The tragic sinking of the British-flagged Bayesian superyacht off the coast of Sicily last year, which resulted in the loss of seven lives, has sparked debates on the adequacy of safety regulations for pleasure yachts compared to their commercial counterparts.
The incident underscores disparities in the regulatory frameworks governing these categories of yachts, raising questions about whether lighter oversight for pleasure yachts remains justified in the face of larger pleasure yachts being manufactured.
Regulatory differences between pleasure and commercial yachts
The safety regulations for pleasure yachts and commercial yachts differ primarily because of their intended use.
Pleasure yachts are privately owned vessels used exclusively for non-commercial purposes. They are governed by less stringent rules, with minimal requirements for inspections, onboard safety equipment and no crew certifications. Owners are often given discretion to implement safety measures, resulting in significant variability in preparedness across the sector.
Commercial yachts operate for profit, often through charters. They are subject to rigorous international and national regulations such as the Maltese Commercial Yacht Code or equivalent national codes, the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC) and the IMO’s safety and training conventions (such as SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW).
The key regulatory differences are the following:
• Certification and inspection: Pleasure yachts are seldom inspected and there is no requirement for compliance with commercial codes. On the other hand, commercial yachts must undergo regular inspections and surveys to meet rigorous safety, structural and operational standards, and adherence to certain international conventions may be mandatory.
• Crew qualifications and rights: on board pleasure yachts, crew qualifications are often less demanding, as it is normally up to the owner to ensure they are engaging the services of adequate personnel. Crew on board commercial yachts must hold advanced professional qualifications appropriate to the vessel’s size and operation, and which are in compliance with STCW (International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping).
The MLC, which applies to all seafarers working on board ships and yachts which are ordinarily engaged in commercial activities, sets out the right of such seafarers to decent conditions of work, including minimum age, employment agreements, hours of work and rest, accommodation, food and catering, health and safety protection, training and qualifications.
On board pleasure yachts, crew qualifications are often less demanding
By limiting the application of this convention to seafarers working onboard commercial vessels, crew members working onboard pleasure yachts are not being afforded the same treatment and level of protection as those onboard commercial yachts.
• Life-saving and firefighting equipment: Requirements for pleasure yachts are regulated by general safety regulations in accordance with European standards, and typically include personal flotation devices, flares and fire extinguishers. Specific equipment depends on the vessel’s size and jurisdiction. Commercial yachts must comply with higher standards, including advanced firefighting systems, life rafts, emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs) and sophisticated communication equipment to ensure passenger and crew safety.
The safety shortcomings of the Bayesian yacht
While investigations into the sinking of the Bayesian are still ongoing, reports suggest several shortcomings which contributed to the incident:
• The vessel’s doors and hatches were reportedly left open, allowing rapid water ingress during a storm.
• The yacht’s large mast acted as a sail during the storm, increasing its instability. While permissible for a pleasure yacht, such features would require additional stability tests for commercial certification.
• The Bayesian’s crew may not have had training comparable to what is required on commercial yachts.
• The Bayesian lacked compartmentalised safety features typical of commercial vessels.
Does it make sense to regulate pleasure yachts differently?
The underlying rationale for not treating these two types of yachts equally is that commercial vessels were traditionally larger and manned by more crew, while pleasure yachts were historically smaller, and their use was limited to local or regional waters. This led to the assumption that pleasure yachts posed minimal risks compared to commercial yachts operating on international voyages with larger capacities.
With the growth of the yachting industry and the ambition of owners to have larger yachts, this distinction no longer has the same value as it once did in the past as certain pleasure yachts are rivalling their commercial counterparts in size, carrying dozens of passengers and requiring quite a few crew members. This convergence calls for a reassessment of whether the current regulatory framework is sufficient.
Conclusion
While a one-size-fits-all model may not be practical, it is high time for debate as to whether smaller yachts up to a certain size that can compete with commercial yachts should be subject to certain standards. The focal point should not be on the use of the yacht, but rather on its size and its capability to carry out international voyages.
Once this is done, we can then begin to look into how other segments of pleasure yachts should be better regulated to slowly reduce the disparity and ultimately ensure safer seas.
Matthew Attard is a partner and Francesca Vassallo is a trainee advocate within Shipping and Yachting at Ganado Advocates.