WorkflowTrading, Shipping & Fuels Marketing

Vessel Vetting

Vessel vetting for marine assurance: three years of a tanker’s records on one line, repeat notes folded into the defect behind them, and a checked answer before the fixture clock runs out.

See the demo Book a demo

Follow one request from 13:20 to 16:00 ↓

The problem

Six small notes on one pump room fault, and a subject that expires today

Chartering fixes a tanker on subjects, vetting among them, and the subject expires that afternoon. The desk phones marine assurance. A superintendent opens the latest inspection report, then the ship’s questionnaires, then port state records and casualty history, and searches email for terminal feedback. Earlier reports get compared if there is time, usually from memory.

One fault can be written up across hardware, process and people, so it reads like several small things. The operator replies closed, and the same fault comes back a report later. The answer goes back by email as approved, approved with a note or not approved, with conditions in the free text, and nobody tracks whether a condition was met before the ship loads.

Built forMarine superintendentsMarine assurance headsChartering managersInternal auditors

The Problem Today

A superintendent must weigh scattered tanker records in hours, while a fixture waits on the answer.

22,500: reports in 12 months, on over 8,000 ships published
2,850: hours a year by hand: 1,900 requests at 1.5 hours each our estimate

Read by hand today

Reports
Terminals
Port state
Casualties

Closed is only a wordThe same fault returns between reports
Conditions get lostThey sit in an email nobody tracks

The Solution

One ribbon per shipThree years of reports, terminals, port state and casualties in order
Notes fold into defectsQuestionnaire errors set apart; the real fault named once
Repeats foundThe same fault lit up in earlier reports, with the replies
Proposed, then decidedClear, conditions or do not use, with reasons a person weighs

Built-in controls

Nobody signs a report they have not opened
A second person checks each decision
Report text stays with marine assurance

What You Get

Chartering gets a plain yes, no or yes-if, and a missed condition lapses the clearance and tells the desk.

Answers on the clockSigned before the vetting subject expires
Conditions that biteMiss a proof time and the clearance lapses
Managers seen wholeOne fault spotted across a manager's ships

One tanker, three hours twenty

Vessel vetting on a crude tanker with three hours twenty on the subject

A fourteen-year-old crude tanker is on subjects for a million-barrel cargo. Her manager changed a year ago. The vetting request lands at 13:20 and the subject expires at 16:40.

demoThe ships, managers, terminals, people and reports are sample data, and the clock is a sample clock that moves with each step.

0113:32
Seven open requests, each with its clock, the tightest at 3 h 8 min
Marine superintendent
The queue sorts every open request by the time left on its subject, with the cargo, the manager and what the agents propose. A fleet bar above shows the year: clearances in date, conditions open, do not use, no clearance. The header carries our estimate: 1,900 requests at 1.5 hours each is 2,850 hours a year by hand.
0214:18
Same fault, said closed, twice: three years of the tanker on one line
Marine superintendent
Thirty-six months run as one ribbon, coloured where the manager changed. Reports stand above with a square per note; terminals, port state, dry dock and a minor casualty hang below. Arcs link the latest report back to two earlier ones with the same fault. Six notes in the latest report are all pump room gas detection at one sample point.
0314:18
13 notes, 5 things to weigh, and every note still visible
Marine superintendent
Nine notes across three reports are one root defect: pump room gas detection, sample point 4. Two are questionnaire errors, the record showing the right value. Two are one-offs, closed and not repeating. He can move any note out of the fold, and it stays on screen either way. The questionnaire checker never calls a note paperwork without the record that proves it.
0414:24
Line cleared, inhibit log updated: the operator’s replies, note by note
Marine superintendent
He opens the latest vessel vetting inspection report in full: six notes, each with the operator’s reply under it. Opening counts in the audit trail. Beside it, what the agents made of each note. He then opens the two earlier reports and her other records before any decision button works.
0514:46
Clear with conditions, each with a proof time and what it blocks
Marine superintendent
He chooses clear with conditions under K-01, repeat defect that can be proved before loading, and rewrites the second condition himself: the alarm inhibit lifted and entered in the inhibit log, proof 48 hours before arrival. Each condition says what a miss blocks. The panel shows exactly what chartering will read and the recap wording, and states that no report text reaches the desk.
0615:46
Conditions go to the head of marine assurance, who opens the reports too
Head of marine assurance
A plain clear is checked by the other superintendent; conditions and rejections come to her. Her countersign stays off until she opens the latest three reports herself. Here she is on the latest one, the same pages he read, with the agents’ tags beside it. She can send it back with a reason instead.
0716:00
Signed with 40 minutes left on the fixture clock
Head of marine assurance
Her signature turns the end of the ribbon to signed: clear with conditions. Below, all three reports and her other records show as opened, with the split of the time: people 60 minutes, queues 88, agents 12. The finding stays worded as the agents found it: a pattern since the manager changed, not a proven cause.
0816:00
Yes if: a plain answer, the recap wording, and the subject can be lifted
Chartering manager
The chartering desk sees a plain status per ship and, for this one, the answer marine assurance sent: cleared with conditions for this voyage only, the wording to put in the recap, and what happens if a proof time is missed. It shows who decided and who checked. The reports stay with marine assurance.

