Sire 2.0 Guidance

• Site conducted

  Select

• Conducted on

  Date

• Prepared by

• Location
  Address

• Vessel Name

• IMO Number

• Company IMO N.

• Previous Name

• Flag

• Has The flag been changed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• What was the previous flag ?

• Port of registry

• Call Sign

• What is the Type of ship as described in Form A or Form B of the IOPPC

• Type Of Hull

• Name of P&I Club

• EEDI Rating Number

Certification & Documentation

• 2.1.1 Were the Master and senior officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the vessel’s statutory certification up to date, were all certificates and documents carried onboard up to date and was the vessel free of conditions of class or significant memoranda?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.2.1 Had the vessel been attended by a company Superintendent at approximately six-monthly intervals and were reports available to demonstrate that a systematic vessel inspection had been completed during each attendance declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.2.2 Were recent ISM internal audit reports available on board, had corrective action been taken on board to close-out any non-conformities and had this corrective action been verified by shore management?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.2.3 Was the Master fully conversant with the company’s Safety Management System and had Master’s Reviews of the system taken place in accordance with the ISM Code and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.3.1 Were the Master and Chief Engineer familiar with the company procedure to maintain the Enhanced Survey File in accordance with Classification Society rules, and was the vessel free of any visible or documentary evidence of concerns with the structural condition of the hull or cargo and ballast tank coatings?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.3.2 Were the Master and Chief Engineer familiar with the company procedure to maintain the Class Survey File, and was the vessel free of any visible or documentary evidence of concerns with the structural condition of the hull or hold space and ballast tank coatings?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.3.3 Were the Master and senior officers familiar with the company cargo, ballast & void* space inspection and reporting procedure and, were records available to demonstrate that all inspections had been accomplished within the required time frame with reports completed in accordance with company instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.3.4 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for detecting leakage of liquids between cargo, bunker, ballast, void and cofferdam spaces, which included inspecting the surface of ballast water prior to discharge and, were records available to show that the necessary checks had been performed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.3.5 Had the vessel been enrolled in a Classification Society Condition Assessment Program (CAP)?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.4.1 Were the senior officers familiar with the company procedure for reporting defects to vessel structure, machinery and equipment to shore-based management through the company defect reporting system and was evidence available to demonstrate that all defects had been reported accordingly?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.4.2 Where defects existed to the vessel’s structure, machinery or equipment, had the vessel operator notified class, flag and/or the authorities in the port of arrival, as appropriate to the circumstances, and had short term certificates, waivers, exemptions and/or permissions to proceed the voyage been issued where necessary?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.5.1 Had the company Management of Change procedure been effectively implemented for changes affecting structure, machinery and equipment governed by Classification Society rules or statutory survey?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.6.1 Were the Master, deck officers and engineer officers familiar with the vessel’s Ballast Water Management Plan and were records available to demonstrate that ballast handling had been conducted in accordance with the plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.6.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the VOC Management Plan, and had the procedures for minimising VOC emissions set out in the Plan been implemented and documented as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.6.3 Were the Master and senior officers familiar with the contents and requirements of the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and had these been fully implemented?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.7.1 Was the relevant content of the SMS manuals easily accessible to all personnel on board in a working language(s) understood by them?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.7.2 Did the SMS identify clear levels of authority and lines of communication between the Master, ship's officers, ratings and the company, and were all onboard personnel familiar with these arrangements as they related to their position?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.8.1 Was the OCIMF Harmonised Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (HVPQ) available through the OCIMF SIRE Programme database completed accurately to reflect the structure, outfitting, management and certification of the vessel?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2.8.2 Were records of the most recent Port State Control inspection available onboard, and where deficiencies had been recorded had these been corrected and closed out in accordance with the company procedure for defects or non-conformities?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Crew Management

• 3.1.1 Were the officers and ratings suitably qualified to serve onboard the vessel and did the officer matrix posted on the OCIMF website accurately reflect the qualifications, experience and English Language capabilities of the officers onboard at the time of the inspection?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.1.2 Were procedures and instructions contained within the Safety Management System and signs posted around the vessel available in the designated working language of the vessel or a language(s) understood by the crew and, were the Master, officers and ratings able to communicate verbally in the designated working language?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.1.3 Did the complement of officers and ratings onboard at the time of inspection meet or exceed the requirements of the Minimum Safe Manning Document and the declared company standard manning for routine operations, and had senior officers been relieved to ensure continuity of operational knowledge?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.1 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a static navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.2 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed while on passage as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.3 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a dynamic navigational assessment by a suitably qualified specialist contractor had been completed while on passage as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.4 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that an unannounced remote navigational assessment, which included review of VDR & ECDIS data by an independent contractor or specialist company representative, had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.5 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a comprehensive cargo audit by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.6 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a comprehensive engineering audit by a suitable qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared in the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.7 Was a report available onboard which confirmed that a comprehensive mooring and anchoring audit by a suitably qualified and experienced company representative had been completed as declared through the pre-inspection questionnaire?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.2.8 Had the vessel operator implemented a Behavioural Competency Assessment Programme onboard and was there evidence available that assessments were being conducted for navigation, cargo, mooring and engineering operations by approved assessors?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.1 Had the Master and all navigation officers attended a shore-based Bridge Team Management training course within the previous five years?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.2 Had the Master received formal ship handling training prior to promotion or when being assigned to a new type of ship having significantly different handling characteristics to ships in which they had recently served?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.3 Had the Master, deck officers, and cargo/gas engineer where carried, attended a shore-based simulator course covering routine and emergency cargo operations within the previous five years?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.4 Had the Chief Engineer and all engineer officers attended a shore-based engine room management simulator course covering routine and emergency machinery operations within the previous five years?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.5 Did all key personnel onboard involved in Dynamically Positioned (DP) operations have appropriate training in accordance with IMO and International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) guidelines and local regulations applicable to the area of operations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.3.6 Had the Master, officers and ratings received the required training and familiarisation before being assigned duties related to handling LNG or other low-flashpoint fuel?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.4.1 Was there an effective system in place to record and monitor the hours of rest for all personnel onboard in compliance with STCW, MLC or the regulatory requirements applicable to the vessel?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.4.2 Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the company policy and procedures for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and had unannounced drug and alcohol testing taken place onboard in accordance with the policy?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.5.1 Had the company developed an effective familiarisation programme that covered the personal safety and professional responsibilities of all onboard personnel, including visitors and contractors, and were records available to demonstrate that the familiarisation had been completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.5.2 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the ship’s lifesaving and fire extinguishing appliances and, had ongoing onboard training and instruction taken place to maintain familiarity?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3.5.3 Had the Master and navigation officers been familiarised with the ECDIS equipment installed on board and were documented records of this familiarisation available?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Navigation & Communication

