CHIRP Superyacht FEEDBACK 10

An independent and confidential

MARITIME FEEDBACK reporting system for the Maritime industry

Edition SY 10 SUPERYACHTS July 2025

SUBMIT A REPORT ONLINE CHIRP always protects the identity of our reporters. All Reports can be submitted easily through our encrypted personal details are deleted from our system once a report online form www.chirp.co.uk/maritime/submit-a-report is completed.

Say what you do; Do what you say!

Contents

2 M2487 - Safety Concerns Dismissed 4 M2491 - Crew Abandonment 3 M2488 - Working aloft without proper 5 M2498 - Crew Injury while Mooring fall protection 6 M2496 - Chemical injury to the crew 3 M2392 - Look After Your Pilot - They're Looking After You!

Adam Parnell

The essence of the ISM Code is that companies Although the majority of superyachts are well-run should develop procedures that describe the actions and have competent crews, but from the reports their personnel are required to follow, and then below, we can see that some still have a lot of work ensure that these procedures are followed. Such to do. We learn of vessels where proper safety gear thinking is critical in the superyacht industry, which was lacking, where recovering an anchor required a is increasingly in the spotlight. Recent accidents crew member to thrust a screwdriver into an involving well-known individuals have contributed electrical circuit board, where crew members were to increased scrutiny of the sector. working aloft without proper harnesses, where unsafe pilot boarding arrangements were considered appropriate to avoid scratching the

paintwork, where the requirements of MLC and SOLAS were ignored by an owner/operator, and where mooring and CHIRP Comment chemical safety were overlooked. Working on a vessel where safety is taken seriously, and leadership is supportive makes a real difference to morale and This is extremely disappointing. performance. When crew members feel trusted, respected, and empowered, they are more likely to speak up, take On a more positive note, we were pleased to assist the six flag responsibility, and work with purpose. Sadly, our reporter did states that register the most superyachts in creating a safety not experience this. flyer on working aloft, which is included with this edition of Superyacht FEEDBACK. The flyer offers sensible guidance that In this case, the vessel’s on-board management reflected wider should be followed at all times, and we recommend it to you. As failings within the company. The crew reported feeling mentioned earlier, scrutiny is increasing, so we anticipate unsupported and unsafe. According to the report, there was little breaches of the guidance will be dealt with severely in the evidence of an active safety culture, and serious concerns were future. raised about working conditions. When safety is not prioritised, trust breaks down – and so does performance. Company Until next time, be careful out there and do your best to avoid leadership at all levels must recognise their role in creating a becoming a statistic. safe and positive working environment.

CHIRP encourages companies to listen to feedback, act on concerns, and support leadership behaviours that build trust and M2487 safety from the top down. Seafarers should never feel that reporting safety concerns is a last resort. Safety Concerns Dismissed CHIRP raised the issues outlined in the report with the Flag Initial Report State, which responded constructively with a plan of action. The Our reporter said “I am submitting this report anonymously Flag State has asked that such concerns be reported to them because I fear retaliation. Previous safety concerns raised directly in future. However, CHIRP is mindful that not all onboard have either been ignored or dismissed, leaving me no seafarers feel confident that their identity will be protected. We other option. remain committed to offering a trusted and confidential reporting route for those who may feel unable to raise concerns Several serious safety issues are currently evident on the vessel. elsewhere. Firstly, the crew is being issued wakeboard helmets instead of certified safety helmets for working at height. These helmets are not designed for industrial use, do not provide adequate Key Issues relating to this report protection against falling objects or impacts, and often do not fit Culture – The dominant issue. The crew described a poor safety properly. Informal concerns have been raised about this, but no culture, a lack of trust, and fear of raising concerns. A culture action has been taken to supply the correct personal protective that discourages speaking up erodes morale and increases risk. equipment.

Communication – Failures in information flow, both within the Anchor operations are being conducted under unsafe conditions. vessel and between the ship and shore, were evident. Poor To retrieve the port anchor, the crew must force a screwdriver communication leads to misunderstanding, confusion, and into the circuit board to activate the system. This hazardous and missed hazards. makeshift method presents a significant risk of electrical injury and potential damage to the equipment. Teamwork – The lack of supportive leadership undermines teamwork. A crew that does not feel united or supported is less These are not isolated issues. They are part of a broader safety effective and less safe. culture problem on board. There is a noticeable disregard for proper safety standards, and crew members are actively Fatigue – While not explicitly stated, the poor working discouraged from speaking up. This can create an environment conditions likely contributed to fatigue or a high workload. where hazardous practices become normalised, and there is little Fatigue reduces alertness, reaction time, and judgment. evidence of proactive safety management. I hope this report will lead to meaningful action to address these risks before someone Alerting – the reluctance to contact the Flag State directly and gets hurt.” the need to use CHIRP indicates a failure of systems that should enable safe, anonymous reporting. Seafarers felt they had no safe route to raise concerns internally or externally.

