Why digital tanker vetting still depends on current knowledge, clear communication, and sound operational judgement.
Digital Vetting Still Needs Human Competence
OCIMF launched SIRE 2.0 as a major step forward in tanker vetting, with digital tools, structured observations, risk modelling, and wider use of inspection data. But the system has also exposed a basic weakness: digital tools cannot compensate for weak operational interpretation.
On a recent inspection of a Japanese tanker, some observations appeared outdated and technically questionable. The concern was not merely administrative. It involved basic operational concepts, including the Master’s command during pilotage and the interpretation of ECDIS display layers. The problem was not the ship or crew but the inspection itself.
The Pilotage Question
One inspection observation referred to the “conn” not being handed over to the pilot. That wording needs careful handling because it can create unnecessary confusion between conn, command, pilotage advice, and navigational responsibility.
IMO Resolution A.960, Annex 2, clearly states: “The master, and not the pilot, is at all times in command of the ship. The pilot is an adviser.” Likewise, STCW Code Section A-VIII/2, Part 3-1, paragraph 34, requires that the officer of the watch must “retain responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship” even when a pilot is on board.
The issue, therefore, is not whether the pilot is actively conducting pilotage. The issue is whether inspection wording should imply a formal transfer of command or responsibility to the pilot. The Master retains command, the pilot provides advice, and the bridge team continues its monitoring and navigational duties.
In practical bridge records, the clearer wording is usually simple: “MPX completed and pilotage duties commenced.” That records the operational fact without creating confusion over command.
I have discussed this wider distinction separately here:
ECDIS Observations Need Technical Context
A similar concern appeared in the interpretation of ECDIS use. The observation concerned chart layers not being changed between coastal and open-sea navigation, without sufficient recognition that ECDIS presentation depends on scale, selected display settings, ENC data, safety parameters, company procedures, and the phase of navigation.
The base layer is fixed while optional layers are at the officer’s discretion and company policy. If this context is missed, the resulting observation may become unfair, reduce crew confidence, and weaken trust in the inspection process.
A further problem arises when guidance is repeated without enough operational context or flexibility. When challenged, the discussion can become rigid, poorly communicated, and less constructive than a professional inspection should be.
A practical example is SCAMIN, where misunderstanding is not limited to navigating officers. At times, inspectors also struggle to separate equipment behavior, company procedure and phase-of-navigation judgement, which is why I discussed the issue separately here.
Communication Is Part of Competence
This is a direct violation of SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 14, which explicitly requires that “officers and ratings forming part of a navigational watch shall be able to communicate effectively in the English language” for the exchange of essential information regarding ship safety. The ISM Code likewise emphasizes effective communication and mutual understanding as the foundation of safe operations.
SIRE 2.0’s promise of collaborative evaluation is weakened if inspectors cannot communicate observations clearly, accurately, and professionally in the working language of the inspection. At the very least, inspectors should meet a formal communication standard appropriate to the working language of the inspection, similar to the communication expectations already placed on seafarers.
Reading this as a maritime insider, seafarer, or enthusiast?
Subscribe to The DeepDraft for maritime analysis, daily SITREP updates, weekly briefings, and operational signals worth watching.
Guidance Is Only as Good as Its Application
The responsibility for closing this gap ultimately sits with OCIMF and the wider vetting system. Some guidance notes and inspection interpretations appear to leave room for ambiguity, particularly around pilotage terminology, ECDIS presentation, and the difference between company procedure, equipment capability, and regulatory requirement. OCIMF must urgently audit and overhaul these documents. Without fixing guidance, inspector errors will persist.
Moreover, inspector competency needs more visible and rigorous quality control. While seafarers face continuous training, revalidations, and assessments, inspectors , some who have not sailed for decades, operate without any formal knowledge verification, feedback, or accountability. This imbalance weakens confidence in the SIRE regime.
OCIMF must enforce formal inspector evaluations after every inspection. Continuing professional development should be mandatory, covering regulatory updates, ECDIS operation, and essential communication skills. English proficiency testing must be strictly enforced on vessels where English is the operational language.
The Standard Must Apply Both Ways
If seafarers are held to high standards of competence and communication, inspectors must be no exception. The credibility of SIRE 2.0 depends on inspectors who truly understand current regulations, master modern navigation technology, and engage constructively with crews, not on checklist application without proper operational understanding.
Until these issues are addressed, SIRE 2.0 risks becoming a highly structured digital process weakened by outdated interpretation and uneven inspection quality.
The Risk to SIRE 2.0 Credibility
SIRE 2.0 will be judged not only by its digital structure, but by the competence of the people applying it. If seafarers are expected to demonstrate current knowledge, clear communication, and operational discipline, inspectors must meet the same standard. Digital vetting can only work when the human judgement behind it is equally strong.
Editorial note:
This article was first published in September 2025 and has been lightly refreshed for formatting, internal references, and clarity. The central argument remains unchanged.
Leave a Reply