f o Te c A s e a s


Towards mandatory testing for pleasure craft? The question regularly comes up in French boating debates between manufacturers, authorities and users, without ever reaching a consensus. Between logistical constraints, cost and the reality of risk, the hypothesis of a generalized technical inspection raises more doubts than promises.


The issue of compulsory technical inspections for pleasure boats occasionally comes up in public and professional debate, particularly following incidents involving older boats, but also in a bid to rid ports of sump boats. As far back as 2014, a draft decree provided for an inspection of vital equipment, from rigging to motorization to safety devices. However, this attempt was never implemented, due to the lack of an appropriate logistical organization on a national scale. The industry had neither the territorial coverage nor the technical structure to implement it.


This measure, often compared to that of the automotive sector, raises several fundamental questions: can we, and should we, transpose a periodic verification system to a nautical world where uses are highly varied and seasonal?


THE REPORT | SEP 2025 | ISSUE 113 | 93 Safety and environmental issues often highlighted


The introduction of a technical inspection for pleasure craft is intended to address a number of concerns. First and foremost, user safety remains the main argument for the competent authorities. If the figures put forward by the BEA Mer are to be believed, a proportion of accidents at sea involve ageing craft, often built in polyester, whose state of preservation is rarely checked. The other argument frequently cited concerns the environment.


Some believe that monitoring engines and fuel systems would make it possible to limit diffuse pollution, notably fuel leaks or polluting emissions from obsolete engines. Finally, some industry players advocate harmonization with other modes of transport, believing that a clear framework would enhance the transparency of the second-hand market.


by Maxime Leriche i e c n F r a c e p t


p h n i n a n c e : a b i l i t y


l s c a ? a f


s b


a d a e n o


u l i


i l b e


t


r i


o n


i e


c e


e


t


n sp t w


e t s n


a i


k


e a


b y


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136