Key Takeaways inaugural safety flyer on working aloft has been produced. The flyer can be seen on the back page of this feedback edition. Seafarers – Speak up, even when it is difficult. Your voice CHIRP would like to thank the Cayman Islands Registry for matters. If you are working in unsafe or unsupportive making the first one, along with other leading flag states and conditions, reporting through trusted channels like CHIRP can CHIRP Maritime. help drive change. A strong safety culture begins with individuals who care enough to raise concerns, even when the system appears not to listen. Key Issues relating to this report Culture – Inconsistent use of safety harnesses suggests either a Managers – Culture is built, or broken, by leadership. Poor weak safety culture or poor enforcement of safety procedures. on-board culture and weak leadership directly harm safety, If some crew members do not feel obliged or expected to follow trust, and performance. Create conditions where the crew feel basic safety practices, the culture is not functioning correctly. respected, heard, and supported. Empower teams to report concerns without fear. Safety is not just compliance — it is Capability – The use of an inappropriate waist belt instead of behaviour, values, and consistency. proper fall protection indicates a lack of knowledge or training about the appropriate equipment for working aloft. Correct Regulators – Confidential reporting needs absolute practices would be better highlighted if a Permit to Work were protection. Seafarers will not report concerns if they fear being used. exposed. Confidentiality and follow-up action are critical. Regulators must ensure that reporting systems are genuinely Teamwork – If one crew member is correctly equipped but safe and trusted and that companies are held accountable when does not intervene when others are not, it suggests a lack of systemic issues are raised. shared responsibility and poor team cohesion. Good teams look out for each other.

Fit for Duty – Safety covers not only the physical but also the M2488 psychological aspects.

Working aloft without fall protection Key Takeaways

Initial Report Seafarers – If one person needs a harness, all do. The reporter saw three people working aloft on a neighbouring Inconsistent use of safety gear puts everyone at risk. If a task superyacht. One wore a full harness, one appeared to be requires fall protection, ensure that every crew member is wearing a waist belt, and one had no fall protection at all. adequately equipped. Don’t assume someone else’s risk is different from yours — safety must be a standard, not an option.

CHIRP Comment Managers – Supply the gear and set the standard. Ensure CHIRP thanked the reporter and informed them that CHIRP had there are enough adequately certified fall protection systems on contacted the Flag State concerning this incident. board, and make it clear that unsafe alternatives, such as waist belts, are not acceptable. A transparent, enforced safety There are several issues with the reporter’s observations standard prevents improvisation and protects your crew. regarding this report. Firstly, one of the crew was wearing a harness; why were the other two crew members not wearing Regulators – Support safety with visibility and clarity. CHIRP the same harness for the same work activity? Was this because welcomes collaboration with Flag States to raise awareness and there were insufficient harnesses on board? Or did one crew promote consistent safety standards. Sharing best practices member decide it was safe for them and not insist that the through initiatives like the ‘Working Aloft Safety Flyer’ helps others needed protection? turn guidance into action on board.

The reporter saw that one of the crew members was wearing a waist belt, which is not clear in the photograph. Nevertheless, waist belt-type harnesses should not be worn as fall protection M2392 due to their lack of support during a fall, which would most likely result in permanent back injury—they are not designed for fall Look After Your Pilot -They Look After You! protection. Initial Report CHIRP would like to add that, following collaboration with the six CHIRP received a report from a pilot concerning a non- leading Flag States which register the most superyachts, an compliant boarding arrangement and an apparent lack of

care from the vessel’s crew. Alerting – The pilot raised a safety concern, which was initially ignored; this constitutes a failure to act on an alert. Ignoring or The pilot ladder was suspended from the deckhead and failed to dismissing raised concerns discourages others from speaking up rest flush against the ship’s side due to hull belting—a setup that and undermines the effectiveness of safety systems. did not meet safe boarding standards. Although a small shell door was available for safer access, large fenders had been Teamwork – Boarding a vessel is a collaborative effort between rigged on either side. When the pilot requested that these be the ship and the pilot. Filming the event and failing to help removed to facilitate safe boarding, the master refused, citing shows a breakdown in cooperative behaviour and mutual concerns about damage to the paintwork. respect, key elements of effective teamwork.

The pilot assessed the situation and stated that boarding would Situational Awareness – The lack of recognition that the pilot not proceed unless the obstructions were cleared. Eventually, had been injured, and the absence of any first aid or welfare the fenders were removed, and boarding took place via the shell check indicate poor situational awareness. The crew was not door. entirely focused on what was happening around them or the seriousness of the event. The event was filmed from the bridge wing and by crew members, which contributed to the pressure and unease felt by Key Takeaways the pilot. During boarding, the duty pilot struck his head, sustaining a minor injury (see attached image. The crew did not Seafarers – Every visitor is your responsibility. Pilots and inquire about the pilot’s welfare or offer first aid. Instead, he was contractors are part of your extended team. They deserve the handed a pair of overshoes to protect the deck from being same duty of care as your crew. Ensure safe boarding dirtied. arrangements, treat visitors with respect, and help without hesitation. A clean deck is no excuse for a dirty attitude.

