Analysis of 1,300 inspection reports finds vessels that identify more issues themselves record fewer observations when inspections take place

Tanker crews that inspect themselves more rigorously before SIRE 2.0 inspections are achieving better results, according to analysis by maritime technology provider, Kaiko Systems. The company reviewed around 1,300 SIRE 2.0 inspection reports from 25 fleets, covering inspections from late 2024 to August 2026.

The strongest-performing vessels were not necessarily those with the fewest deficiencies but the ones whose crews found more issues themselves, covered more of the SIRE 2.0 questions and closed findings before inspection.

Overall, vessels completing thorough preparation averaged 2.9 observations per inspection, compared with an industry benchmark of 5.2. Crews raising 60 or more findings before inspection recorded 22% fewer observations than crews raising fewer findings, and 30% fewer than vessels carrying out no preparation. However, the number of findings alone was not the determining factor.

Vessels completing at least 80% of the SIRE 2.0 question set recorded 31% fewer observations, while preparation below 50% completion showed no measurable benefit. This suggests that partial preparation may create activity without delivering the same improvement in inspection outcomes. How well and how early vessels acted on their findings also made a difference. Closing at least 75% of self-raised findings was associated with 13% fewer observations, while preparation started three to six weeks before inspection delivered better results than preparation left open for three months or more.

Fabian Fussek, Co-Founder and CEO of Kaiko Systems, comments:

“The data challenges the idea that a long defect list is automatically a bad sign. In many cases, it shows the crew is looking hard enough to find problems before the inspector does. The issue is not how many findings a crew raises. It is whether the preparation is thorough enough to identify problems early and close them properly.”

The analysis also highlighted the persistence of repeat findings. One in four observations had previously been raised on the same vessel, while just ten of roughly 300 SIRE 2.0 questions accounted for 40% of all observations.

Recurring weaknesses included officers’ safety inspections of deck and machinery spaces, while the Harmonised Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (HVPQ) remained a common problem. The HVPQ did not match the vessel in one quarter of inspections and reappeared on four in ten vessels where the issue had previously been raised.

Mr Fussek says that repeat observations should be treated as a process issue rather than simply a close-out issue.

“If the same observation keeps returning, fixing the item is not enough. Operators need to ask why the vessel’s own routines failed to identify it earlier. SIRE 2.0 is testing more than vessel condition. It is testing the quality of the systems and routines used to maintain that condition.”

Kaiko Systems says the data points to a clear preparation model. Start around four weeks before inspection, cover at least 80% of the question set and close as many findings as possible before the inspection.