Large Yacht Code — Tender & MOB Ops Practice Questions

A. TENDERS AND PWCs UNDER THE CODE — REGULATORY STATUS: Common Annexes to the REG Yacht Code (Annex K1 specifically addresses tenders) set requirements covering tender construction/suitability, launching and recovery arrangements (davits, cranes, garage doors), carriage limits, and operational procedures — tenders are not simply private recreational equipment outside the Code's scope. PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS THIS DRIVES: (1) Tenders used to carry guests must be operated within their certificated/approved passenger capacity, not "however many fit comfortably"; (2) Launch/recovery equipment (davits, cranes) must be inspected, maintained, and operated by trained crew per the manufacturer's and the vessel's SMS procedures — davit failures during launch/recovery are a recognised yacht incident pattern; (3) PWCs (jet skis, etc.) carried for guest use fall under the vessel's safety management and crew supervision responsibilities, including fuel storage/handling on board the mothership; (4) A tender accident (capsize, collision, MOB from a tender) is a vessel safety event requiring the same incident reporting and SMS response as an event on the mothership itself, not a separate "off the books" activity. CREW IMPLICATION: tender operations are an extension of the yacht's safety management system, not an exception to it — informal "everyone knows how it works" practices around tender ops are a genuine compliance and safety gap.

B. Tenders and PWCs are entirely outside the scope of the Large Yacht Code / REG Yacht Code since they are not "the yacht" itself and have no carriage or operational limits.

C. Tender regulation under the Code applies only to tenders longer than 24 metres, so virtually no yacht tender is covered by any Code requirement.

D. PWC and tender safety is solely a matter for the manufacturer's user manual, with no requirement for crew training or SMS procedures under the Code.

A. DAVIT PRE-LAUNCH CHECKS — WHY A VISUAL-ONLY CHECK IS INSUFFICIENT: A proper pre-launch check of davit/crane tender-handling equipment should include: (1) Confirming the load limit is not exceeded by the tender plus fuel/equipment/passengers being loaded; (2) Checking wire/strop condition (not just "looks fine" — checking for fraying, corrosion, or kinking that a quick glance can miss); (3) Confirming the hook/release mechanism operates correctly and is not the source of a previous reported defect; (4) Confirming the operator has current training/familiarisation on that specific davit (davit controls and failure modes vary between manufacturers and even between sister yachts); (5) A communication check between the davit operator and anyone in/near the tender during the lift. "IT WAS FINE YESTERDAY" IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE: equipment can develop a defect overnight, a different crew member may load it differently, and load conditions (number of guests, fuel level, sea state alongside) change between uses — a genuine pre-use check is required each time, not a one-off assumption carried forward. The mooring/davit incident pattern across this product's own simulator content already demonstrates that "it worked last time" complacency is a recurring root cause in real equipment failures — the same principle applies directly to tender davits.

B. A visual check from a distance is sufficient for routine guest excursions; full checks are only required before the first use of the season.

C. Pre-launch checks are the responsibility of the tender's passengers, not the crew operating the davit.

D. Davit checks are unnecessary if the tender was successfully recovered without incident on its most recent use.

A. MOB RECOVERY EQUIPMENT BELOW 500GT — WHY IT IS STILL REQUIRED: Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water are required under the Code's life-saving appliance provisions, extending the underlying SOLAS-derived recovery principle to vessels under 500GT rather than treating smaller coded yachts as exempt. The risk a person-in-water scenario presents (cold water immersion, inability of an unconscious/incapacitated casualty to assist their own recovery, difficulty recovering a casualty over freeboard height) does not disappear just because the vessel is under 500GT — if anything, smaller crew complements on smaller yachts can make an unplanned, ad-hoc recovery attempt riskier, not safer, because fewer people are available to execute a recovery safely. PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS THIS DRIVES: (1) A documented means of recovering a person from the water that does not rely solely on improvisation in the moment — e.g. a dedicated recovery sling/cradle, a boarding ladder usable from the water, or a tender-based recovery method, appropriate to the vessel's freeboard and crew numbers; (2) Crew familiarity/drilled competence in the specific recovery method the vessel actually has, not just generic MOB theory; (3) Consideration of guest-in-water scenarios (swimming, water sports, tender transfers) which are a realistic, frequent yacht-specific MOB risk distinct from a crew member falling from a working deck. EXAMINER'S POINT: candidates sometimes assume smaller vessels have lighter MOB obligations purely because of tonnage — this is incorrect; the underlying human survival risk drives the requirement, not GT.

B. MOB recovery equipment requirements apply only to yachts of 500GT and above; smaller coded yachts have no formal requirement and may rely entirely on improvised recovery.

C. MOB recovery procedures are only relevant to crew falling overboard while working; guest-in-water incidents during swimming or water sports are outside the scope of MOB planning.

D. A lifebuoy alone satisfies the Code's MOB recovery requirement regardless of vessel freeboard or crew numbers available to execute a recovery.