Between a chock and a hard place

Re-checking garage, crane and tender lifting compliance under the new IMO regime

The introduction of the updated IMO lifting appliance framework for SOLAS vessels, now being actively applied by flag and class surveyors, has caught out a number of yachts. This does not mean existing equipment was inherently unsafe, but tender lifting systems are now being examined through a much stricter compliance and documentation lens.

For many crews and managers, the challenge is understanding how this is applied in practice and where the real risks sit. 

This article aims to provide a practical checklist across the full tender-handling system, from crane-head to chocks, so issues can be identified early rather than during an inspection which could lead to costly changes and delays to the yacht’s cruising programme.

1. What has changed and when it applies

From 1 January 2026, flag states are enforcing SOLAS II-1/3-13 using IMO guidance MSC.1/Circ.1663. In simple terms:

• Tender cranes are now treated strictly as lifting appliances

• All equipment used with them is scrutinised as part of the lifting system

• Surveyors are focusing on documented certification, traceability and consistency, not just hardware strength

There is no blanket requirement to have retrofitted everything by 1 January 2026. In practice, the new interpretation is applied at the vessel’s next flag or recognised organisation inspection. This is when issues could potentially surface.

It is important to distinguish commercial SOLAS yachts from private or non-SOLAS vessels, as the regulatory trigger is certification status, not simply yacht size.

The updated IMO lifting appliance framework formally applies to vessels subject to SOLAS, which in practice includes:

• Commercially certified yachts

• Yachts subject to flag and/or recognised organisation surveys of lifting appliances

• Yachts with cranes and lifting gear entered in a lifting appliance register

For these yachts, the guidance is being actively applied during flag and class inspections.

For commercial yachts under 500 GT, while they may not be full SOLAS vessels, many are still subject to:

• Commercial yacht codes

• Flag state lifting appliance requirements

• Class rules for cranes and davits

In practice, surveyors are applying the same lifting appliance principles to these yachts, particularly where cranes are permanently installed and used for tender handling.

For private yachts not certified for commercial use, the situation is different:

• The IMO guidance does not automatically apply

• There is usually no mandatory SOLAS lifting appliance survey regime

• Enforcement depends on flag state policy, class notation (if any), and insurer requirements

That said, many private yachts voluntarily follow the same standards as commercial vessels and some flags and class societies will still expect lifting appliances to align with recognised best practice.

Key takeaway:

If a yacht is commercially certified and subject to flag or class surveys of lifting gear, the new IMO lifting appliance framework is likely to be applied, regardless of GT.

2. The crane is the anchor point for everything

The single most important thing to establish early is what is the Safe Working Load (SWL) per hoist line as defined by the crane manufacturer. This can be misunderstood.

Many systems show:

• a combined system SWL (for example fore and aft garage beams added together)

• and a lower SWL per individual beam or hoist line

Surveyors will ultimately expect:

• hooks, shackles and rope terminations to match the hoist line SWL, not assumptions about load sharing

• documentation from the crane manufacturer confirming this

Without that crane manufacturer confirmation, surveyors may default to the highest marked SWL, which can force oversized hardware and cause headroom problems in garages.

3. Hooks and shackles: strength is not enough

A common inspection failure is perfectly strong hardware being rejected.

Key points:

• Sailing and deck-type hardware are no longer accepted, regardless of breaking strength

• Hooks and shackles must be certified for lifting operations

• They must be traceable, marked with Working Load Limit/Safe Working Load and supported by proof test certificates

• They must be suitable for overhead lifting and inclusion in the yacht’s lifting appliance register

This is where yachts can be caught out having to replace hooks because they were not in the correct certification category.

