A tender carrying guests is returning to the mothership as sea state and swell increase. As OOW on the mothership bridge coordinating recovery, what factors determine whether to proceed with normal davit recovery, choose an alternative recovery method, or hold the tender off until conditions improve?

A. TENDER RECOVERY IN DETERIORATING CONDITIONS — DECISION FACTORS: (1) ASSESS ACTUAL CONDITIONS AT THE RECOVERY POINT, not just general sea state — swell/wave action at the mothership's side (affected by the mothership's own motion, beam-on exposure, and any lee created by heading/positioning) may differ materially from open water conditions; (2) CONSIDER REPOSITIONING THE MOTHERSHIP to create a lee or more favourable heading for recovery before attempting it, rather than accepting a difficult recovery angle as fixed; (3) RECOGNISE WHEN DAVIT RECOVERY BECOMES UNSAFE — a tender bouncing/surging against the mothership's hull or recovery point during increasing swell risks injury to anyone in the tender or operating the davit, and risks damage to both vessels; (4) HAVE A FALLBACK PLAN — holding the tender off in a sheltered area, proceeding to a nearby harbour/anchorage with the tender rather than attempting an unsafe recovery, or waiting for a lull, are all legitimate alternatives to forcing a recovery in worsening conditions; (5) GUEST WELFARE IN THE TENDER must be actively managed (seasickness, cold, fatigue) if recovery is delayed, not treated as secondary to the recovery decision itself. THE CORE PRINCIPLE: recovery timing should be actively managed and reassessed as conditions change, not treated as a fixed plan executed regardless of how conditions evolve between deciding to return and actually attempting recovery.

B. Davit recovery should always be attempted as planned regardless of changing sea state, since the davit is rated for the tender's weight and conditions are not directly relevant to load rating.

C. The decision belongs entirely to the tender driver; the mothership bridge has no role in assessing or adjusting conditions for recovery.

D. If conditions deteriorate, the only available option is to abandon the tender and arrange separate transport for the guests to shore.

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.