Maritime analysis. Real-time insight.

RightShip Guide

THE DEEPDRAFT · RIGHTSHIP PREPARATION

PMS, condition monitoring and spares

RISQ 13.11Section 13 · Machinery SpaceSource marking: V & M

Applicability: Apply to the vessel’s machinery, certification and operating arrangements; retain the equipment-specific conditions in each question.

What is being checked

An implemented PMS supports maintenance, shore oversight and critical spares.

Ready on board

0 / 7 checked

Check the vessel’s actual procedures, equipment and records against these points from RISQ 3.2.

Have a computer-based PMS with officers/engineers trained and familiar, and evidence of vessel-manager data exchange.Include equipment inventory, maker requirements, intervals, work instructions, completed-job results/history, trend records, document flow and signing responsibilities in the crew’s working language and/or English.Provide individual user credentials, adequate backups and controlled update authority for the Chief Engineer or authorised personnel.Where under a Class-approved maintenance/condition-monitoring scheme, have applicable approval and PMS-version type-approval evidence.For CBM/CBO, document scope/strategy, required inspections and records, maker instructions/service letters, overhaul predictions and active shore review.Retain sufficient spares for unexpected overhaul despite condition monitoring; maintain a critical-spares list and minimum quantities.Address recommended risk-based safety-critical spares management, use of original spares where possible, proper storage and team training; verify specifications when sourcing from OEMs rather than the machinery supplier.

Practice questions

Preparation prompts derived from this entry, not an official inspector interview script.

1Does the source consistently describe the required data-transfer frequency?

No. It states an explicit finding for lack of almost-real-time automatic feed, while later describing automatic or manual import/export when required. Preserve and clarify that source conflict.

Where a finding may arise

Explicit RISQ triggers: no computer-based PMS; officers/engineers unfamiliar with the software and without familiarisation training; or inability to provide the stated almost-real-time automatic data feed to the manager. The later automatic/manual exchange wording is inconsistent and requires clarification, not silent reinterpretation.

Past observations for practice

Anonymised reports, manually reviewed before publication. These are reported experiences, not additional inspection requirements.

No reviewed observations have been added for this entry.

Share an observation for private review

Remove vessel, company and inspector names, report numbers, exact dates and confidential information. Do not paste a complete inspection report.

Source clarification

The source calls computer-based PMS recommended but explicitly directs findings for its absence. Its broader paper-or-software discussion does not remove that RISQ trigger. Approval provisions depend on the Class scheme; no new software brand, sync interval or spares quantity is invented.

References and source status

RightShip Inspection Ship Questionnaire, November 2025, version 3.2. Section 13, page 200–201, reference 13.11.

The explanation, checklist and practice answer derive from the supplied questionnaire. Reported observations are separately contributed and manually reviewed; they are not official RISQ guidance.

Independent DeepDraft preparation guide, based on the supplied RISQ 3.2 questionnaire. Not an official RightShip product or inspection report.