GENERAL OVERVIEW
This report outlines an overview of the data collected from 2025. For the period 1 January 2025 – 31 December 2025, 108 Members have been participating, uploading a total of 7,241 Reports.
The number of average negative observations is 5.24, which marks an improvement over 2024 (for the period 2 September 2024 – 31 December 2024 the average was 6.33). There is also a significant increase in the number of positive observations (from an average of 0.27 in 2024 to 0.88 in 2025).
TANKER WISE REPORTS AND NEGATIVE, POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS
The number of reports uploaded per tanker type for the period 1 January – 31 December 2025 is as follows:
· Oil Tankers: 2,425 reports
· Oil Product / Chemical Tankers: 2,865 reports
· LNG Carriers: 685 reports
· Gas carriers (other than LNG): 725 reports
· Chemical Tankers: 541 reports
A graph showing the average number of negative and positive observations per tanker type has been reproduced below:
2025 HARDWARE, PROCESS, HUMAN
In 2024 when SIRE 2.0 was initially launched, the number of negative observations in the “process” category resulted in the highest number of Negative Observations (39%), with human-related observations making up 32%.
In 2025, human observations resulted in the highest number of negative observations at 37%, with process-related observations reducing to 31%. Hardware-related observations represented 27% of negative observations, with photos accounting for the remaining 5%.
CVIQ CHAPTERWISE NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS
The average number of negative observations per CVIQ Chapter are shown in the graph below:
CVIQ CH 5- SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A further breakdown of Chapter 5 (Safety Management) which has the highest number of negative observations overall is shown below:
TOP 10 NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS IN 2025
- 5.8.1 – Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the main deck areas, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment? 9.42 %
- 5.8.2- Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the machinery spaces, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment? 6.92%
- 2.8.1 – Was the OCIMF Harmonised Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (HVPQ) available through the OCIMF SIRE Programme database completed accurately to reflect the structure, outfitting, management and certification of the vessel? 5.59%
- 2.4.1- Were the senior officers familiar with the company procedure for reporting defects to vessel structure, machinery and equipment to shore-based management through the company defect reporting system and was evidence available to demonstrate that all defects had been reported accordingly? 4.00%
- 2.1.1- Were the Master and senior officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the vessel’s statutory certification up to date, were all certificates and documents carried onboard up to date and was the vessel free of conditions of class or significant memoranda? 2.97%
- 9.1.1 – Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for the testing and correct operation of the mooring winch brakes, and were records available to demonstrate that brakes had been tested periodically, after maintenance or when there was evidence of premature brake slippage? 2.55%
- 2.2.1 Had the Vessel been attended by a Company Superintendent at approximately six-monthly intervals and were reports available to demonstrate that a systematic vessel inspection had been completed during each attendance declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire? 2.46%
- 5.8.5 – Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the forecastle, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment? 2.34%
- 3.5.1- Had the company developed an effective familiarisation programme that covered the personal safety and professional responsibilities of all onboard personnel, including visitors and contractors, and were records available to demonstrate that the familiarisation had been completed as required? 2.20%
- 8.99.2 – Were the Master and all officers with a direct responsibility for cargo, tank cleaning or ballast operations familiar with the requirements of the ISGOTT Ship/Shore Safety Checklist (SSSCL) and, were appropriate sections of the SSSCL in use with all applicable provisions and agreements maintained throughout? 1.81%
CONCLUSION
- SMS Gap Analysis Many company Safety Management Systems (SMS) are still outdated and not fully aligned with the latest industry requirements — particularly the SIRE 2.0 inspection framework. Regular gap analysis helps ensure your SMS remains current, compliant, and inspection-ready.
- SIRE 2.0 Training A common challenge across the industry is limited awareness among both shipboard and office staff regarding SIRE 2.0 processes — including document uploading, inspection preparation, and effective performance during inspections. Proper training enhances confidence, compliance, and inspection outcomes.
- Pre-Vetting Inspection Identifying hidden or latent weak barriers onboard before an official SIRE 2.0 inspection is critical. Pre-vetting inspections help detect gaps early, strengthen operational readiness, and significantly improve inspection performance.
MARINERS UPDATE’S Professional Services:
• SMS Gap Analysis
• Pre-Vetting / SIRE Preparation Inspections
• SIRE 2.0 Training & Awareness Programs
• Maritime Audit & Compliance Support
📩 Contact Us Today:
🌐 Website: www.marinersupdate.com
📧 Email: mu@marinersupdate.com
📞 +91 7200 163 695
Stay Safe. Stay Compliant. Stay Inspection-Ready.
#SIRE20 #MaritimeSafety #ShippingIndustry #TankerIndustry #MarineCompliance #ShipManagement #OCIMF #Seafarers #MarineAudit #VesselInspection #SIRETraining #MaritimeTraining #ShippingSafety #GlobalShipping #MaritimeProfessionals #VetttingInspection #MarineConsultancy