• 4.1.1 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the set up and operation of the ECDIS units fitted to the vessel and were records available to demonstrate that the ECDIS had been operated in accordance with company procedures at all stages of a voyage?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.2 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for managing and operating the radar ARPA units fitted to the vessel, and were records available to demonstrate that the units had been operated and tested in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.3 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for operating and testing the steering control systems fitted to the vessel and were records available to demonstrate that operation and testing had been carried out in accordance with the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.4 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for using the Automatic Identification System (AIS) fitted to the vessel and were records available to confirm that periodic checks and tests had been carried out in accordance with the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.5 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for the use of the Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System (BNWAS) and were records available to demonstrate that it had been operated and tested in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.6 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures governing the management and operation of the Global Navigation Satellite System(GNSS) receivers fitted onboard and was the fitted equipment configured, used and checked in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.7 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for operating and managing the echo sounder and were records maintained to demonstrate that the equipment fitted to the vessel had been tested and operated in accordance with the company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.8 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation and testing of the speed and distance measuring devices fitted to the vessel and were records available to demonstrate that periodic tests had been completed as required by the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.9 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the use and testing of the navigation lights and shapes, and was there evidence that the navigation lights had been tested to confirm full functionality and correct visibility?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.10 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for managing Marine Safety Information broadcasts by NAVTEX and SafetyNET and were warnings affecting the vessel’s route plotted on the voyage charts?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.11 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for preserving data from the VDR S-VDR and were records available to demonstrate that tests of the equipment had been completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.12 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures relating to the magnetic and gyro compasses carried onboard, and were records available to demonstrate their accuracy and reliability?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.13 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation and testing of the VHF/DSC transceivers fitted to the vessel, and were records available to demonstrate that periodic tests and checks had been completed in accordance with company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.14 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for testing and using the daylight signalling lamp?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.1.15 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for the use and testing of the sound signalling equipment fitted to the vessel and were records available to confirm that periodic tests had been completed and the equipment used in accordance with company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.1 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company passage planning procedures and had all voyages been appraised, planned, executed and monitored in accordance with company procedures, industry best practice and both local and international rules?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.2 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company under keel clearance (UKC) policy and procedure and were records available to demonstrate that the required calculations had been completed at the appropriate points during each voyage and the vessel had remained in compliance with the UKC policy?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.3 Had the Master prepared Master's Standing Orders, supplemented by Daily Orders, which emphasised and reinforced the company expectations with regards to navigational requirements including restricted visibility, CPA/BCR and minimum passing distance from navigational dangers and navigational aids and, if so, had all navigation officers signed to acknowledge their understanding of the same?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.5 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company paper chart management procedures and were onboard paper charts managed, corrected and used appropriately?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.6 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for testing the navigational equipment, main propulsion, steering gear and thrusters prior to use and prior to critical phases of a passage or operation and, did checklists or logbook entries confirm the required tests had been completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.2.7 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedure for the carriage and management of nautical publications and was evidence available to demonstrate that publications had been managed in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.3.1 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures defining the minimum bridge team composition and engine room operating mode and were records available to demonstrate that recent voyages had been planned and executed in accordance with company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.3.2 Were the engineer officers familiar with the company procedures defining machinery space operating mode and, where required to be attended, the machinery space team composition during the various stages of a voyage, and were records available to confirm the machinery space had been operated accordingly?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.3.3 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures for integrating a pilot (or similar role*) into the bridge team and were records available to demonstrate that the process had been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.3.4 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the company procedures to prevent disruption and distraction on the bridge, and were these procedures being complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) and was the EPIRB in good order with records available to demonstrate that had it been inspected, tested and maintained as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the Search and Rescue Transmitters (SARTs), and were the SARTs in good order with records available to demonstrate that had they had been inspected and tested as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the survival craft portable two-way VHF radios and were they in good order with records available to demonstrate that had they been inspected and tested as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.4 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the procedures for sending and receiving distress, urgency and safety messages and were suitable instructions posted by the GMDSS equipment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.5 Were the Master and navigation officers familiar with the operation, testing and maintenance of the GMDSS VHF, MF and HF radio and satellite communications equipment and were records available to demonstrate the equipment was in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.4.6 Were the Master, officers and crew aware of the potential danger of using radio or mobile telephone equipment during cargo and ballast handling operations and was there a sufficient number of intrinsically safe portable radios for use in operational areas?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.5.1 Was the latest Annual DP Trial report available on board, were the Master and officers familiar with the contents, and had they taken part in onboard training and drills involving various DP scenarios?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.5.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of Position Reference Systems (PRS), and was the equipment in satisfactory condition with sensor offset data readily available to the DPO?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.5.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for reporting and recording DP events and incidents, and were all DP parameters being logged and recorded?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.5.4 Was the vessel provided with a comprehensive DP operations manual and were the Master and officers familiar with its contents, including DP checklists, capability plots, consequence analysis and activity specific operating guidelines (ASOG)?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4.5.5 Were up to date Field Operations Manuals on board for each offshore terminal to which the vessel trades, were the Master and officers familiar with their content, and were records available of the regular communication checks with terminal installations as required by Field Specific Operating Guidelines (FSOG)?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Safety Management

