The RISQ (RightShip Inspection Ship Questionnaire) is the standard RightShip inspectors work through on dry bulk and general cargo vessels. Version 3.2, published in November 2025, runs to 17 sections covering everything from certification to ship-to-ship transfer. This guide walks through what each section verifies and where findings actually land.
What is the RISQ and who uses it?
The RISQ is the questionnaire behind the physical RightShip inspection, the dry bulk world's closest equivalent to the tanker industry's SIRE regime. An accredited inspector spends a working day aboard, currently 14.1 hours on average for a standard inspection by RightShip's own figures, verifying the vessel's condition, the safety management system behind it, and whether the crew can demonstrate both.
Charterers and cargo owners do not read the RISQ itself; they read its consequences. The inspection result feeds the vessel's Safety Score, and for ageing tonnage an acceptable inspection is what keeps the score off the floor, as explained in our guide to the RightShip Safety Score. Since RightShip lowered its inspection age trigger, every dry bulk vessel of 11 years or older needs one, so the questionnaire now shapes the working life of a large share of the world fleet.
What changed in RISQ 3.2?
Refinement rather than upheaval. RightShip's November 2025 deep dive on the revision counts more than 150 adjustments across the questionnaire, including the consolidation or removal of around 30 questions, which it says takes about two hours off the inspection. The changes were shaped by input from 22 maritime associations and over 240 individual submissions, and they concentrate on training, navigation, ISM processes, machinery space operations, pollution prevention, cargo management and mooring.
Two structural points, both verifiable in the document itself. A new cargo subsection, 8F, covers heavy lift operations. And a dedicated section on RightShip's enhanced training requirements now sits ahead of the questionnaire, setting out accepted training approaches and pointing to IMO model courses where they exist. One correction to a widely repeated claim: the RISQ 3.2 revision history shows the ship-to-ship and ammonia fuel sections were added in version 3.1, back in May 2024, not in 3.2. What 3.2 did was rework what was already there.
What does each chapter cover?
The section list below is taken from the RISQ 3.2 document published by RightShip. Sections 7 and 8 apply by vessel configuration and cargo, so no single ship faces all of them.
| Section | Area | What the inspector verifies |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | General information | Vessel particulars, statutory certificates, survey status, class records |
| 2 | Certification and personnel management | Crew certificates, manning, familiarisation, drug and alcohol policy |
| 3 | Navigation | Passage planning, bridge management, ECDIS and radar use, master's standing orders |
| 4 | ISM system | The SMS in daily use: drills, permits to work, enclosed space entry, incident review |
| 5 | Pollution prevention and control | MARPOL compliance, Oil Record Book, garbage management, bunkering practice |
| 6 | Ship's structure | Hull and ballast tank condition, coatings, structural survey follow-up |
| 7A to 7D | Fuel management | Oil, and where fitted LNG, methanol or ammonia: procedures, changeover, bunkering |
| 8A to 8F | Cargo operation | By type: solid bulk, grain, general cargo, containers, self-unloading transshipment, heavy lift |
| 9A, 9B | Hatch covers, lifting appliances, gantry cranes | Weathertightness, testing regimes, crane and loose gear maintenance |
| 10 | Mooring operations | Line condition and certificates, winches, snap-back zones, MEG4 alignment |
| 11 | Radio and communication | GMDSS equipment, reserve power, radio log |
| 12 | Security | ISPS compliance, access control, security drills |
| 13 | Machinery space | Engine room condition, leaks, bilges, hot surface insulation, spares, UMS routines |
| 14 | General appearance, hull and superstructure | Decks, walkways, ladders, accommodation, external condition |
| 15 | Health and welfare of seafarers | Living conditions, food and water, rest hours, mental health provisions |
| 16 | Ice or polar water operations | Polar Code compliance where the trading pattern requires it |
| 17 | Ship to ship operation | STS transfer planning, equipment and roles (added in RISQ 3.1) |
Reading the table as a checklist misses how the inspection works. The inspector does not audit paper section by section; they cross-check. A permit-to-work answer in section 4 gets tested against what the engineers say in section 13, and a hatch cover maintenance record in 9A gets tested against the state of the rubber seals.
Which chapters draw the most findings on bulk carriers?
RightShip's own validity criteria answer this indirectly but clearly: clusters of low and medium risk findings in navigation (section 3) and machinery space (section 13) can be counted so that every fourth finding weighs like a single high risk one. RightShip does not apply that arithmetic to sections where findings are rare. Those two sections, in other words, are where its data shows problems concentrate.
The pattern matches what RightShip reported from its 2025 inspection programme of nearly 5,000 inspections: the recurring high risk items are enclosed space entry procedures, lifesaving and firefighting equipment, hatch cover condition, machinery space readiness and pilot ladder arrangements. RightShip has said average findings per inspection are falling as its guidance gets adopted on board; its matrix still draws the line at 23 low and medium risk findings, which is why that number keeps appearing in RightShip's validity matrix. A bulk carrier that boards the inspector with its engine room housekeeping, bridge procedures and hatch covers in demonstrable order has addressed the bulk of the statistical risk.
What documentation should be ready before the inspector boards?
Everything the questionnaire cites, in a form someone can produce within a minute or two of being asked. The inspector's day is long and a document hunt reads as a system failure, whatever the document eventually says. Before boarding, have ready:
- Statutory and class certificates with survey status, plus dual-class details where applicable
- Planned maintenance records for critical equipment, current and consistent with its actual condition
- Drill records, permit-to-work files and enclosed space entry records that match the logbook
- Mooring line certificates and line data sheets, winch brake test records
- Oil Record Book and bunkering records aligned with each other
- Hours of rest records that survive comparison with the deck and engine logs
- Previous PSC reports with close-out evidence, and the last RightShip report with its corrective actions
- Training records against the RISQ enhanced training requirements
The last two items decide more than operators expect. Repeat findings from a previous inspection count against validity, so evidence that the last report's items stayed fixed is worth as much as any certificate.
How does RISQ differ from SIRE 2.0?
They share a philosophy and differ in mechanics. Both look past certificates to whether the safety system works and whether the crew can demonstrate it. But SIRE 2.0 generates a vessel-specific question set from a larger library for each inspection, while the RISQ is one published questionnaire; a bulk carrier operator can read every question in advance, which makes thorough preparation a choice rather than a gamble. SIRE 2.0 also grades observations across hardware, procedures and human factors in a structured report, where the RISQ produces a findings list that drives validity and the Safety Score. Tanker operators can see the other side of that comparison in our guide to preparing for a SIRE 2.0 CVIQ inspection.
The practical consequence of an open questionnaire is blunt: every RISQ finding was knowable in advance. The gap between the ships that clear inspections comfortably and the ships that do not is rarely knowledge. It is whether anyone checked all 17 sections against reality before the inspector did, and could prove it.