During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tokyo MoU announced a Remote PSC inspection practice that took place in the MoU region’s PSC inspections in different countries and ports, from April 2021 until the end of the year.
From a total of 27,899 inspections, the 5,898 were conducted remotely (almost 21%). The figures show that DPI during remote inspections was higher that the physical inspections. It is to be noticed that a number of 61 remote inspections ended with ships detention!
| Physical Inspections | Remote Inspections | Total Tokyo MoU | |
| Inspections | 22,001 | 5,898 | 27,899 |
| Deficiencies | 34,202 | 11,105 | 45,397 |
| Detentions | 469 | 61 | 536 |
| Deficiency per Inspection (DPI) | 1.55 | 1.88 | 1.62 |
| Detention rate (DER) | 2.13% | 1.13% | 1.92% |
Table 1: Tokyo MoU – Physical & Remote Inspections(Ocean going ships > 1,000 gt). Source www.risk4sea.com
China was by far the “Leader” of remote inspections as a total of 4704 (initial and follow up) inspections conducted. Additionally, the PSC Authorities in some MoU’s countries preferred to conduct only remote follow up inspections (eg AAMSA, Rusia Chile etc). All the detentions during remote inspections were marked in China ports.
| Country | Remote Initial | Remote follow up | Total | Detentions |
| China | 3,326 | 1,378 | 4,704 | 67 |
| Vietnam | 290 | 1 | 291 | 0 |
| Japan | 90 | 25 | 115 | 0 |
| Singapore | 362 | 27 | 389 | 0 |
| Chile | 0 | 140 | 140 | 0 |
| Russia | 0 | 75 | 75 | 0 |
| Australia | 0 | 148 | 148 | 0 |
| Panama | 0 | 7 | 7 | 0 |
| Malaysia | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Korea S. | 0 | 19 | 19 | 0 |
Table 2: Tokyo MoU – Remote Inspections Breakdown (Ocean going ships > 1,000 gt). Source www.risk4sea.com
Table 3 features the list with the top 15 ports (in respect of number of remote inspections).
| Port | Total | Physical Inspections | Remote Inspections | |||||
| Insp. | Det. | Inspections | Detentions | Inspections | Detentions | % of TTL Inspection | % of TTL Detentions | |
| Tianjin (China) | 636 | 7 | 58 | 0 | 578 | 7 | 91% | 100% |
| Singapore (Singapore) | 443 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 389 | 0 | 88% | – |
| Ningbo (China) | 376 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 376 | 1 | 100% | 33% |
| Shenzhen (China) | 326 | 1 | 49 | 0 | 277 | 1 | 85% | 100% |
| Qingdao (China) | 331 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 327 | 7 | 99% | 100% |
| Zhoushan (China) | 267 | 6 | 34 | 0 | 233 | 6 | 87% | 100% |
| Guangzhou (China) | 224 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 224 | 0 | 100% | – |
| Xiamen (China) | 159 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 144 | 5 | 91% | 100% |
| Yantai (China) | 182 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 182 | 4 | 100% | 100% |
| Dalian (China) | 169 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 169 | 4 | 100% | 100% |
| Lianyungang (China) | 195 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 185 | 6 | 95% | 100% |
| Rizhao (China) | 122 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 122 | 1 | 100% | 100% |
| Haiphong (Vietnam) | 418 | 1 | 324 | 1 | 94 | 0 | 22% | 0% |
| Yangpu Pt (China) | 130 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 130 | 0 | 100% | – |
| Zhangjiagang (China) | 139 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 139 | 0 | 100% | – |
| Taicang (China) | 156 | 1 | 30 | 0 | 126 | 1 | 81% | 100% |
| Dongjiakou (China) | 107 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 91 | 3 | 85% | 100% |
| Weihai (China) | 91 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 91 | 1 | 100% | 100% |
| Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam) | 156 | 0 | 94 | 0 | 62 | 0 | 40% | – |
| Yingkou (China) | 70 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 63 | 3 | 90% | 100% |
Table 3: Tokyo MoU – Physical & Remote Inspections(Ocean going ships > 1,000 gt). Source www.risk4sea.com
Most ports in China showed a number of 100% (or close) inspections conducted remotely, while the 100% of the detentions were marked during remote inspections. The top 5 deficiency categories for remote inspections were , Life Saving Appliances (22%), Safety of Navigation (21%), Emergency Systems (12%), Certificate & Documentation(12%) and Fire Safety (11%).
It is interesting to note that the Deficiency category MLC (including working & living conditions) which was the No1 deficiency category for Tokyo MoU overall deficiencies is not included in top 5 of remote inspections findings. In fact only 4% of findings during remote inspections were related to codes 09### and 18###. It is easy to consider that the absence of physical presence of inspector prevents him to identify such items. For those who have conducted inspections on board (related to crew), it is understood that findings related to working and living conditions are identified through communication with crew members, with visual inspection of accommodation and working areas something which can not be possible during remote inspections.
Technical items and documentation are easier to be spotted during a remote inspection. The top 5 deficiency codes for remote inspections findings were:
- 11101 – Lifeboats (5.1%)
- 04110 – Abandon ship drills (4.1%)
- 10127 – Voyage or passage plan (3.1%)
- 14802 – Ballast Water Record Book (2.9%)
- 10109 – Lights, shapes, sound-signals (2.8%)
Some ship managers may think that a remote inspection may be easier than a physical. However, as t is shown above, the risks of a PSC inspection remain the same regardless of remote or not. Detentions may be the result of remote inspections as the 61 detentions identified during 2021 in Tokyo MoU is an indication. Some deficiencies may not be identified (as the inspector is not physically onboard), however other items are easier to be spotted through the inspections as PSCO has time and space to focus on specific areas requested from the ship.
