The dry bulk deficiency patterns that keep recurring in Rightship inspections

The hidden cost of dry bulk’s inspection record

Dry bulk operators are under more scrutiny than ever. RightShip data consistently shows that dry bulk vessels record some of the highest rates of inspection deficiencies, incidents, and PSC detentions across vessel types.¹ That track record is precisely why RightShip introduced the Age Trigger, a phased measure applying specifically to dry bulk and general cargo tonnage that is steadily lowering the inspection threshold through a four-phase rollout. Phase 2 came into effect in April 2026, now requiring a valid inspection for vessels aged 12 or older.²

Under the current phase, vessels aged 12 or older without a valid RightShip Inspection have their SafetyScore automatically downgraded to 2 out of 5, and cannot pass a RightShip vetting nomination without one.³ The bar keeps moving: RightShip is also extending similar inspection requirements to smaller tonnage under 8,000 DWT, tightening the standards across the fleet.⁴

The consequence is that inspection performance is now becoming a commercial filter. The RightShip SafetyScore is open to any party looking to charter tonnage, and vessels that repeatedly score below 3 out of 5 are increasingly screened out before they can even enter negotiations.

The DOC sub-score is one of the components that feeds into a vessel’s overall RightShip Safety Score, and it specifically evaluates the the DOC holder based on the performance of every vessel it manages. A vessel with an otherwise clean record can still carry elevated risk if other vessels managed by the same DOC holder have performed poorly.⁵ In practice, this means multiple weak vessels can compromise the commercial standing of an entire ship management company.

When examining aggregate data on inspection results, what’s striking about the deficiency patterns is the predictability. Time and again, the same categories of deficiency appear, often on vessels that are already investing in training. Yet by being smart about the way they prepare their crew, operators can up their game and reduce the risk of poor inspection results.

This article examines:

• The most common deficiency areas in dry bulk RISQ inspections.
• Why these issues continue to happen despite training spend.
• The commercial consequences for operators, owners, and commercial managers

The deficiencies are often the same

Dry bulk shipping is structurally exposed to high risk and operational complexity. The sector covers a huge range of solid cargoes, from iron ore and coal to grain and fertilisers, each with distinct stability, moisture, and hazard characteristics, and misunderstanding these nuances can quickly translate into unsafe operations.

Compounding this, dry bulk vessels face an exceptionally high frequency of critical operations, repeatedly loading, discharging, and entering cargo holds in ports that vary widely in standards and infrastructure. Every operation is another opportunity for human error.

RightShip’s own platform data has long reflected an excessive number of incident rates, deficiencies, and PSC detentions in the dry bulk sector. The deficiencies tend to recur in the same categories, and RISQ 3.2 was developed to test those areas more directly than earlier versions. Across RISQ inspections, certain themes come up again and again:

A lack of cargo hold familiarisation and IMSBC compliance

Cargo management is one of the areas RISQ 3.2 specifically strengthened, introducing clearer definitions and more practical expectations around how crews handle cargo-related requirements.⁶ This reflects a real and well-documented risk in dry bulk: cargoes classified under the IMSBC Code’s Group A can liquefy if carried at a moisture content above their Transportable Moisture Limit, a hazard that has led to documented cases of cargo shift, near-capsizing, and vessel loss. Under RISQ 3.2’s more detailed cargo management guidance, crews are expected to demonstrate practical familiarity with these requirements, not just confirm their presence on paper.⁷

Enclosed space entry

In dry bulk, cargo hold entry is routine. That frequency raises the stakes: any lapse in gas testing, communication, or permit-to-work can have catastrophic consequences. RightShip’s own review of enclosed-space fatalities found poor procedures, incomplete risk assessment, and human factors — including crew hesitating to challenge a senior officer’s decision, and commercial pressure pushing crew to skip steps — as recurring, direct causes.⁸ In response, inspectors are now focusing on evaluating both procedures and crew confidence in applying them under pressure, rather than relying on documentation alone.⁶

Mooring operations

Dry bulk carriers trade into a wide diversity of ports and terminals, each with different berthing arrangements, environmental conditions, and equipment standards. Mooring remains one of the most hazardous phases of any voyage: RightShip’s own inspection data recorded 11,390 mooring-related findings across 7,057 inspections between January 2022 and January 2025.⁹

Findings often relate to line management, snap-back awareness, and adherence to mooring plans. The two most common individual findings concerned mooring lines and tails not complying with industry guidelines, and winch brake rendering procedures not being tested regularly. RightShip’s own classification attributes the largest share of these findings to equipment (41%) and process (34%), with human factors accounting for 25%.⁹ This still represents more than 2,800 individual findings tied directly to crew understanding and practice, a scale that makes targeted training a meaningful lever even where it isn’t the whole answer.

