SIRE 2.0 Checklist

Vetting Success

• Comprehensive SIRE 2.0 inspection preparation ensures tanker vessels meet industry vetting standards, demonstrates operational competence to charterers, and maintains terminal access rights. Systematic verification of cargo operations, safety management, and pollution prevention systems ensures successful vetting inspections and supports commercial vessel operations in competitive tanker markets.

Operational Excellence

• SIRE 2.0 inspection readiness verifies crew familiarity with company procedures, confirms equipment functionality and maintenance status, and ensures emergency preparedness across all vessel systems. Regular self-assessment using SIRE 2.0 standards identifies deficiencies before external inspections, supports continuous improvement, and maintains high operational standards for safe tanker operations.

Regulatory Compliance

• Systematic SIRE 2.0 preparation ensures compliance with ISM Code, MARPOL, SOLAS, and international tanker safety standards, verifies certification and documentation currency, and confirms crew competencies meet STCW requirements. Proper compliance verification prevents port state control detentions, supports classification society surveys, and maintains vessel regulatory standing.

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of the inert gas system, and had the inert gas system been used in accordance with ISGOTT guidance, with cargo tanks maintained in an inert condition at all times, except when it was necessary to be gas-free for entry?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures and international regulations for the planning, preparation, conduct and documentation of crude oil washing operations (COW), and was the COW system in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures for each COW operation?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the isolation of individual cargo tanks from the common venting system in accordance with SOLAS, and were these procedures being followed?
• Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for planning and documenting cargo tank cleaning operations after the carriage of volatile products, and had these procedures been followed?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose and operation of the connections and interconnections to the inert gas system for routine and emergency inert gas operations, and were these arrangements in satisfactory condition and clearly identified as to their purpose?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for cargo heating, and was the cargo heating system in satisfactory condition and tested and used in accordance with the company procedure?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for managing on-board doping operations, and had these procedures been complied with?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the maintenance, testing and calibration of the cargo temperature monitoring equipment, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for managing cargo and vapour connections at the cargo manifolds, and were the manifold arrangements in satisfactory condition?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe operation and maintenance of the cargo heaters, vaporisers and condensers, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the filling limits (FL) and loading limits (LL) for the cargo tanks, and was this information readily available in the cargo control room or position?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the vent mast fire suppression system, and was the system in satisfactory condition?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for detecting water leakage into hold or insulation spaces and for dealing with any water or liquid cargo that may have accumulated in these spaces?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation of the submerged motor electric cargo pumps and the testing of their associated safety devices and alarms, and had these procedures been followed?

• 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?
• 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?
• Were recent ISM internal audit reports available on board, had corrective action been taken on board to close-out any non-conformities and had this corrective action been verified by shore management?
• Was the Master fully conversant with the company’s Safety Management System and had Master’s Reviews of the system taken place in accordance with the ISM Code and company procedures?

• Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for detecting leakage of liquids between cargo, bunker, ballast, void and cofferdam spaces, which included inspecting the surface of ballast water prior to discharge and, were records available to show that the necessary checks had been performed?
• Had the vessel been enrolled in a Classification Society Condition Assessment Program (CAP)?
• 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?
• Where defects existed to the vessel’s structure, machinery or equipment, had the vessel operator notified class, flag and/or the authorities in the port of arrival, as appropriate to the circumstances, and had short term certificates, waivers, exemptions and/or permissions to proceed the voyage been issued where necessary?

• Were the Master and senior officers familiar with the contents and requirements of the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and had these been fully implemented?
• Was the relevant content of the SMS manuals easily accessible to all personnel on board in a working language(s) understood by them?
• Did the SMS identify clear levels of authority and lines of communication between the Master, ship's officers, ratings and the company, and were all onboard personnel familiar with these arrangements as they related to their position?
• 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?
• Were records of the most recent Port State Control inspection available onboard, and where deficiencies had been recorded had these been corrected and closed out in accordance with the company procedure for defects or non-conformities?