• 5.1.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the onboard emergency response plans, and were records available to demonstrate that all mandatory and company defined emergency drills had been completed and documented as required by company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plans for the principal fire scenarios for the vessel type, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the plans in accordance with the company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the vessel’s SOPEP or SMPEP, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the onboard emergency response actions required by the Plan and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for enclosed space rescue, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.5 Were the Master and Ship Security Officer (SSO) familiar with the vessel’s Ship Security Plan (SSP), and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the measures and procedures specified by the Ship Security Plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.6 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the procedure for launching the lifeboat(s), and had abandon ship drills taken place in accordance with company procedures and the requirements of SOLAS and the Flag Administration?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for a cargo vapour or liquid release, Including potential fire, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.8 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for collision, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for grounding, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.10 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for loss of propulsion, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.11 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for failure of electrical power, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.12 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for steering gear failure, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures.

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.13 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plan for emergency towing, including the Emergency Towing Booklet (ETB), and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.14 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the shipboard emergency response plan for man overboard, including the launching and recovering the rescue boat, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.15 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the shipboard emergency response plan for recovery of persons from the water, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plan in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.16 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plans for flooding, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plans in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.17 Were the Master and officers familiar with the shipboard emergency plans regarding LNG bunker operations, and had drills taken place to test the effectiveness of the shipboard emergency response plans in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.18 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures setting out the actions to be taken in the event of a cargo leak into a double hull tank, and was all required equipment available and in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.1.19 Were the Master and officers familiar with the emergency arrangements to pump out the spaces forward of the collision bulkhead in the event of flooding and were these arrangements prominently marked and in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.1 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the starting procedure for the emergency fire pump, and were records available to demonstrate that the emergency fire pump and its location had been maintained and tested in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.2 Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the location, purpose, testing and operation of the vessel’s fire dampers, the means of closing the main inlets and outlets of all ventilation systems and the means of stopping the power ventilation systems from outside the space served?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fixed fire detection and fire alarm system, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fixed carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system, and was the equipment in good working order and available for immediate use, with the release procedure and operating instructions displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s machinery space fixed high-expansion foam fire extinguishing system, and was the equipment in good working order, available for immediate use, and with operating instructions clearly displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s machinery space fixed pressure water-spraying fire extinguishing system, and was the equipment in good working order and available for immediate use, with operating instructions clearly displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fire pumps, fire main, fire main isolating valves and fire hydrants, and was the system and its components in good working order and available for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.8 Were the Master, officers and galley staff familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the fixed and portable fire extinguishing systems provided in the galley, were the systems in good working order and available for immediate use, and were galley ranges, exhaust vents, filter cowls free of grease or combustible material?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the water-spray system for cooling, fire prevention and crew protection on deck, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.10 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the fixed fire extinguishing system installed within enclosed spaces containing cargo handling equipment, and was the equipment in good working order and available for immediate use, with the release procedure and operating instructions displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.11 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fixed dry chemical powder fire extinguishing system, and was the equipment in good working order and readily available for immediate use, with operating instructions clearly displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.12 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the fixed fire-extinguishing system in the vessel’s paint locker and any other flammable liquid locker, and was the system in good working order and available for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.13 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the machinery space fixed water-based or equivalent local application fire-fighting system, and was the equipment in good working order and readily available for immediate use, with operating instructions clearly displayed at the control stations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.14 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose of the cargo, ballast and stripping pump temperature sensing devices, and was there evidence that alarm activation points had been correctly set and tested in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.15 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the purpose and operation of the vessel’s deck foam system, including portable applicators, and was the system in good working order and available for immediate use, with operating instructions displayed at the control station?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.2.16 Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the location, purpose, testing and operation of the vessel’s fire doors?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.3.1 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the location and use of the vessel’s firefighter’s outfits including the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), and was the equipment maintained in good condition and ready for immediate use in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.3.2 Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fire hoses, nozzles and international shore connection, and was the equipment in good working order and available for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.3.3 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s portable fire extinguishers and, were the extinguishers in good order and readily available for immediate use with operating instructions clearly marked?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.3.4 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the location and purpose of the Emergency Escape Breathing Devices (EEBDs) carried on board, and were these devices in good order, suitably located and ready for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.3.5 Were the Master, officers and engine ratings familiar with the purpose and operation of the vessel’s wheeled (mobile) fire extinguishers, and was the equipment in good order and available for immediate use with operating instructions clearly marked?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the davit-launched lifeboats, release mechanisms and launching appliances, and were they in good order with records available to demonstrate that they had been inspected and tested as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the free-fall lifeboat, its release systems and its launching appliance, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition with records available to demonstrate that it had been inspected and tested in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the dedicated rescue boat and launching appliance, and were they in good order with records available to demonstrate that they had been inspected and tested as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.4 Were the Master and Officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the rocket parachute flares and line throwing appliances and were they in good order, with records available to demonstrate that had they had been inspected as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation of the liferafts, hydrostatic releases and liferaft launching appliances, where provided, and were they in good order with records available to demonstrate that they had been serviced, inspected and tested as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.6 Were the lifebuoys, and associated lights, smoke floats and lifelines, in good order, clearly marked and correctly distributed around the ship?