4. Rope diameter, breaking load and splices

For non man-riding tender cranes:

• Rope diameter is specified by the crane manufacturer

• Flag state does not independently set rope size or safety factor

• Rope and termination must comply with the crane manufacturer OEM specification and be certified

Breaking load versus working load needs to be understood:

• The crane SWL governs what may be lifted

• The rope’s breaking load and splice efficiency provide the safety margin

• Modern ropes typically have very high margins relative to crane SWL

What surveyors now want to see:

• certification of the rope

• certification of the termination or splice

• confirmation that the termination has not significantly reduced strength

• inclusion of the hoist rope as a fixed part of the crane system, not loose gear

A destructive test certificate on the rope plus splice is extremely strong evidence.

5. A note on man-riding cranes

It is important to distinguish between tender handling cranes and man-riding (personnel lifting) cranes. 

The increased scrutiny under the IMO framework does not mean that tender cranes are now being treated as man-riding equipment. Man-riding remains a separate category with significantly higher requirements, including higher factors of safety, redundancy, secondary fall protection and specific approval for lifting personnel.

For avoidance of doubt:

• the points discussed here apply to non man-riding tender cranes

• the relevant SWL, rope, hook and certification requirements are those defined by the crane manufacturer and verified by flag and class

• man-riding factors of safety and redundancy requirements only apply where personnel are lifted

Confusing the two can lead to unnecessary over-specification and practical problems, particularly in garage headroom and crane geometry.

6. Headroom and lifting geometry: where problems can become expensive

The regulatory focus has exposed a hidden design issue on many yachts: garage headroom.

If hooks, shackles or blocks are upsized to satisfy certification, the vertical lifting ‘stack’ could increase. This can lead to:

• insufficient lift height to clear chocks

• inability to safely launch or recover tenders

• last-minute pressure to modify cranes

Key contributors to headroom loss:

• increased hook geometry

• longer rope terminations or splices

• oversized shackles

• conservative crane upper limits

• high chock keel heights

• tender lifting loops or deck fittings

This is where compliance can become a complex systems problem rather than a simple hardware change.

7. Chocks: part of the lifting system

Chocks are rarely considered part of lifting compliance, but they directly affect whether a tender can be safely lifted clear.

Points to review:

• keel height above deck when in chocks

• clearance required to lift over folded or retractable elements

• number and width of chocks and load distribution

• retractable 'non-safe' outboard supports and how they are deployed

The correct chock height can be the difference between a working and compliant system and a non-starter.

8. Deck lifting points and strops

Surveyors are also increasingly looking at the whole load path, including the tender itself.

Points to check:

• deck lifting points are structural and properly backed

• soft strops or loops are certified or part of an engineered system

• presentation height above deck is minimised but usable

• crew can connect and disconnect safely with minimal slack and snatch risk

Operational reality matters as surveyors are aware that tender recovery is the highest-risk moment in real-world, at-sea conditions.

9. Documentation is as important as hardware

A compliant system can still fail inspection if paperwork does not align.

Crews should ensure:

• all lifting items appear in the lifting appliance register

• certificates and maker’s plates match what is physically installed

• serial numbers can be cross-checked

• inspection intervals and rejection criteria are defined

• fixed crane components are not treated as loose gear

Inspection delays could also come from documentation gaps rather than unsafe equipment.

10. Practical advice for crews and managers

While Cayman has been one of the first flags to apply this rigorously, this is not a Cayman-only issue. The underlying requirements come from IMO SOLAS II-1/3-13 and associated guidance, which apply to all SOLAS flag states.

Other flags and class societies are moving in the same direction as inspections, renewals and lifting equipment surveys come due. This means that relying on legacy practice or undocumented hardware is increasingly risky regardless of flag.

Before your next inspection, if not done so already:

• confirm SWL per crane hoist line from the manufacturer

• review hook and shackle certification, not just strength

• confirm rope diameter and termination match the crane spec

• measure the available lifting height

• look at chock height and retractable elements

• make sure paperwork and equipment maker’s plates reflect reality

The new IMO framework is focused on making undocumented lifting systems accountable. For crews and managers, this is the time to review the entire tender-handling chain and fix weak points before they become inspection findings. 

Doing this avoids rushed decisions, unnecessary cost and operational downtime - otherwise you could end up in between a chock and a hard place!