MAIB's report also names the terminal's turning fender — sharp protrusions, no rubber fender structure — as a contributing factor to the extent of the damage. What does this tell a bridge team about berth risk assessment?

A. Fender condition is the port authority's sole responsibility and irrelevant to bridge planning

B. Knowing a berth's actual fendering (or its absence) before a fast, wind-affected approach changes how much margin for error genuinely exists — a berth with no forgiving fendering has effectively zero tolerance for a faster-than-planned contact

C. Only cargo berths require a fendering risk assessment, not passenger terminals

D. Turning fenders are decorative and don't affect hull risk

A. The tidal height at the time of transit to confirm sufficient under-keel clearance

B. The yacht's fuel consumption for that leg

C. The colour of the seabed shown on the chart

D. Only the distance to the next waypoint

A. Assess the situation against the planned route and charted depths, take action to maintain safe water, and inform the Master if there is any doubt

B. Ignore it — ECDIS alarms are frequently false and can be left running

C. Switch the ECDIS to standby mode and navigate by GPS position alone

D. Acknowledge and silence the alarm immediately so it does not distract the helmsman