Ship operators, inspectors and vetting bodies confront SIRE 2.0’s cultural, operational, and workload implications
The implementation of SIRE 2.0 is structurally reshaping the experience of ship operators and inspectors alike, altering established patterns of vessel vetting and significantly expanding both onboard and shoreside workloads.
The structural change is the shift from a fixed checklist model to a dynamic, risk-based inspection system in which human factors, procedural rigour and real-time crew behaviour are scrutinised alongside technical compliance.
“The most important change,” observed InterMaritime ShipManagement fleet manager, Capt Ashley Fernandes, “is that inspectors now evaluate not only the vessel’s condition but also crew performance, adherence to best practices, and the effectiveness of the company’s management system.” He noted that inspectors now expect crew to demonstrate practical understanding, not merely compliance, placing behavioural assessment at the heart of inspections.
The change in the inspection experience has been profound. “We went from a fixed checklist to a dynamic, audit-based system,” Capt Fernandes said. The new model’s complexity is reflected in the guidance documentation: where the former VIQ 7 guidance consisted of approximately 179 pages, SIRE 2.0 guidance extends to nearly 1,300 pages.
Ship operators were compelled to undertake extensive gap analyses of existing systems and procedures. Capt Fernandes described how InterMaritime, like many operators, was in the midst of simplifying its procedures when SIRE 2.0 demanded an immediate expansion. “The changes had to be communicated to the fleet, crew trained, and implementation monitored – all while maintaining daily operations,” he stated.
The operational burden extends beyond procedural updates. The new regime necessitates extensive photographic documentation, real-time digital reporting, and significantly greater shoreside support. “We soon realised we would need additional resources ashore,” Capt Fernandes confirmed, noting that vetting preparation is now a year-round activity requiring continuous documentation management and staff engagement.
The impact on crew has also been material. Capt Fernandes highlighted the anxieties provoked by the interview-led inspection format. “When the crew heard they were going to be interviewed, their first question was, ‘What will they ask us?’” he recalled. Though the operational knowledge existed, the confidence to articulate procedures under scrutiny needed deliberate cultivation.
John T. Essberger’s SSHEQ manager, Niall Mushet, echoed these concerns, underlining that while inspection outcomes are improving with familiarity, early experiences were daunting. “Initially, it was, ‘Oh no, this is going to be a challenge,’” he said. Mr Mushet detailed how pre-inspection preparation time has doubled, driven by the exhaustive nature of the pre-inspection questionnaire (PIQ) and the volume of documentation now required.
