An analysis of around 1,300 SIRE 2.0 inspection reports from 25 fleets has found that vessels whose crews carried out more thorough self-inspections recorded fewer observations during subsequent inspections.
The analysis by maritime technology provider Kaiko Systems covers inspections conducted from late 2024 to August 2026. It found that the strongest-performing vessels were not necessarily those with the fewest deficiencies, but those where crews identified more issues themselves, covered more of the SIRE 2.0 question set and closed findings before the inspection.
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 those raising fewer findings, and 30% fewer than vessels carrying out no preparation.
Coverage of the inspection questions was also significant. Vessels completing at least 80% of the SIRE 2.0 question set recorded 31% fewer observations, while preparation covering less than 50% showed no measurable benefit.
The timing and close-out of findings also affected results. 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.
“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,” said Fabian Fussek, Co-Founder and CEO of Kaiko Systems.
“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 identified recurring findings, with one in four observations having previously been raised on the same vessel. 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) was a common source of findings. 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.
The analysis indicates that preparation should begin around four weeks before inspection, cover at least 80% of the question set and focus on closing findings before the inspection.
