Was photograph no.1, bow area from dead ahead, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
To ensure that the condition of the vessel is accurately reflected in the SIRE 2.0 vessel inspection report.
TMSA KPI 12.1.2 requires that an inspection plan covers all vessels in the fleet, with at least two inspections of each vessel a year.
The inspection process provides company management with a comprehensive overview of the condition of the fleet at specified intervals.
THE GUIDANCE BELOW APPLIES TO ALL CHAPTER 11 PHOTOGRAPH COMPARISON QUESTIONS.
The vessel operator should have developed an inspection programme which provides shore management with an accurate understanding of a managed vessel’s cosmetic and physical condition at least twice a year.
The vessel operator should have uploaded a standard set of photographs, as specified by the SIRE 2.0 programme for the ship type, at the time of requesting an inspection.
Photographs will remain in the OCIMF SIRE 2.0 database for twelve months or until they are superseded by a more recent photograph.
Was photograph no.10, forward main deck showing condition of deck (and external framing), representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
• Ensure that devices to prevent the passage of flame, or flame screens (as appropriate), are in place and check they are in a satisfactory condition. • Open the valves on the vent mast riser. • Permit no free fall of water or slops. • Introduce no dipping, ullaging, sampling or other equipment into the tank unless essential for the safety of the operation. If it necessary for such equipment to be introduced into the tank, it should be done after at least 30 minutes after the injection of
Was photograph no.12, one mooring winch including the brake setting arrangement, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.13, one hose crane with an overall view, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.14, one hose crane hoisting winch, stowed wire and limit switches, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern? Short Question Tex t One hose crane hoisting winch, stowed wire and limit switches Vessel Types Oil, Chemical, LPG, LNG ROVIQ Sequence Main Deck 11. 1.15. Was photograph no.15, starboard manifold looking from aft to forward, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.15, starboard manifold looking from aft to forward, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.16, starboard manifold looking forward to aft representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.17, aft main deck showing condition of deck (and external framing), representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.18, aft main deck showing condition of Piperack, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.19, poop deck looking from midships to starboard including fairleads, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.2, hull forward end starboard side, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.20, aft emergency towing equipment storage arrangement, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.21, aft emergency towing equipment deployment system, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.22, lifeboat and davit, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.23, the emergency generator or accumulator batteries, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.24, engine room general view showing top of main engine, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.25, one generator engine, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.26, the oil filtering equipment, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.27, the incinerator, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.28, one boiler from the front, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.29, one boiler from the top showing control equipment, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.3, hull forward end port side representative, of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.30, purifier room general view, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.31, main engine side showing local control station, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.32, steering gear room general view showing access, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.33, main steering gear, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.4, hull aft end starboard side, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.40, IG system pressure/vacuum -breaking (P/V) device, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.41, IG system first non-return device (deck seal or double block and bleed arrangement), representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.42, one main cargo pump and, if in pump room, including bilges, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.5, hull aft end port side, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.50, a cargo tank liquid dome including load and discharge valve, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.51, electric motors for deepwell pumps, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.52, compressor / motor room, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.6, transom from right astern, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.60, a cargo tank liquid dome including load and discharge valve, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.61, electric motors for deepwell pumps, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.62, compressor room internal view, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.7, forecastle port side looking towards fairleads, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.70, a cargo tank liquid dome including load and discharge valve, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.71, a cargo tank vapour dome including cargo system relief valves, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.72, compressor house internal view, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.8, forecastle starboard side looking towards fairleads, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.80, a cargo tank liquid dome including load and discharge valve, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern? Short Qu estion Text A cargo tank liquid dome including load and discharge valve Vessel Types LNG ROVIQ Sequence Main Deck 11. 1.81. Was photograph no.81, general view of one Moss sphere, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.81, general view of one Moss sphere, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.82, compressor house internal view, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.9, port or starboard windlass, representative of the condition as seen onboar d at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.90, bow mooring arrangement from forward looking aft showing chain stopper, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern? Short Question Tex t Bow mooring arrangement from forward looking aft showing chain stopper Vessel Types Oil ROVIQ Sequence Bow Loading Area 11. 1.91. Was photograph no.91, bow mooring arrangement from aft looking forward showing winch, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Was photograph no.91, bow mooring arrangement from aft looking forward showing winch, representative of the condition as seen onboard at the time of the inspection and, if so, was it free of any areas for concern?
Create a free account to access all questions, plus quiz mode, AI mock inspector, and progress tracking.
Create Free AccountIt is recommended that photographs are refreshed at approximately six months intervals, but operators may leave older photographs on the database for continued use in further inspections.
By uploading photographs to the OCIMF SIRE 2.0 database, the vessel operator is warranting that the images were representative of the true condition of the ship at the date the photographs were taken.
By leaving a photograph older than six months on the OCIMF SIRE 2.0 database for review during an inspection, the vessel operator is warranting that the photograph remained representative of the true condition of the ship at the time of requesting an inspection.
['Page 533 of 579 – SIRE 2.0 Question Library Part 2 – Version 1.0 (January 2022)', 'During the physical inspection of the vessel, review the photograph provided by the vessel operator for the location specified and verify that it represented the condition as seen.', "In the case of more general views of the ship, the inspector should not restrict the review of the ship's condition to exactly what is shown in the photograph but consider the photograph to represent the average condition for all similar areas.
Photographs that selectively show recently upgraded areas are not to be considered as representative.
Expected Evidence", 'The appropriate photograph will be inserted in the inspection editor for review.', 'Where no photograph was uploaded to the OCIMF SIRE 2.0 database the question will be automatically entered as Not Seen in the final report Potential Grounds for a']