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.7 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the immersion suits, and were the immersion suits in good order, readily accessible and their location(s) clearly indicated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.8 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the lifejackets and personal flotation devices (PFDs) provided on board, and was the equipment in good condition, and properly maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.4.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the periodic testing and maintenance of the emergency lighting system, was there evidence of periodic testing, and was the system in proper operating condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.1Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company enclosed space entry procedures, and was evidence available to demonstrate that all enclosed space entries had been made in strict compliance with the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.2 Were the Master, officers and, where directly involved, ratings familiar with the company hot work procedure, and was evidence available to demonstrate that hot work had been conducted in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.3 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedure for working at height, and was there evidence that risk control measures such as permits to work or documented risk assessments were consistently used whenever work was undertaken at height?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.4 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures for working over the side, and was there evidence that risk control measures such as standard work procedures, permits to work or documented risk assessments were consistently used whenever work was undertaken over the side?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for working on electrical equipment and systems, and was there evidence that risk control measures such as permits to work and/or documented risk assessments were consistently used whenever work was undertaken on electrical equipment and systems?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.5.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the control of hazardous energy, and was evidence available, through documented risk assessment or permits, that hazardous energy sources were routinely identified and isolated before working on, or in, machinery, systems or spaces where hazardous energy could be present?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation, testing, maintenance and calibration of the vessel’s portable and personal gas measurement instruments, and was the equipment on board sufficient, in good working order, regularly tested and periodically calibrated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.2 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for testing the atmosphere in double-hull and double bottom spaces for flammable gas, and were records available to confirm that appropriate measurements had been taken using the equipment fitted to, or provided on, the vessel?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fixed gas detection systems required by the IGC Code, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly maintained and calibrated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the vessel’s fixed gas detection system required by the IGF Code, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly maintained and calibrated in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer’s instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation and maintenance of the cargo pump room fixed gas detecting system, and was the equipment fully operational with sensors calibrated and alarm activation points set in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.6.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the operation and maintenance of the oxygen sensors and associated alarms fitted in the space, or spaces, containing the inert gas system, and was the equipment fully operational with sensors calibrated and alarm activation points set in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.1. Had all onboard incidents been reported and investigated in accordance with company procedures, and was an incident investigation report or a summarised lessons learned bulletin available for each incident at or above a defined threshold?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.2 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company incident and near-miss reporting procedure and was evidence available to demonstrate that incidents and near-misses had been investigated and closed out in accordance with the company procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.3 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedure for holding and documenting shipboard safety meetings and was evidence available that safety concerns raised at the meetings were acknowledged and addressed by shore management?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.4 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company work planning procedures and were records available to demonstrate that onboard work planning meetings had been conducted and documented in accordance with the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.5 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the purpose and implementation of the company Stop Work Authority policy and procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.6 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures for risk assessment, as appropriate to their duties, and was there evidence of the development and review of risk assessments in accordance with the procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.7 Were Safety Data Sheets (SDS) available on board for all cargo, bunkers, chemicals, paints and other products being handled, and were crew members familiar with their use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.7.8 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company Simultaneous Operations (SIMOPS) procedure and was there evidence that SIMOPS were considered during work planning and the required controls implemented for the duration of such operations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the main deck areas, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the machinery spaces, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the cargo pumproom, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the procedure for safety inspections of the cargo machinery rooms, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the forecastle, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the accommodation, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.8.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for safety inspections of the ballast and/or bunker pumproom, and had inspections been effective in identifying hazards to health, safety and the environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.9.1 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company lifting and rigging procedures, and was evidence available to demonstrate that each item of lifting and rigging equipment had been maintained, inspected and tested in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.9.2 Where the vessel was fitted with a single cargo hose handling crane, was a risk assessment available which identified the minimum spare parts that must be carried onboard to ensure continued operation in the event of a single component failure, and were the identified spare parts available onboard?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.1 Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedures for rigging the pilot boarding arrangements, and was the equipment provided in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with industry best practice?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.2 Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedures for rigging the accommodation ladders, and were the accommodation ladders in good order and used in accordance with the company procedure and manufacturer’s instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.3 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedure for providing safe access to the vessel while alongside a terminal/berth, and was safe access provided by the ship’s portable gangway, the vessel’s accommodation ladder or a shore gangway?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company personnel transfer by crane procedure, and where a personnel transfer basket (PTB) and accessories were provided, were these in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer’s recommendations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for helicopter/ship operations, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for helicopter/ship operations, and had the crew involved received appropriate training?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.10.7 Were the Master, officers and crew familiar with the escape routes from the machinery spaces, pump rooms, compressor rooms, accommodation spaces and, when in port, from the vessel, and were these routes clearly marked, unobstructed and well illuminated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.11.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures addressing the management of samples of bunker fuel oil and Annex I and/or Annex II cargoes as applicable, and were samples being properly stored and eventually disposed of?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.12.1 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures that addressed the use of respiratory protective equipment during cargo operations, and did the procedures prohibit the use of filter type respirators for this purpose?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.12.2 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the location and operation of the decontamination showers and eyewash stations on deck, and were these facilities suitably marked, easily accessible and ready for use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5.12.14 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose of the cargo, ballast and stripping pump temperature sensing devices, and was there evidence that alarm activation points had been correctly set and tested in accordance with company procedures and manufacturer's instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Pollution Prevention

