SIRE 2.0 and the CVIQ: what changed and how to prepare

SIRE 2.0 is the biggest change to tanker vetting in a generation. OCIMF moved its Ship Inspection Report Programme from a fixed, paper-style questionnaire to a digital, risk-based inspection delivered on a tablet, with photographic evidence and a sharper focus on the crew. For operators, the preparation that worked under the old VIQ no longer matches what an inspector now does on board.

This guide explains what actually changed, what the inspector does differently, and how the office and the crew should prepare for the compiled questionnaire, the CVIQ.

What SIRE 2.0 changed

The old SIRE inspection ran from the Vessel Inspection Questionnaire, a largely fixed list every ship answered the same way. SIRE 2.0 replaces that with a question library and a risk-based, compiled questionnaire: the set of questions a given vessel faces is assembled from its type, configuration, age, and inspection history, so no two inspections are identical. The inspector works from a tablet, records structured responses, and captures photographs as evidence against individual questions.

One guardrail worth stating plainly: SIRE produces no public letter grade or score. Anyone promising to lift your SIRE rating is selling something that does not exist. The output is an inspection report that charterers read as part of their own vetting decision.

Every question has three legs: hardware, process, human

SIRE 2.0 questions are built to be answered across three dimensions. A single item may ask whether the equipment is present and working (hardware), whether a procedure governs its use (process), and whether the crew member responsible can actually demonstrate it (human). A ship can pass on hardware and still draw an observation because the officer could not show the procedure in practice. Preparing only the equipment, the way many crews prepared for the old VIQ, leaves two thirds of each question untouched.

The inspection is photographed

Because the inspector now captures photographic evidence on the tablet, the condition of the ship is documented in a way it was not before. That cuts both ways. A well-kept space photographs well and supports your record. A deferred repair or an untidy compartment is now captured rather than described. The implication for preparation is direct: the vessel should be in inspection condition, and your own photo record of that condition should be current, not a set of images from the last cycle.

The crew is now central

The human element runs through SIRE 2.0. Inspectors assess whether the right crew member can operate equipment, explain the relevant procedure, and show familiarity with the ship's own systems. This rewards crews who have genuinely walked the questions beforehand and exposes those who have only tidied the deck. Brief the officers responsible for each area on the questions that touch their domain, and have them demonstrate, not just describe.

How the office should prepare

The work that moves the needle happens before the inspector boards:

• Know the vessel-specific question set. Because the CVIQ is compiled per vessel, preparation should follow the questions this ship will actually face, not a generic checklist.
• Keep the photo record current. A pre-inspection walk-through that captures each relevant item, with date and location, gives you a live picture of inspection condition and something to compare against last cycle.
• Close the gaps you find. The value of a pre-vetting walk-through is the time it buys: fix the item, photograph the fix, and resolve it before the inspector arrives.
• Make status visible ashore. A fleet operator should be able to see pre-vetting status across vessels, not wait for a phone call from the ship.

This is the loop Fleetward is built for on the tanker side: structure the pre-vetting walk-through against the right questions, keep the photo record current for the CVIQ, and surface the items most likely to draw an observation so the crew can close them first.

After the report: the operator comment window

SIRE 2.0 gives the operator a window to review the report and add comments before it is published to charterers. This is where pre-inspection documentation earns its place. SIRE disputes are not argued away later; they are addressed in the moment on board, and the operator comment is strengthened when your team can point to its own dated, located evidence of the item's condition. Documentation does not change a finding. It lets you respond to it from a position of record rather than memory.

The honest limit

No tool, and no preparation, can remove a finding once it is in a SIRE report, and tamper-evident photos are a trust feature, not a claim of legally admissible evidence. What good preparation does is keep findings off the report in the first place, arm the captain for the live discussion during the inspection, and give your office a clean record for the operator comment and any later reassessment. On a question-led, photographed, crew-tested inspection, the operators who prepare the whole question, hardware, process, and human, are the ones who come out ahead.