respond to an important alert. Of 808 respondents, 38.6% reported this occurring occasionally and 18.1% frequently. Only 12.6% said they had never experienced such a situation.
ECDIS was identified as the most common source of alerts, reported by 94.9% of respondents, followed by radar/ARPA/AIS at 70.8%. Other significant sources included GMDSS and bridge navigation watch alarm systems.
The survey further examined the ability of Masters to adjust bridge alert settings according to the area of navigation and operational priorities. While 14.7% reported that settings could readily be changed, 28.2% said changes were possible only for certain systems or areas, while 43.4% reported that changes were restricted.
For IFSMA, the findings provide practical evidence from shipmasters and deck officers on how bridge alert management is experienced at sea. The results will contribute to IFSMA’s participation in IMO discussions concerning the effective management of bridge alerts and approaches that support bridge teams in identifying and responding to information requiring their attention.
The survey report records a total of 808 responses.