• 6.1.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Cargo Record Book, and did the entries contained in the Cargo Record Book accurately record the cargo related operations required to be documented by MARPOL Annex II?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.1.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Oil Record Book Part II, and did the entries contained in the Oil Record Book Part II accurately record the cargo related operations required to be documented by MARPOL Annex I?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.1.3 Were the Master and engineer officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Oil Record Book Part I, and did the entries contained in the Oil Record Book Part I accurately record the machinery space operations required to be documented by MARPOL Annex I?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.1.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Garbage Record Book in accordance with the Garbage Management Plan, and did the entries contained in the Garbage Record Book accurately record the garbage management activities required to be documented by MARPOL Annex V?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.1.5 Were the Master and engineer officers familiar with the company procedure for maintaining the Ozone-depleting Substances Record Book, and did the entries contained in the Ozone-depleting Substances Record Book accurately record the operations and emissions required to be documented by MARPOL Annex VI?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.1.6 Were the documents and records required by MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13 for the control of NOx and associated emissions in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.2.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the arrangements to drain the cargo pumproom bilges in the event of flooding or accidental leakage, and were these arrangements in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.2.2 Were cargo system overboard and sea suction valves checked and verified as closed and secured prior to commencement of cargo transfer, and where provided, were sea valve-testing arrangements in order and regularly monitored for leakage?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.2.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for inspections and pressure tests of the bunker oil (HFO and MDO) pipeline system, and had the tests been performed and the results suitably recorded?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.3.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe operation of the ballast water management system (BWMS), and was the equipment in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures and manufacturer’s instructions?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.4.1 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures for the removal of small quantities of oil or chemical spilled and contained on deck, and was suitable response equipment available, in satisfactory condition and effectively deployed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.4.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the disposal of accumulations of water contaminated with oil and/or marine pollutants in the forecastle and other internal spaces, and had the procedures been implemented?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.5.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the emergency arrangements to pump out the machinery space bilges in the event of flooding, and were these arrangements prominently marked and in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.5.2 Were the engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe use of the incinerator, and was the incinerator in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedure and in compliance with MARPOL?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.6.1 Were the Master and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of the oil filtering equipment, and was the oil filtering equipment in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures, manufacturer’s instructions and MARPOL Annex I?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6.6.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of the oil discharge monitoring and control system, and was the oil discharge monitoring and control system in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures, manufacturer’s instructions and MARPOL Annex I?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Maritime Security

• 7.1.1 Was security threat and risk assessment an integral part of voyage planning, and did the passage plan contain security related information for each leg of the voyage?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7.2.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for hardening the vessel when entering areas of increased security risk, and was there a Vessel Hardening Plan (VHP) available?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7.2.2 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the company procedures to control access to the vessel in port and to ensure the safety of visitors, and were these procedures effectively implemented?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7.3.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with regional maritime security reporting requirements and operation of the ship security alert system (SSAS) and had this equipment been regularly tested?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7.4.1 Did the Ship Security Officer (SSO) have a valid Certificate of Proficiency and a full understanding of their role, and were ship security records of port calls being maintained as required by SOLAS?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7.5.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for cyber security risk management, and had these procedures been fully implemented?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Cargo & Ballast Petroleum / Chemical

