Superyacht Safety: Why Confidential Reporting Could Change The Way Yachting Learns
- Yachting International Radio
- Jul 31
- 7 min read
Superyacht safety is often discussed after something has already gone wrong. A tender incident, a fall from height, a near miss during mooring, a crew member placed in an unsafe position, or a decision that only becomes questionable once the consequences are visible. By that point, the industry is no longer dealing with theory. It is dealing with impact.
The problem is that many of the lessons already exist before the serious accident happens. They live in crew conversations, private messages, captain-to-captain discussions, and the quiet discomfort of people who have seen something onboard and thought, this does not feel right.
That is where CHIRP enters the conversation.
Paul Shepherd, Chair of CHIRP’s superyacht programme, has been helping bring confidential hazardous reporting into the yachting sector in a way that is designed specifically for crew, captains, officers, engineers, interior teams, and the wider operational reality of life onboard yachts.
CHIRP itself has a long background in aviation and maritime safety, but the superyacht-specific programme was created because this sector has its own pressures, its own culture, and its own reasons why people may hesitate to speak up. Privacy matters. Reputation matters. Employment matters. Relationships matter. In yachting, even a well-intentioned safety concern can feel risky if the person raising it believes they may be identified, blamed, or quietly punished.
Paul’s point is clear: CHIRP is not intended to be a whistleblowing platform. It is a learning platform.
That distinction matters because the goal is not to expose individuals, damage yachts, shame captains, or create public scandal. The goal is to take the same conversations that already happen in crew bars, WhatsApp groups, and private circles, and place them inside a confidential structure where the wider industry can learn from them.
Superyacht Safety Depends On Trust Before It Depends On Rules
Every safety system ultimately depends on trust. Crew have to trust that if they share a concern, they will not face retaliation. Captains have to trust that safety conversations are not being used as personal attacks. Management companies have to understand that learning from incidents is not the same as being publicly blamed for them. The industry has to accept that silence is not a safety strategy.
CHIRP’s value lies in the confidentiality that surrounds the process. According to Paul, when a report is submitted, identifying details are removed before the material reaches the advisory board. Even he, as chair of that board, does not know the name of the vessel, the crew member, or the specifics that could identify those involved.
That is not a minor procedural point. It is central to why the programme can work. In an industry where vessels can be highly recognisable and networks are tight, anonymity is not optional. It is the foundation that allows people to share what happened without fear that they will be traced back to a yacht, a captain, a department, or a job.
The lesson is what matters, not the gossip, not the blame, and not the identity of the person involved.
The Difference Between Whistleblowing And Shared Learning
The language around safety matters because language shapes whether people feel invited into a process or threatened by it. Paul is careful about words such as reporting and whistleblowing. Even though reporting sits inside the CHIRP acronym, he prefers to frame the process as sharing.
That may sound like a small distinction, but in yachting it is important. Whistleblowing can feel adversarial. It suggests exposure, conflict, and consequences. Sharing creates a different frame. It suggests that someone has experienced something, seen something, learned something, and wants others to benefit from that knowledge.
That is a much healthier starting point for superyacht safety.
Most crew do not want to get someone in trouble. They want to know that what they have seen is being taken seriously, and they want to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else. They want to be able to say that something happened, that something nearly happened, or that something could happen if everyone keeps doing it the same way.
In a sector where crew often move between vessels, cultures, programmes, and management styles, that shared learning has real value. One yacht’s near miss can become another yacht’s avoided accident.
The Everyday Risks That Keep Reappearing
The most powerful safety conversations are often not about dramatic disasters. They are about the routine tasks that become dangerous because they are repeated so often that people stop questioning them.
Paul identifies tender operations, anchoring and mooring, and working aloft as three of the strongest themes appearing through CHIRP’s superyacht reports. That list will not surprise many people who have worked in the sector. Tender operations can quickly become casual, particularly when they are part of daily guest movement. Mooring and anchoring involve pressure, coordination, equipment, timing, and communication. Working aloft can place crew in exposed positions where a small mistake has serious consequences.
The concern is not that yacht crew do not care. Many care deeply. The concern is that unsafe practice can become normal if nothing bad happens for long enough.
This is what Paul refers to as the normalisation of deviation, and it is one of the most important ideas in the conversation. A bad practice can continue for months or years without consequence. Because nobody has been injured yet, the practice begins to feel acceptable, until one day the same decision, the same shortcut, or the same missing control produces a very different outcome.