Three reports, one pump room fault

The same sample point across three inspections, as the reports and the replies read.

Report	Notes on the fault	Operator’s reply
Earliest	One: three-monthly test of points 3 and 4 not done	Closed
Middle	Two: wet, dirty filter at point 4; test log missing two quarters	Closed
Latest	Six: low flow, alarm inhibited, test signed with no values, crew unaware	Closed, note by note

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Around the desk

The ship vetting process beyond one ship: checks, renewals and managers

Screens from the rest of the marine assurance desk.

Checker’s queue in marine assurance: decisions waiting for a second person, with the report still to open before countersigning — **The checker’s queue**Plain clears go to the other superintendent; conditions, rejections and disagreements come here, each with the reports to open before signing.

Clean vetting renewals batch: clearances lapsing in thirty days with manager, last report and notes, ready to propose — **Clean renewals**Clearances lapsing in the next 30 days where the agents found nothing new. The batch is proposed by a superintendent and sampled by the head before one signature.

Manager watch: one ship manager’s 23 tankers with the same gas detection fault marked on five and a proposed watch waiting — **One manager’s fleet**The same fault found on five of the manager’s 23 ships, with a proposed watch waiting for the head of marine assurance to decide.

Vessel vetting audit trail: agents’ steps, each report opened by the superintendent and the head, the decision and countersignature — **Each report opened, by person and minute**The request, the agents’ steps, every report opened by each person, the decision with its reason and the countersignature, by time.

Vessel vetting procedure settings: report age limits, ship age needing a condition assessment, and who checks a plain clear — **Your own rules**Longest age of a report that counts, the shorter limit for a report done during loading, the ship age that needs a condition assessment, and who checks a plain clear.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

A superintendent decides, a second person checks, chartering acts

A decision is never checked by the person who made it.

Marine superintendent

Sees: The ship’s line, the folded notes and the reports
Signs: Decides clear, clear with conditions or do not use; checks a colleague’s plain clears

Head of marine assurance

Sees: Each condition and rejection, with the reports
Signs: Countersigns or sends back; decides manager watches

Chartering manager

Sees: A plain status and the recap wording
Signs: Lifts the vetting subject when allowed

System administrator

Sees: Rules, reason codes and roles
Signs: Proposes changes; the head of marine assurance signs them

Internal auditor

Sees: The ribbon, the folds and each signature, read only
Signs: Nothing; takes the trail

The agents

Agents fold the notes and find repeats; a superintendent makes the call

They read, order, fold and propose. People decide.

Report reader

Loads reports under your own access and reads them note by note.

Never reads a report whose ship number does not match

Life line keeper

Puts every record in order and joins old names on the ship number.

Never joins records on a name alone

Questionnaire checker

Tells questionnaire errors from defects against certificates.

Needs the record that proves it

Root defect folder

Folds notes into the defect behind them.

Never hides a note
Never folds different equipment

Repeat finder

Finds the same fault along the ribbon and across a manager’s ships.

Never states a cause as proved

Fit checker

Works out cargo fit and applies age rules.

Never rounds a limit in the ship’s favor

Outcome proposer

Proposes an outcome with reasons, draft conditions and a plain note.

Never decides or sends
Never quotes report text to the desk

What marine assurance asks about vessel vetting

What is vessel vetting software for?

Vessel vetting software helps marine assurance decide whether a tanker can be used for a fixture. This solution puts the ship’s last three years on one line, folds inspection notes into the defects behind them, finds faults that repeat, and proposes an answer that a superintendent decides and a second person checks.

How does tanker vetting work here?

A request opens with its fixture clock. Agents load the reports under your own access, put every record in order, fold the notes and look for repeats. A superintendent opens the reports and decides; conditions and rejections go to the head of marine assurance.

What does a clear with conditions do?

Each condition carries a proof time and says what a miss blocks, such as loading at the terminal. If a proof time passes without proof, the clearance lapses and the desk is told.

Does chartering see the inspection reports?

No. Chartering gets a plain status, the recap wording and who decided. Report text stays with marine assurance.

Can we set our own vessel vetting procedure?

Yes. Report age limits, the ship age that needs a condition assessment, who checks a plain clear and the reason codes are your own rules. The administrator proposes a change and the head of marine assurance signs it.

What about a manager with several ships?

The repeat finder looks across a manager’s fleet as well as along one ship’s line. When the same fault turns up on several of its ships, the agents propose a watch for the head of marine assurance to decide.

Trading, Shipping & Fuels Marketing