• 8.1.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of the inert gas system, and had the inert gas system been used in accordance with ISGOTT guidance, with cargo tanks maintained in an inert condition at all times, except when it was necessary to be gas-free for entry?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.1.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures and international regulations for the planning, preparation, conduct and documentation of crude oil washing operations (COW), and was the COW system in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures for each COW operation?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.1.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the isolation of individual cargo tanks from the common venting system in accordance with SOLAS, and were these procedures being followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.1.4 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for planning and documenting cargo tank cleaning operations after the carriage of volatile products, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation of the inert gas system, and had the inert gas system been used in accordance with these procedures, industry guidance, and SOLAS and IBC regulations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures that addressed the carriage of inhibited cargoes, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the information contained in the Procedures and Arrangements Manual, Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk, the IBC Code and the latest MEPC.2/Circular, and was this information readily available to the officers engaged in cargo planning and operations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.4 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for planning and documenting cargo tank cleaning operations after the carriage of volatile and/or toxic products, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.5 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for identifying and segregating incompatible cargoes during cargo stowage planning, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.6 Were there sufficient escape sets as required by the IBC Code for everyone on board, and did the sets provide suitable respiratory and eye protection?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures relating to the safety equipment required by the IBC Code, including SCBAs, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition ready for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.2.8 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures addressing the protective equipment required by the IBC Code, and was this equipment in satisfactory condition and suitable for the products being handled?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation and testing of the inert gas generator, and had the system been operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation and testing of the nitrogen generator inert gas system, and had the system been operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation and testing of the flue gas inert gas system, and had the system been operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the maintenance, testing and setting of the cargo tank high-level and high-high-level alarms, and were these alarm systems fully operational and properly set?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.5 Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedures for dipping, ullaging and sampling flammable static accumulator cargoes in non-inerted tanks, and were these procedures being followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.6 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for loading flammable static accumulator cargoes into non-inerted tanks, and were these procedures being followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation and calibration of the inert gas system fixed oxygen analyser, and had the equipment been operated, maintained and calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.8 Were the Master, officers and ratings familiar with the cargo system Emergency Shutdown (ESD) system, where fitted, and/or the cargo pump emergency stop controls, and was there evidence that the systems and equipment had been tested in accordance with company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection and testing of cargo, vapour and inert gas pipelines, and were records available for these activities?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.10 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection, testing and operation of the vapour collection system, and was this equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.11 Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedures for cargo tank washing after the carriage of volatile products in a non-inert atmosphere, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.12 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use of portable cargo ullage/temperature/interface (UTI) measurement and sampling equipment, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition and used in accordance with the company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.13 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation of the primary and secondary cargo tank venting systems in accordance with SOLAS, and were these systems correctly set?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.14 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the cargo tank venting systems, and were the systems in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.15 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for monitoring leakage into the cofferdams of deepwell pumps, and had regular purging of the cofferdams taken place to identify any excessive leakage?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.16 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation, testing and maintenance of the non-return devices installed in the inert gas system, and were these devices in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.17 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use, inspection and testing of manifold reducers, spool pieces and other portable pipework, and were these items in satisfactory condition and properly fitted when in use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.18 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation, testing and maintenance of the pressure/vacuum-breaking (P/V) device(s) installed in the inert gas main, and was this device(s) in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.19 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose, operation and testing of the indicators and alarms in the inert gas system, and had the equipment been operated, maintained and calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.20 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose and operation of the connections and interconnections to the inert gas system for routine and emergency inert gas operations, and were these arrangements in satisfactory condition and clearly identified as to their purpose?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.21 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedure for cargo heating, and was the cargo heating system in satisfactory condition and tested and used in accordance with the company procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.22 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for managing on-board doping operations, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.23 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the maintenance, testing and calibration of the cargo temperature monitoring equipment, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.24 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for managing cargo and vapour connections at the cargo manifolds, and were the manifold arrangements in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.25 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for receiving nitrogen from shore for operations such as inerting, purging or padding cargo tanks, or for clearing cargo lines?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures that addressed the carriage of inhibited cargoes, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for carrying out cargo sampling operations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for identifying and segregating incompatible cargoes and refrigerants during cargo stowage planning, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe carriage of propylene oxide (PO), ethylene oxide (EO) and PO-EO mixtures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.5 Were there sufficient escape sets as required by the IGC Code for everyone on board, and did the sets provide suitable respiratory and eye protection?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection and maintenance of the cargo tank insulation, and was the insulation reported to be in good condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.4.7 Were the vent outlets from the cargo containment system fitted with the correct protection screen or flame screen required for the cargo being carried, and were the screens in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.5.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, testing and calibration of the custody transfer measurement system (CTMS), and was the system in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.5.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, maintenance and testing of the Gas Combustion Unit (GCU)?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.5.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection, maintenance and testing of the safety arrangements for the LNG gas fuel supply system, and were these arrangements in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.5.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for protecting the hull structure from low temperature exposure, and was temperature monitoring and cofferdam heating equipment, where fitted, in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the maintenance, testing and setting of the independent cargo tank high-level and overfill alarms, and were these alarm systems fully operational and properly set?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.2 Were the Master, officers, and ratings involved with cargo operations, familiar with the functions of the vessel’s cargo transfer Emergency Shut Down (ESD) systems, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection, maintenance, testing and setting of the cargo tank relief valves?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.4 Was a ship specific Cargo System Operation Manual provided on board and, were the Master and officers familiar with its content?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for monitoring the integrity of the containment system and maintaining the atmosphere in the interbarrier spaces and/or hold spaces in a safe condition, and had records been maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the management and operation of the cargo alarm systems, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.7 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the vessel’s inert gas system and its associated equipment, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.8 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for managing cargo and vapour connections at the cargo manifolds, and were the manifold arrangements in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the use, inspection and testing of manifold reducers, spool pieces and other portable pipework, and were these items in satisfactory condition and properly fitted when in use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.10 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for carrying out emergency discharge operations, and was any required additional equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.11 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the regular inspection and maintenance of cargo and vapour pipeline insulation and expansion arrangements, and were these arrangements in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.12 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures relating to the safety, rescue and recovery equipment, including SCBAs, required by the IGC Code, and was the equipment ready for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.13 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures addressing the protective equipment required by the IGC Code, and was this equipment in satisfactory condition and suitable for the products being handled?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.14 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe operation and maintenance of the reliquefaction plant, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.15 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the safe operation and maintenance of the cargo heaters, vaporisers and condensers, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.16 Were the Master and officers familiar with the filling limits (FL) and loading limits (LL) for the cargo tanks, and was this information readily available in the cargo control room or position?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.17 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the vent mast fire suppression system, and was the system in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.18 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for detecting water leakage into hold or insulation spaces and for dealing with any water or liquid cargo that may have accumulated in these spaces?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.19 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation of the submerged motor electric cargo pumps and the testing of their associated safety devices and alarms, and had these procedures been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.20 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection, maintenance, testing and setting of the liquid line, hold, insulation and inter-barrier space relief valves?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.6.21 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures that gave guidance on cargo tank environmental control during inerting, gas freeing and gassing up operations, thermal load hazards during tank cool-down, and the minimum cargo temperature?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the purpose and operation of the vessel’s Emergency Shut Down (ESD) systems, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures, including appropriate arrival checklists, detailing the necessary checks and actions to be carried out when approaching an offshore terminal prior to DP and/or bow loading operations, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the equipment for control and monitoring of the Bow Loading System (BLS), and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the Bow Loading System (BLS), including alarms and indicators, and was the BLS area well maintained and free from oil.