• Were the officers and ratings suitably qualified to serve onboard the vessel and did the officer matrix posted on the OCIMF website accurately reflect the qualifications, experience and English Language capabilities of the officers onboard at the time of the inspection?
• Were procedures and instructions contained within the Safety Management System and signs posted around the vessel available in the designated working language of the vessel or a language(s) understood by the crew and, were the Master, officers and ratings able to communicate verbally in the designated working language?
• Did the complement of officers and ratings onboard at the time of inspection meet or exceed the requirements of the Minimum Safe Manning Document and the declared company standard manning for routine operations, and had senior officers been relieved to ensure continuity of operational knowledge?
• Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a static navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

• Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a comprehensive engineering audit by a suitable qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire?
• Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a comprehensive mooring and anchoring audit by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?
• Had the vessel operator implemented a Behavioural Competency Assessment Programme onboard and was there evidence available that assessments were being conducted for navigation, cargo, mooring and engineering operations by approved assessors?
• Had the Master and all navigation officers attended a shore-based Bridge Team Management training course within the previous five years?
• Had the Master received formal ship handling training prior to promotion or when being assigned to a new type of ship having significantly different handling characteristics to ships in which they had recently served?

• Had the Master, officers and ratings received the required training and familiarisation before being assigned duties related to handling LNG or other low-flashpoint fuel?
• Was there an effective system in place to record and monitor the hours of rest for all personnel onboard in compliance with STCW, MLC or the regulatory requirements applicable to the vessel?
• Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the company policy and procedures for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and had unannounced drug and alcohol testing taken place onboard in accordance with the policy?
• Had the company developed an effective familiarization programmed that covered the personal safety and professional responsibilities of all onboard personnel, including visitors and contractors, and were records available to demonstrate that the familiarization had been completed as required?
• Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the ship’s lifesaving and fire extinguishing appliances and, had ongoing onboard training and instruction taken place to maintain familiarity?

• Had the Chief Engineer prepared Standing Orders, supplemented by Daily Orders, which emphasised and reinforced the company expectations with regards to engine room management and, if so, had all engineer officers signed to acknowledge their understanding of the same?
• Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for testing main propulsion, steering gear, thrusters and power generation plant prior to use and at critical points during a voyage or operation, and were checklists and log book entries completed as required?
• Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with company procedures for periodic rounds and monitoring of the machinery space, and were log book entries and checklists available to confirm that the rounds had been completed as required?

• Was suitable deck insulation provided to the front and rear of electrical switchboards, and was it in good order?
• Were the engineer officers familiar with the purpose and setting of the insulation monitoring devices provided on the primary and secondary distribution system, and were the distribution switchboards free of significant earth faults?
• Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for safe entry into the machinery space(s) during UMS operation, including the operation and testing of the dead man alarm, if fitted?
• Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the operation of the engineers’ alarm, and was the alarm in good order, tested regularly and the results recorded?

• Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for bunker fuel oil sampling and analysis, and were records available to demonstrate that samples had been taken and retained or analyzed in accordance with the procedure?
• Were the Chief Engineer and senior engineer officers familiar with the company and vessel specific fuel changeover procedures, and were records available to demonstrate that fuel grade changeovers had been completed in compliance with the procedures and MARPOL regulations?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the LNG fuel tank water-spray system for cooling and fire prevention on deck, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

• Where the vessel traded in polar waters, had the Master, Chief Mate and officers in charge of a navigational watch undertaken the additional training required by the Polar Code?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the life-saving and fire-fighting systems and equipment in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the engine room machinery and systems in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the cargo and ballast systems in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the deck machinery, including mooring systems, in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for navigating in areas affected by ice, and had they received suitable training?

• Was security threat and risk assessment an integral part of voyage planning, and did the passage plan contain security related information for each leg of the voyage?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for hardening the vessel when entering areas of increased security risk, and was there a Vessel Hardening Plan (VHP) available?

• Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures to control access to the vessel in port and to ensure the safety of visitors, and were these procedures effectively implemented?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with regional maritime security reporting requirements and operation of the ship security alert system (SSAS) and had this equipment been regularly tested?

• Did the Ship Security Officer (SSO) have a valid Certificate of Proficiency and a full understanding of their role, and were ship security records of port calls being maintained as required by SOLAS?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for cyber security risk management, and had these procedures been fully implemented?

