6 May 2026 · 9 min read
12 questions every owner should ask before signing an AV/IT scope.
Twelve questions to ask before committing to a yard or integrator AV/IT specification. They apply whether the proposal is from a large integrator, a yard's standard package, or a boutique specialist — and none of them require the owner to be a network engineer.
Each question is followed by a note on why it matters and what a good answer looks like. All of them can be answered in plain language — and the absence of an answer is itself a finding.
01
What is the use case, and was the technology chosen to fit it?
Specifications written from a vendor catalogue and specifications written from a use case look different. The first lists products. The second describes how the owner family, charter guests, and crew will use the vessel — and only then names the products that serve that.
The defensible answer is a one-page use-case narrative that comes before the bill of materials. If there isn't one, the products are leading the design.
02
Who designed the system, and who is being paid to install it?
On most yachts, the firm specifying the AV/IT system is also the firm being awarded the install. That isn't malpractice — it's the industry's structural norm. But it does mean that gold-plating, vendor-locked choices, and overspecified racks are not financially neutral to the firm writing the spec.
The defensible answer is to confirm whether anyone independent of the install has reviewed the design. An independent integrator audit answers exactly this.
03
What does the network look like, end to end?
Lighting, shades, AV, IPTV, navigation, security, satcom, and OT systems all share the vessel's network. The question to ask is not which switches are being installed — it's how the network is segmented, how the OT/IT boundary is enforced, and how guest, crew, and vessel traffic are kept apart.
The defensible answer includes a topology diagram, a VLAN plan, and a written explanation of the segmentation policy. Bullet points on a slide do not count.
04
How is satcom redundancy actually handled?
Starlink as primary, VSAT as backup, and cellular as last resort is now the default stack — but the answer to "and what does failover look like at sea?" separates a real design from a brochure. Are sessions held? Does crew traffic preempt guest traffic during outage? Is the failover automatic, scripted, or manual?
The defensible answer describes priorities, deterministic behaviour, and what the owner sees on screen during a satcom event.
05
What is the cybersecurity posture at delivery?
It is not unusual for a vessel to be delivered with default credentials still active on OT kit, an open management plane on a VLAN, or an undocumented remote-access tool. Owners tend to notice only after an incident.
The defensible answer is a written cybersecurity posture: firewall rules in default-deny, no shared credentials, remote access via a single audited path, and a CVE management process for the kit being installed. If the integrator cannot describe the posture in writing, it has not been designed.
06
How are guest, crew, and vessel networks separated?
"Guest Wi-Fi is on its own VLAN" is a sentence integrators use freely. The follow-up is whether crew devices, AV control surfaces, and OT systems are equally separated, and whether the firewall between them is configured to actually enforce that.
The defensible answer is a segmentation matrix — who can reach what, on which port, and under which conditions — signed off as part of commissioning.
07
What does the system look like in five years?
Crestron processor generations turn over. Kaleidescape's optical-disc business is no longer the centre of gravity. Satcom hardware has a hardware refresh cycle independent of subscription terms. The question is whether the integrator has accounted for the lifecycle of the kit being specified, or whether it has simply been priced for delivery.
The defensible answer flags forced replacements within five years and prices the implication.
08
What is in scope, what is out of scope, and where do the extras live?
Cabling within racks vs cabling to racks. Programming hours included vs additional programming days. Spare ports for future expansion vs spare ports priced as a variation. Most disputes during a build trace back to a scope boundary that was not explicit when the contract was signed.
The defensible answer is a written exclusions list, not a verbal one. A pre-contract scope validation exists to catch exactly these.
09
What does commissioning actually demonstrate?
FAT, HAT, and SAT are acronyms, not assurances. The question is what each of them measures, against what acceptance criteria, signed off by whom, and what triggers rejection. "All systems tested and working" is not an acceptance criterion.
The defensible answer is a commissioning matrix — system, test, expected result, evidence captured, sign-off — agreed before the test rather than after it.
10
How does the AV/IT scope tie into the other yard packages?
Bridge integration, lighting control, HVAC monitoring, security, NMEA gateways — every one of these is a contractual interface between the AV/IT package and another package. Where the interface is undocumented, the cost lands on the owner during commissioning.
The defensible answer is an interface register: which signal flows between which two packages, at which protocol, and which package owns the integration test.
11
Who provides aftercare, and at what cost?
A retainer with a four-hour first-response SLA, a retainer with a next-business-day SLA, and an incident-only model are three very different commercial commitments. Travel, accommodation, and engineer-rate clauses materially change the real cost. None of this is unusual; it just needs to be on paper.
The defensible answer is a written aftercare agreement covering response, resolution, escalation, travel terms, and the conditions under which the integrator is or is not on the hook.
12
What documentation will be delivered, and to whom?
As-built drawings. Network maps. Credentials and recovery procedures. OEM service agreements. Source code or programming files. Backup configurations. Without these in the owner's possession at delivery, the owner is captive to the integrator for everything from a warranty fix to a future refit.
The defensible answer is a documentation manifest in the contract — what is delivered, in what format, and to whom — with sign-off as part of the final acceptance milestone.
When to bring in independent help.
If the integrator answers most of the twelve in writing, the scope is in good shape. If the answers are verbal, partial, or absent, the scope is being held together by trust rather than contract.
For owners and family offices commissioning a new build or major refit, an independent AV/IT scope validation works through these questions on behalf of the owner team. For owners who have already signed and want a read on the integrator's work in flight, an integrator audit covers the same territory across drawings and commissioning. For buyers acquiring an existing yacht, a pre-purchase AV/IT survey applies the same rigour to what was already installed.
Author
Noel Pope is the founder of Kelvin Marine Technology. Over a decade in technology — qualified electro-technical officer and skilled AV/IT specialist on superyachts up to 160m+, including new-build commissioning. MCA ETO (III/6 Unlimited).