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the deluge system in the bow loading system (BLS) area, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the fixed foam fire extinguishing system in the bow loading system (BLS) area, and was the equipment in good working order and regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.7 Are all items of DP equipment in satisfactory condition and are they included in the Planned Maintenance System (PMS)?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.8 Were the Master and officers familiar with the vessel’s DP FMEA, was the latest version available on board, and were any modifications to the DP system included?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.7.9 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the gas and fire detection systems in the bow loading system (BLS) area, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly tested, maintained and calibrated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.8.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, maintenance and testing of the cargo hold hatch-covers, and were the hatch covers in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.8.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for changing cargo modes, including ship-specific checklists, and were there records to show that these procedures had been followed?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.3.14 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the cargo tank venting systems, and were the systems in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.1 Were the Master and all officers directly involved in cargo transfer operations familiar with the company procedure for planning cargo and ballast transfers, and were records available to demonstrate that cargo operations had been planned in accordance with the company procedure and conducted in accordance with the agreed plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.2 Were the Master and all officers with a direct responsibility for cargo, tank cleaning or ballast operations familiar with the requirements of the ISGOTT Ship/Shore Safety Checklist (SSSCL) and, were appropriate sections of the SSSCL in use with all applicable provisions and agreements maintained throughout?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.3 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures which provided guidance on the level of supervision and support for cargo / port operations, and were operations supervised and supported by an appropriate team in accordance with the company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.4 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for checking and testing cargo and ballast system valves, and were the valves and the remote control system in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.5 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, maintenance, testing, calibration and comparison of the fixed cargo tank level gauging system, and was the system in satisfactory condition and fully operational?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.6 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedure and manufacturer’s instructions for the periodic testing of the stability and loading instrument(s), and were records maintained to confirm that tests had been completed in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.7 Where the vessel was subject to loading restrictions and/or intact stability concerns at any phase of a voyage or cargo operation, had the company developed procedures to manage these restrictions and/or concerns, and were the Master and cargo officers familiar with the company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.8 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the selection, inspection, testing and storage of cargo transfer hoses, and were the hoses in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.9. Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for periodically verifying the accuracy of cargo and ballast system controls and indicators, and were legible and up-to-date pipeline and/or mimic diagrams available at the cargo control location(s) and in the pumproom(s) as applicable?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.10 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the inspection and maintenance of the bonding arrangements for independent cargo tanks, process plant and cargo pipelines, and were these arrangements in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 8.99.11 Was there a procedure in place to complete an independent check of the entire cargo liquid, vapour and venting pipeline system prior to commencement of cargo operations to ensure that valves, vacuum breakers, sampling connections, drains and unused connections or interconnections were correctly set, and blanked or capped, where appropriate?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Mooring

• 9.1.1 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for the testing and correct operation of the mooring winch brakes, and were records available to demonstrate that brakes had been tested periodically, after maintenance or when there was evidence of premature brake slippage?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.1.2 Was the vessel satisfactorily moored in accordance with both the terminal mooring plan and the mooring configurations permitted by the vessel’s Mooring System Management Plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.1.3 Were the Master, deck officers, and ratings involved with mooring operations, familiar with the content of the Line Management Plan and was the plan maintained in accordance with company instructions with mooring line, mooring tail and joining shackle certificates available for each item included within the Line Management Plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.1.4 Did all mooring lines, mooring tails and joining shackles, including those carried as spares, meet industry guidelines?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.2.1 Were the Master and all officers familiar with the vessel specific emergency towing procedure, and was the emergency towing equipment, where fitted, in satisfactory condition and ready for immediate use?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.3.1 Were the Master and deck officers familiar with the company procedures for anchoring operations, and were records available to confirm that recent anchoring operations had been conducted in compliance with company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.4.1 Were the Master, deck officers and deck ratings familiar with the company procedure that defined mooring team supervision and composition for the various mooring and anchoring operations likely to be undertaken, and was evidence available that each mooring work space had been supervised and manned in accordance with company expectations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.4.2 Were the deck officers and ratings involved with mooring operations familiar with the safe operation of the mooring winches and the dangers of working with and around mooring lines during mooring operations and while under tension?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.5.1 Were the appropriate industry checklists used during STS operations, and were comprehensive records of these operations maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.5.2 Where the vessel was involved in an “at sea” STS operation, was an accurate Joint Plan of Operation available onboard, were the Master and deck officers familiar with its content, and were operations being conducted in accordance with its requirements?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.5.3 Were the Master, officers and deck ratings familiar with the vessel’s STS Operations Plan?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.6.1 Were the vapour collection system manifold arrangements suitable for hose handling at buoy moorings?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.6.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for mooring at an SPM or F(P)SO and were the fittings required accurately described in the HVPQ?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 9.7.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection, testing and maintenance of the bow mooring system for offshore terminals, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Engine & Steering Compartment

