The Complete SIRE 2.0 Guide

This guide compiles everything in IMT's free SIRE 2.0 Learning Path — ten lessons' worth of inspection mechanics, human factors, scoring, campaign logic, and readiness planning — into one comprehensive reference. It's built for anyone who wants the full picture in a single read, rather than lesson by lesson, and for anyone returning to check a specific detail before an inspection.

What SIRE 2.0 Is, and What It Replaced

In September 2024, OCIMF permanently retired VIQ7 — the fixed-checklist inspection questionnaire that had governed tanker vetting for over a decade — and replaced it with SIRE 2.0, OCIMF's Ship Inspection Report Programme in its current, fully digitised generation. The shift wasn't cosmetic. SIRE 2.0 assesses a vessel across three distinct dimensions: Hardware (the physical condition and function of equipment), Procedures (whether documented processes are actually followed), and Human Factors (why performance varies even when procedures and equipment are both sound). VIQ7 was built around a static list of questions every vessel answered the same way; SIRE 2.0 generates a unique question set for every single inspection.

That last point matters more than it first appears. A crew that memorises last year's inspection questions, or a sister ship's recent CVIQ, gains almost no protection against the next inspection — because the system isn't designed to repeat.

How the CVIQ Is Actually Built

The Compiled Vessel Inspection Questionnaire (CVIQ) is the bespoke question set OCIMF's system generates for each individual inspection, typically drawing around 100 questions from a much larger central library. Four selection categories drive that process:

• Core questions — appear in roughly half of all inspections, covering fundamental safety and compliance areas.
• Rotational questions — cycle in on a pattern (roughly every third or fourth inspection for "Rotational 1," about every sixth for "Rotational 2"), so the same rotational question won't necessarily reappear next time.
• Campaign questions — Rotational questions temporarily elevated to mandatory status fleet-wide, in response to a specific, time-limited OCIMF focus area (more on this below).
• Conditional questions — triggered by something specific about the vessel itself, such as a declared specialist survey or a particular cargo type.

Because of this mix, two sister vessels inspected the same month may share some Core questions but are very unlikely to receive an identical CVIQ overall. Preparation has to be built around genuine competence across Hardware, Procedures, and Human Factors — not around predicting specific questions.

The Human Factors Dimension and the Nine PIFs

Human Factors is the dimension that most differs from older inspection regimes. Rather than asking whether a procedure exists, it asks why a competent crew's performance varied on a given day — and it does so through nine defined Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs): safety criticality recognition, custom and practice, procedure accessibility, team communication, stress and fatigue, morale, competence, ergonomics, and human-machine interface.

A PIF observation is not a mark against a named individual. Inspectors reference rank groupings, and PIFs are tagged whenever a rating lands at either extreme — "Exceeds Expectations" as well as "Not as Expected" — which means the system also captures what's working well, not only what's failing. Several PIFs, like ergonomics or interface design, describe conditions the operator controls rather than individual skill, so a well-trained crew can still generate a Human Factors observation tied to something outside their control.

Observation Ratings: How Inspectors Score What They See

SIRE 2.0 replaced VIQ7's binary pass/fail logic with a four-tier performance rating scale: Exceeds Expectations, As Expected, Largely as Expected, and Not as Expected. A rating below "As Expected" doesn't automatically mean a serious failure — "Largely as Expected" indicates a minor weakness that doesn't compromise safety, while "Not as Expected" signals a more significant gap. Disputing a rating effectively means citing specific evidence the inspector may have missed, not simply asserting that the crew is generally competent.

Context matters to how a rating lands: whether a task was being performed for the first time, whether fatigue or a recent equipment change played a role, and so on. Proactively documenting that context during the inspection — not after the report is issued — is one of the more effective things a crew can do.

Campaign Questions: How OCIMF Elevates a Focus Area Fleet-Wide

A Campaign Question is an existing Rotational question temporarily elevated to mandatory status across every inspection, in response to a specific safety concern OCIMF has identified. The clearest recent example is the Focused Inspection Campaign launched in October 2025 around ship hardening and access control (Question 7.2.1), which ran for a minimum of six months with an interim review scheduled for February 2026. Because campaigns apply to every vessel simultaneously, briefing needs to be fleet-wide — briefing only the vessel currently due for inspection misses the point of how campaigns work. Tracking active OCIMF campaigns directly, rather than waiting for an inspector to raise one, is the most reliable way to stay ahead of them.

Common Findings, and What They Usually Trace Back To

Early SIRE 2.0 inspection data repeatedly flagged the same handful of gaps: defect and requisition reporting (Question 2.4.1) and enclosed space entry familiarity (Question 5.5.1) among the most common. Root cause analysis on findings like these consistently traces back to the same pattern — a documentation or training gap upstream, not a one-off lapse. A missing requisition, for example, is often traced to a gap in onboarding briefing rather than individual carelessness, and the corrective action that actually prevents recurrence targets the onboarding process itself, not just a reminder to the crew member involved.

Best Practices: Daily Habits That Prevent Findings

Two sister ships with an identical SMS can still produce very different SIRE 2.0 results, because daily habits — not documentation — are what an inspection actually surfaces. Some of the most consistent differentiators: honest uncertainty ("I'd need to check" rather than a guess) when a crew member isn't sure of an answer; weekly (not just pre-inspection) permit-to-work reconciliation; and visible housekeeping standards, since an inspector's initial impression tends to set the tone and scrutiny level for everything that follows.

Building a Complete Readiness Plan

Effective preparation follows a timeline: a full documentation and SMS review at 30 days out, internal verification of high-risk areas at 14 days, crew interview rehearsal and drill completion at 7 days, and a final evidence check at 48 hours. Crew interview preparation works best when it targets genuine understanding rather than memorised answers — auditors and SIRE 2.0 inspectors alike are testing whether someone can connect a procedure to a real, recent example, not whether they can recite the procedure itself. After the inspection, findings should be logged and classified immediately, root cause analysis assigned before the crew involved rotates off, and any fleet-wide implication briefed — closing the loop rather than treating a passed inspection as the end of the process.

Continuous Improvement: Staying Ready Long-Term

SIRE 2.0 itself keeps evolving — OCIMF continuously aggregates inspection data, runs new Focused Inspection Campaigns, and revises guidance over time — so treating readiness as a one-time project rather than an ongoing discipline means falling behind as the regime moves. The underlying cycle is simple: Inspect, Analyse, Correct, Train, Verify, Improve. Fleets that stop at "Inspect, Analyse, Correct" tend to see the same findings resurface, because the "Train, Verify, Improve" half of the cycle is what actually changes outcomes. Tracking a handful of real KPIs — open findings, drill frequency, corrective action closure time, and near-miss reporting (a rising trend is a healthy sign, not a red flag) — turns that discipline into something measurable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Continue Reading: The Full Learning Path

• Lesson 1: SIRE 2.0 Explained
• Lesson 2: CVIQ Explained
• Lesson 3: Human Factors & PIF
• Lesson 4: Observation Ratings & Performance Assessment
• Lesson 5: Campaign Questions
• Lesson 6: Preparing for a SIRE 2.0 Inspection
• Lesson 7: Common Inspection Findings
• Lesson 8: Best Practices for Ship Staff
• Lesson 9: Complete Vessel Readiness Plan
• Lesson 10: The Future of SIRE 2.0 & Continuous Improvement
• Browse the Full Resource Library (33 downloads) →
• Take the Final Assessment →