Why these deficiencies keep happening

Most operators are are spending more than ever on courses, e‑learning, and refreshers for their crew. Yet the same issues appear in reports. Volume isn’t the issue; a large part of the problem is what the training actually covers.

Generic training, specific inspections

Course completion is the industry’s primary proxy for readiness. A crew member finishes a module, the record is logged, the box is ticked. That approach worked when inspections were largely checking for the presence of qualifications on paper. It works less well now that RISQ inspections dive deeper, asking crew to explain, justify, and demonstrate safe practice in real-world scenarios rather than simply confirm what’s written in the manual.

The tanker sector saw this shift first. SIRE 2.0 pioneered a more sophisticated style of inspection, judging how much a crew genuinely knows rather than reading down a list of completed qualifications. RISQ has followed the same trajectory for dry bulk, given both the complexity of solid bulk cargoes and mounting evidence that crew were making costly mistakes despite their training.

The sections where dry bulk operators most commonly receive deficiencies are precisely the areas where RISQ 3.2 has tightened inspection requirements. Much of the training crew typically receive in these areas is broad by design: generic cargo-handling modules, standard enclosed-space refreshers. These are useful as a foundation, but rarely built around the specific risks a given vessel actually carries. A bulk carrier moving iron ore and a bulk carrier moving grain face different moisture, stability, and hazard profiles, and training that doesn’t reflect that distinction leaves crew  and the vessel exposed exactly where inspectors are now looking hardest.

This is where most training programs stop short: they can claim relevance, but rarely prove it against the standard crews are actually being tested on. The Ocean Learning Platform closes that gap directly. Its course library, built up over years, includes highly detailed training mapped to specific cargoes and hazards, from IMSBC and IMDG-specific modules to hatch cover training for crew assigned to bulk carriers. More importantly, the course library is mapped question-by-question against RISQ 3.2 itself: searchable by keyword or by inspection section, so an operator can see exactly which course addresses which requirement, rather than assuming a general curriculum will happen to cover it. It’s the difference between training that’s broadly relevant and training that’s demonstrably aligned to what’s being inspected.

Closing the gap between training and inspection reality doesn’t require guesswork. The Ocean Learning Platform gives operators a direct line of sight from crew training to RISQ 3.2 requirements, backed by a course library built specifically for the risks dry bulk crews actually face. In Part 2 of this series, we’ll look at how this mapping works in practice — and how OneOcean’s Zero Harm Innovation Partnership with RightShip makes structured training investment visible on the platform where vetting and fixture decisions are made.

Discover crew training that is built for the dry bulk sector now!

Sources

1. RightShip, “The Inspection Iceberg: What PSC Trends Reveal About Fleet Risk Beneath the Surface,” published 14 July 2026. rightship.com/insights/the-inspection-iceberg-what-psc-trends-in-2025-reveal-about-fleet-risk-beneath-the-surface
2. SAFETY4SEA, “RightShip: Phase 2 of Inspection Age Trigger takes effect on 1 April 2026,” published 12 March 2026. safety4sea.com/rightship-phase-2-of-inspection-age-trigger-takes-effect-on-1-april-2026
3. RightShip Group Pte. Ltd., “RightShip Newsletter — April 2026,” LinkedIn Pulse. linkedin.com/pulse/rightship-newsletter-april-2026-rightship-group-pte-ltd-l9i3c
4. RightShip, “Revised RightShip Inspection Age Trigger: What It Means for Owners, Managers, and Charterers,” last updated 26 May 2026 (originally published 11 December 2024). rightship.com/insights/revised-rightship-inspection-age-trigger-what-means-owners-managers-charterers
5. RightShip Help Centre, “Example of Vessel Safety Scores.” help.rightship.com/en/articles/4238254-example-of-vessel-safety-scores
6. RightShip, “RightShip Deep Dive | Advancing Vessel Safety: An Update to RISQ 3.2 and RightShip Inspections,” published 26 November 2025. rightship.com/insights/deep-dive-advancing-vessel-safety-update-risq-3.2-and-rightship-inspections
7. Gard, “Beware cargoes which may liquefy not listed in the IMSBC Code.” gard.no/en/insights/beware-cargoes-which-may-liquefy-not-listed-imsbc-code
8. RightShip, “Safety Insights Paper – Enclosed Space Entry.” rightship.com/resources/insights/safety-insights-paper-enclosed-space-entry
9. RightShip, “Safety Insights Series – Mooring Safety.” 141142183.hs-sites-eu1.com/hubfs/Safety%20Insights%20-%20Mooring%20Safety.pdf