• 10.1.1 Had the Chief Engineer prepared Standing Orders, supplemented by Daily Orders, which emphasised and reinforced the company expectations with regards to engine room management and, if so, had all engineer officers signed to acknowledge their understanding of the same?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.1.2 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for testing main propulsion, steering gear, thrusters and power generation plant prior to use and at critical points during a voyage or operation, and were checklists and log book entries completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.1.3 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with company procedures for periodic rounds and monitoring of the machinery space, and were log book entries and checklists available to confirm that the rounds had been completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.1.4 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with company procedures for periodic machinery space rounds and monitoring of the machinery space during both manned and unmanned (UMS) period,s and were log book entries and checklists available to confirm that the inspections had been completed as required?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.1.5 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the operation, inspection and testing of the means provided to control propulsion machinery and related auxiliary systems locally in the event of failure of a remote-control system?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.1 Were the officers familiar with the starting procedure for the emergency generator and were records available to demonstrate that the emergency generator had been tested according to company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.2 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the regular inspection, maintenance and testing of the ship’s emergency batteries, and were the batteries fully charged and in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.3 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, calibration and maintenance of the exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS), and were required safety and regulatory measures being complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.4 Were seawater pipelines, sea chests and seawater pumps in satisfactory condition and free of temporary repairs?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.5 Were the officers familiar with the company procedure for testing the bilge monitoring devices within their area of responsibility, and were records available to demonstrate that the bilge monitoring devices and associated alarms had been tested in accordance with the company procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.2.6 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection and testing of the emergency air compressor and emergency air reservoir, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.1 Was suitable deck insulation provided to the front and rear of electrical switchboards, and was it in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.2 Were the engineer officers familiar with the purpose and setting of the insulation monitoring devices provided on the primary and secondary distribution system, and were the distribution switchboards free of significant earth faults?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.3 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for safe entry into the machinery space(s) during UMS operation, including the operation and testing of the dead man alarm, if fitted?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.4 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the operation of the engineers’ alarm, and was the alarm in good order, tested regularly and the results recorded?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.5 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the operation of the machinery alarm, and was the alarm in good order, tested regularly and the results recorded?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.6 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for the operation, inspection and regular testing of watertight doors, and were the watertight doors in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.7 Was gas welding and cutting equipment in good order, and spare oxygen and acetylene cylinders stored apart in a well-ventilated location outside of the accommodation and engine room?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.3.8 Were engineer officers and ratings familiar with the safety precautions for the use of electric welding equipment, were these safety precautions posted, and was the equipment in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.4.1 Were the responsible vessel staff familiar with the company procedure for managing and using the planned maintenance system, and was the system updated with an accurate record of onboard maintenance and spare parts in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.4.2 Did the vessel operator subscribe to a lube oil and hydraulic oil analysis program and was a procedure in place to act on the results and trends identified by the analysis?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.5.1 Were the Master, Chief Engineer, officers, and ratings involved in bunkering operations, familiar with the company bunkering procedures, and were records available to demonstrate that bunker operations had been planned and conducted in accordance with the company procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.5.2 Were the Chief Engineer and engineer officers familiar with the company procedures for bunker fuel oil sampling and analysis, and were records available to demonstrate that samples had been taken and retained or analysed in accordance with the procedure?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.5.3 Were the Chief Engineer and senior engineer officers familiar with the company and vessel specific fuel changeover procedures, and were records available to demonstrate that fuel grade changeovers had been completed in compliance with the procedures and MARPOL regulations?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.6.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose and operation of the LNG fuel tank water-spray system for cooling and fire prevention on deck, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.6.2 Were the Chief Engineer, and those officers and rating involved in LNG bunkering operations, familiar with the functions of the vessel’s LNG (or other low-flashpoint fuel) bunkering Emergency Shut Down (ESD) systems, and was the equipment in good working order, regularly inspected, tested and maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.6.3 Were the Chief Engineer, and those officers and ratings involved in LNG bunkering operations, familiar with the company LNG (or other low-flashpoint fuel) bunkering procedures, and were records available to demonstrate that bunker operations had been planned and conducted in accordance with the company procedures?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.6.4 Were the safety measures at the bunkering control station and bunkering manifold area in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.7.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the location, purpose, testing and operation of the vessel’s remote controls for fuel and lube oil valves, emergency fuel and lube oil pump shut-offs and oil tank quick closing valves, and were the systems in good working order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.7.2 Were the Master and officers familiar with the measures to prevent fire in the machinery spaces caused by flammable liquid spraying onto a hot surface and, were the protective measures provided regularly inspected and properly maintained?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.7.3 Were the main engine crankcase oil mist detectors, engine bearing temperature monitors or equivalent devices and associated alarms in good order?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 10.7.4 Where hydraulic power packs were located within the main engine compartment, were fire protection measures provided, and if so, where they in satisfactory condition?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Ice Operation

• 12.1.1 Where the vessel traded in polar waters, had the Master, Chief Mate and officers in charge of a navigational watch undertaken the additional training required by the Polar Code?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 12.2.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the life-saving and fire-fighting systems and equipment in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 12.3.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the engine room machinery and systems in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 12.4.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the cargo and ballast systems in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 12.5.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures to ensure the operability of the deck machinery, including mooring systems, in sub-zero temperatures, and had these procedures been complied with?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 12.6.1 Were the Master and officers familiar with the company procedures for navigating in areas affected by ice, and had they received suitable training?

  Yes

  No

  N/A