In yachting, this can be as simple as not wearing a kill cord in a tender, treating life jackets as optional for crew, or accepting exposed work on slippery surfaces because that is how it has always been done. The danger is not always hidden. Sometimes it is visible to everyone, but normalised by repetition.
Why Good Captains Matter
The conversation around safety can easily become negative, as though the industry is full of careless operators and resistant senior crew. That is not the full picture, and it is not the tone Paul brings to the subject.
There are many captains, chief officers, engineers, bosuns, interior leaders, and management teams working hard to improve standards onboard. There are senior crew who take responsibility seriously, who would rather disappoint crew than allow a dangerous situation to continue, and who understand that leadership includes saying no when it matters.
That positive side is important because change does not happen through criticism alone. Superyacht safety improves when good practice becomes visible, normal, and expected. It improves when crew see senior people wearing the right equipment, stopping unsafe work, asking better questions, and inviting feedback without punishing the person who gives it.
A strong safety culture is not created by a sentence in a manual. It is created by daily behaviour. Paul makes a simple but sharp point about trust: you can tell crew a hundred times that you want them to speak up, but if the first person who raises a concern is dismissed, embarrassed, or ignored, the culture is broken in that moment.
People remember what happens when someone actually tests the system.
Fresh Eyes Can See What Routine Hides
One of the most useful parts of the discussion is the idea that familiarity can become a risk in itself. When people do the same job every day, they can stop seeing the small decisions around it. The process becomes automatic, not because the crew are careless, but because they are human.
Fresh eyes matter.
A new crew member, a visiting trainer, a management representative, or someone from another department may notice something that has become invisible to the people doing the job every day. That can be uncomfortable, especially in a hierarchical environment where junior crew may not feel confident questioning established practice, but discomfort is not always a bad thing.
Paul gives an example from his own career, where a procedure involving safety wires had continued simply because it had always been done that way. It took someone else asking why the wires were being removed to reveal that the equipment and process had changed, and the old method was no longer necessary.
That is exactly the kind of lesson yachting needs to capture. Not because one person was foolish, but because systems drift. Equipment changes. Habits remain. Unless people are willing to ask why, outdated practices can carry on long after their original reason has disappeared.
CHIRP As A Practical Tool Onboard
The strongest argument for CHIRP is not theoretical. It is practical.
A captain, chief officer, chief engineer, purser, bosun, or department head can take a CHIRP report, print it, bring it into the crew mess, and start a conversation. No expensive training package is required. No blame has to be assigned. No one onboard has to admit to making the same mistake.
The question can be simple: could this happen here?
That is a powerful way to bring superyacht safety into everyday crew life. For yachts with strong training budgets, CHIRP can support existing safety work. For yachts with limited resources, it can provide a practical starting point for discussions that might otherwise not happen. It is not a replacement for formal training, but it can make safety more present, more accessible, and more connected to real situations.
There is real value in learning from something that happened elsewhere, especially when the report has been anonymised enough that the focus remains on the lesson. As Paul says through the conversation, no one has enough time to make all the mistakes themselves.
That line should sit heavily with the industry. Waiting for every yacht to learn through its own accidents is not only inefficient. It is dangerous.
The Culture Question Yachting Cannot Avoid
At the heart of the entire discussion is culture. Safety culture is not what a yacht says it believes. It is what people are allowed to do, what they are stopped from doing, what they are praised for, what they are mocked for, and what happens when someone raises a concern.
It is whether a junior deckhand can say they are uncomfortable. It is whether a stew can question a task that feels unsafe. It is whether an engineer can stop a job. It is whether a chief officer is willing to listen when a new crew member asks why something is being done in a particular way.
Culture is built through repetition, not slogans.
That makes it difficult work. It is slow, often thankless, and easy to damage, but it is also where the most meaningful change happens. Superyacht safety will not improve only because the industry produces more rules. It will improve when the people onboard yachts feel able to share, question, learn, and act before a serious incident forces the conversation.
CHIRP gives the sector a structure for doing that. It gives crew a confidential route to share lessons, gives captains and senior crew a practical resource for onboard discussion, and gives the industry a way to learn from near misses, unsafe habits, and real experience without turning every story into a scandal.
That is why the programme matters.
The future of superyacht safety is not only about preventing accidents after they happen. It is about creating an industry mature enough to learn before they do.
Comments