CHIRP Comment Managers – Safe access is not optional – it’s the law. Safety regulations around pilot boarding exist because failure to Boarding arrangements must meet SOLAS requirements — follow them can and does result in injury or worse. every time. Pressure to protect paintwork cannot outweigh the safety of personnel. Set clear expectations with your crews: all Here again is a common design problem often reported to visitors, especially pilots, must be welcomed safely and CHIRP. There appears to be a lack of integrated thinking when professionally. designing superyachts. Crews should not be placed in unsafe situations due to poor design decisions made remotely by those Regulators – Standards must protect people, not paint. who will operate the vessels. There must be collaboration during Incidents like this show how operational decisions can put the design phase for new builds, with input from all stakeholders reputations — and lives — at risk. Regulators must reinforce the such as designers, owners, flag authorities, class societies, crew, message that duty of care extends to all personnel boarding contractors, and pilots. a vessel and that non-compliant setups or dismissive behaviour are unacceptable. This report clearly reminds us that pilots are contractors and guests, yet they remain vital maritime professionals. The safe transfer of the pilot is not optional; it is compulsory, and their physical safety and well-being must be taken seriously. M2491

Crew Abandonment Key Issues relating to this report Culture – The dismissive attitude toward the pilot’s safety — Initial Report prioritising paintwork over people — reflects a poor on board CHIRP received a report from several crew members who were safety culture. A culture that does not respect external abruptly dismissed from a 24m vessel after raising repeated personnel or reporting lines weakens trust and increases risk. concerns about living conditions and on board safety. The captain, who was also the vessel’s owner, terminated their Communication – The Master’s refusal to remove the fenders contracts without notice, support, or provision for repatriation. It and the failure to explain or resolve the issue collaboratively was only after intervention from an ITF Inspector that assistance suggest a lack of effective communication between the ship and was provided. This incident appears to meet the criteria for the pilot. Effective communication is crucial for achieving shared abandonment under the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) . situational awareness and making informed, coordinated decisions. The crew had previously reported a persistent spider infestation in the accommodation spaces. One crew member required

hospital treatment as a result. Alongside this, there were Communications – Crew concerns were often ignored or ongoing concerns about black mould, poor ventilation, and dismissed, and formal complaints were needed to prompt basic unsanitary accommodation. A heavily stained and damaged responses (e.g., mattress and toilet seat replacement). Are your mattress was only replaced following a formal request. A concerns truly heard when you raise them? missing toilet seat was replaced only after a complaint was lodged. There was no privacy in cabins due to the absence of Pressure – The crew were placed under pressure to remain in curtains, and bathrooms were described as damp and poorly unsafe and unfit conditions without repatriation or protection of ventilated. These conditions made the crew quarters their welfare. uninhabitable. The crew were relocated multiple times, including to a hotel, student dormitories without hot water, the captain’s Complacency – The continued operation of the vessel despite private home, and other guest spaces. expired fire extinguishers, the absence of lifejackets, and the lack of flares indicates a command that does not appreciate the In addition to the living conditions, serious safety concerns were risks regarding practical safety and compliance with safety raised. The vessel was reportedly operating in violation of regulations. SOLAS and Flag State safety requirements. All fire extinguishers were either expired, corroded, or inoperable. No flares were Local Practices – Unacceptable standards appear to have carried on board, and there were no life jackets available in the become normalised (e.g., operating with no lifejackets or crew or guest cabins or anywhere within the vessel’s interior. uninhabitable cabins). Despite these critical deficiencies, the vessel continued to operate at sea, placing both crew and passengers at risk. Key Takeaways

Seafarers – Know your rights, speak up and retain CHIRP Comment supporting documents. This case highlights a broader concern regarding vessels Seafarers should document unsafe conditions and report them operated solely by their owners, where the usual checks and through formal channels. Understanding your rights under MLC balances provided by an independent management structure is vital, especially regarding health, safety, and repatriation. If may be absent. When command and ownership are combined, internal reporting fails, seek help from unions or ITF inspectors especially on vessels under 30 metres, external oversight is without delay. often limited and accountability difficult to enforce. Managers – Safety concerns are not insubordination. CHIRP shares this report to encourage greater scrutiny of crew Dismissing a crew member for raising valid concerns welfare and vessel safety on owner-operated yachts. It is undermines the safety culture and breaches international essential that crew members feel able to raise concerns without obligations. Managers must ensure compliant living conditions, fear of retaliation, and that enforcement mechanisms are strong maintain safety equipment, and respond constructively to crew enough to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Safeguards feedback. must also be in place to ensure that new crew are not recruited under false pretences, and that international standards such as Regulators – Where there is smoke, act fast. MLC and SOLAS are consistently upheld. This case highlights serious SOLAS and MLC violations. Regulators should prioritise oversight of vessels with combined CHIRP advocates extending MLC protections to all yachts, owner-captain roles and act swiftly on signs of abandonment, regardless of size or tonnage, because working conditions can poor habitability, or safety equipment failure. vary significantly between MLC-compliant vessels and those that are not. The same applies to SOLAS: vessels not obligated to comply may operate under lower safety standards, and seafarers should be aware