General situation:

Upon arrival at the Yacht both tenders were found to be located in their normal position on the forward mooring deck. Both of the tenders had protective exterior covers fitted and were secured to the deck by their respective lashings, fore and aft.

Information Provided ahead of Survey:

In conversations with the crew and several pictures that were shared prior to our arrival, it was relayed that the Yachts tenders have sustained damage, due mainly to wave action during the Yachts recent transatlantic crossing.

Both tenders suffered electrical, structural and engine/auxiliary equipment failures. The extent of the damages is very well documented in the attached reports which were generated by LB Tenders. Essentially, it has been reported that as a direct consequence of the damages sustained, both tenders were unusable.

The engines on each tender were, for the most part, submerged by seawater. The crew reports that the engines were not started at any stage. Any and all information including the work reports have been provided by the Captain. It is also reported verbally that a sum exceeding 136K Euros has been spent on the repair works.

Starboard Side Tender:

In brief terms, anything that was under the deck sole, which has any form of electrical component has been replaced for new. That includes electrical connectors, batteries, starters, relays, engine harness etc. Mechanically, what can be fully restored to an “as new” state, has been done so. Where the parts concerned couldn’t be fully restored, they have been replaced for new.

All of these works were conducted under the yacht crew’s direction and supervision. The scope of works was generated by LB tenders, executed by LB Tenders and reported upon by LB Tenders. No independent assessment appears to have been carried out. The works (on both tenders) appears to have been executed well. The Captain reports that the tender manufactures were in direct consultation with the LB Tenders repair team.

What should be noted; as you can see in the report, the scope or outlined works were mainly concerned with only repairing the damage caused by the incident. There are several knock-on-effects of those works that have resulted in the replacement or refurbishment of other non-connected equipment(s).

There does remain a collection of recommendations that are detailed below; we have limited these to what we would consider to be any differences between the survey conducted in St. Martin and the present state, post works, or as a result of the damage. What is not included is and should be considered as general wear and tear (as seen in St. Martin).