M2713 - Superyacht passerelle was used incorrectly

Initial Report

A hydraulically operated passerelle failed under load while being used to transfer a 60 kg engine component onboard. Although the task had been risk-assessed and conducted using a controlled method to minimise load, the passerelle collapsed when the attending crew member stepped onto it midway through the operation. The individual avoided injury, and the load was recovered from the water.

Subsequent inspection identified structural failure of the aluminium securing eyes, likely influenced by material design and possible corrosion between dissimilar metals. The incident highlighted limitations in load assumptions when combining static and dynamic forces, and the importance of structural integrity checks beyond routine testing.

Operations were suspended until a temporary access solution was installed. Enhanced inspection regimes, revised handling procedures, and stricter controls on passerelle loading have since been introduced.

CHIRP Comment

This report describes a serious near-miss involving the failure of a hydraulically operated passerelle during a lifting operation. Although the task was risk assessed and controlled, the event demonstrates a gap between planned load assumptions and the real-world effects of dynamic loading.

A key learning point is that equipment rated for a specific static load may respond very differently when additional forces are introduced through movement, impact, or personnel stepping onto a structure during an operation. These dynamic interactions can significantly exceed the original design loading and may not be accounted for during planning and risk assessment.

The failure of the aluminium securing eyes also raises questions around material selection and long-term integrity at the design stage of a vessel’s life, particularly where corrosion can occur between dissimilar metals. Such degradation may not be readily visible during routine inspections, highlighting the need to consider the material’s long-term suitability for critical load-bearing.

There is also value in reflecting on whether operational procedures fully prevent personnel from stepping onto or interacting with equipment; if this is likely, then greater redundancy in the strength of the passerelle and its fixing points should be added. Even well-controlled operations can inadvertently introduce additional loading paths when human movement overlaps with lifting activity.

The immediate suspension of operations and introduction of revised controls is an appropriate response. However, this event suggests a broader need to review design assumptions against actual operational conditions, the adequacy of inspection regimes for critical components, and the way dynamic effects are accounted for in risk assessments.

While no injury occurred, the circumstances underscore an important point: control measures must account not only for planned actions but also for unplanned interactions among people, equipment, and movement during operations. For lifting operations, the correct lifting equipment must be used, even if this incurs additional cost and time – the passerelle is not the appropriate equipment to use.

Key Issues relating to this report

Factors related to this report

Situational awareness – Assessing the risks can sometimes overlook the latent issues associated with design.

Complacency/Overconfidence – Familiarity with the equipment can often prevent a close-up inspection of critical strength points and prevent searching questions about the equipment’s working limits, particularly when dynamic loading is applied, which can be hard to quantify.

Design – The underlying vulnerabilities were limited structural strength, a gradual loss of strength due to wear and chemical reactions in the fittings, an inability to properly inspect the connections, and a lack of understanding of combined-loading hazards.

Key Takeaways

Regulators – “Compliance with routine testing requirements may not reveal hidden structural vulnerabilities created by operational use and environmental exposure.” For regulators, this incident highlights the need for inspection standards and certification regimes to better reflect real‑world operating conditions, including operational loading, environmental degradation, and mixed‑material corrosion risks. Regulators should encourage operators to move beyond purely compliance‑based testing and consider how equipment is actually used in service—particularly where personnel access systems may also be subject to lifting or transfer loads. There is also value in promoting clearer guidance on dynamic loading effects, alongside more targeted inspection of critical attachment points and interfaces that may be vulnerable to progressive or hidden degradation.

Managers – “Safe systems of work must reflect operational reality, not simply the intended limits described in procedures or equipment documentation.” For managers and operators, the occurrence highlights the need for risk assessments to consider interactions among people, equipment, and changing operational conditions, rather than focusing solely on nominal load figures. Enhanced inspection regimes, revised transfer procedures, and stricter loading controls introduced after the event demonstrate a positive safety response and a willingness to strengthen organisational resilience. “Safe systems of work must reflect operational reality, not simply the intended limits described in procedures or equipment documentation.”

Seafarers – “A routine task can quickly become unsafe when hidden equipment degradation combines with everyday operational actions.” For seafarers, the event serves as a reminder that seemingly minor changes in loading conditions can have significant consequences when the equipment’s condition or design margins are not fully understood. Situational awareness during lifting and transfer operations remains critical, particularly where personnel movement may unintentionally increase dynamic loads. The outcome also reinforces the importance of reporting concerns about equipment condition, unusual movement, corrosion, or uncertainty regarding operational limits before tasks proceed.