Tougher self-inspection pays off under SIRE 2.0, according to Kaiko Systems

Tanker crews that take a more rigorous approach to self-inspection before SIRE 2.0 inspections are seeing better results, according to maritime technology provider Kaiko Systems. The company examined around 1,300 SIRE 2.0 inspection reports from 25 fleets, with data spanning inspections from late 2024 to August 2026. The vessels that excelled were not necessarily those with the fewest issues, but rather those where the crews identified more problems themselves, covered more SIRE 2.0 questions, and resolved findings before the inspection.

On average, vessels that prepared thoroughly recorded 2.9 observations per inspection, compared to an industry benchmark of 5.2. Crews that raised 60 or more findings before inspection had 22% fewer observations than those who raised fewer findings, and 30% fewer than vessels that didn't prepare at all. However, the sheer number of findings alone wasn't the key factor.

Vessels that completed at least 80% of the SIRE 2.0 question set saw 31% fewer observations, while less than 50% completion showed no measurable benefit. The timing and thoroughness of preparation also mattered. Starting preparations at least three to six weeks before inspection and closing at least 75% of self-raised findings was associated with 13% fewer observations.

Starting preparation three months or more out from inspection didn't yield the same results. Kaiko Systems' Co-Founder and CEO, Fabian Fussek, notes that the data contradicts the notion that a long defect list is inherently negative. Instead, it suggests that crews are looking hard enough to find problems before the inspector arrives.

The issue is not about the number of findings, but whether the preparation is thorough enough to identify problems early and resolve them properly. The analysis also found that repeat findings were common, with one in four observations having already been raised on the same vessel. Only ten out of roughly 300 SIRE 2.0 questions accounted for 40% of all observations.

Persistent weaknesses included officers' safety inspections of deck and machinery spaces, and the Harmonised Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (HVPQ) was a recurring problem, not matching the vessel in one quarter of inspections and appearing on four in ten vessels where it had been raised before. Fussek emphasizes that repeat observations should be viewed as process issues rather than just close-out issues.

He advises that if the same observation keeps returning, operators need to examine why their vessel's routines failed to identify it earlier. Kaiko Systems concludes that the data suggests a clear preparation model: begin around four weeks before inspection, cover at least 80% of the question set, and aim to close as many findings as possible before the inspection.