• 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?
• Was the vessel satisfactorily moored in accordance with both the terminal mooring plan and the mooring configurations permitted by the vessel’s Mooring System Management Plan?
• Did all mooring lines, mooring tails and joining shackles, including those carried as spares, meet industry guidelines?

• Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for anchoring operations, and were records available to confirm that recent anchoring operations had been conducted in compliance with company expectations?
• Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedure that defined mooring team supervision and composition for the various mooring and anchoring operations likely to be undertaken, and was evidence available that each mooring work space had been supervised and manned in accordance with company expectations?
• Were the appropriate industry checklists used during STS operations, and were comprehensive records of these operations maintained?

• Were the Master, officers and deck ratings familiar with the vessel’s STS Operations Plan?
• Were the vapour collection system manifold arrangements suitable for hose handling at buoy moorings?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for mooring at an SPM or F(P)SO and were the fittings required accurately described in the HVPQ?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the set up and operation of the ECDIS units fitted to the vessel and were records available to demonstrate that the ECDIS had been operated in accordance with company procedures at all stages of a voyage?
• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for managing and operating the radar ARPA units fitted to the vessel, and were records available to demonstrate that the units had been operated and tested in accordance with company procedures?
• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for operating and testing the steering control systems fitted to the vessel and were records available to demonstrate that operation and testing had been carried out in accordance with the procedures?

• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation and testing of the VHF/DSC transceivers fitted to the vessel, and were records available to demonstrate that periodic tests and checks had been completed in accordance with company expectations?
• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for testing and using the daylight signaling lamp?
• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the use and testing of the sound signalling equipment fitted to the vessel and were records available to confirm that periodic tests had been completed and the equipment used in accordance with company

• Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures to prevent disruption and distraction on the bridge, and were these procedures being complied with?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) and was the EPIRB in good order with records available to demonstrate that had it been inspected, tested and maintained as required?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the Search and Rescue Transmitters (SARTs), and were the SARTs in good order with records available to demonstrate that had they had been inspected and tested as required?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Cargo Record Book, and did the entries contained in the Cargo Record Book accurately record the cargo related operations required to be documented by MARPOL Annex II?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Oil Record Book Part II, and did the entries contained in the Oil Record Book Part II accurately record the cargo related operations required to be documented by MARPOL Annex I?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the arrangements to drain the cargo pumproom bilges in the event of flooding or accidental leakage, and were these arrangements in good order?
• Were cargo system overboard and sea suction valves checked and verified as closed and secured prior to commencement of cargo transfer, and where provided, were sea valve-testing arrangements in order and regularly monitored for leakage?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the emergency arrangements to pump out the machinery space bilges in the event of flooding, and were these arrangements prominently marked and in good order?
• Were the engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe use of the incinerator, and was the incinerator in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedure and in compliance with MARPOL?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the onboard emergency response plans, and were records available to demonstrate that all mandatory and company defined emergency drills had been completed and documented as required by company procedures?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plans for the principal fire scenarios for the vessel type, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the plans in accordance with the company procedures?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the vessel’s SOPEP or SMPEP, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the onboard emergency response actions required by the Plan and company procedures?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the fixed fire-extinguishing system in the vessel’s paint locker and any other flammable liquid locker, and was the system in good working order and available for immediate use?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the machinery space fixed water-based or equivalent local application fire-fighting system, and was the equipment in good working order and readily available for immediate use, with operating instructions clearly displayed at the control stations?
• Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose of the cargo, ballast and stripping pump temperature sensing devices, and was there evidence that alarm activation points had been correctly set and tested in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?

• Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation and maintenance of the oxygen sensors and associated alarms fitted in the space, or spaces, containing the inert gas system, and was the equipment fully operational with sensors calibrated and alarm activation points set in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?
• Had all onboard incidents been reported and investigated in accordance with company procedures, and was an incident investigation report or a summarised lessons learned bulletin available for each incident at or above a defined threshold?
• Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company incident and near-miss reporting procedure and was evidence available to demonstrate that incidents and near-misses had been investigated and closed out in accordance with the company procedure?