Port State Control Inspections in 2025: Common Detentions and How to Avoid Them

Keywords:
ship inspection report
cargo inspection report
marine inspection report
vessel inspection report

1. Introduction — Why 2025 PSC Trends Matter

Port State Control inspections are often described as compliance checks. In practice, they are something else entirely. A PSC inspection is a real-time test of whether a vessel’s safety, environmental control, and operational discipline can be proven under pressure.

That is why the patterns observed in 2025 matter.

PSC is backward-looking by nature. Inspectors assess what has already happened and what the ship can demonstrate through evidence, records, and crew performance. But the deficiencies and detentions recorded in 2025 reveal structural weaknesses that go far beyond individual ships or isolated failures.

In other words: 2025 PSC trends are lessons, not predictions. But the fleets that fail to learn from those lessons tend to see the same types of findings repeat across multiple calls.

Why the PSC approach is modernizing

With the adoption of IMO Resolution A.1206(34) Procedures for Port State Control, 2025, increased emphasis has been placed on several key areas:

1. Environmental enforcement strengthened
   Environmental compliance moved beyond “having documents onboard” into “demonstrating operational control” (fuel documentation integrity, MARPOL record matching, and consistency across logs).
2. Digital certificates became mainstream, and inspectors increased scrutiny
   While electronic certificates are now widely accepted, PSC officers increasingly verify their authenticity and consistency, paying closer attention to discrepancies within digital documentation systems.
3. ISM moved from paperwork to performance
   PSC increasingly evaluated whether the Safety Management System (SMS) is effectively implemented and functioning in practice, rather than existing solely as documented procedures. The new resolution reinforces effectiveness-based assessment.

This shift happened alongside stronger targeting models: PSC regimes increased their reliance on risk profiles and historical performance data, meaning one weak PSC inspection report may influence inspection frequency and depth.

PSC regimes are operating at massive scale. Tokyo MoU alone recorded 32,054 inspections, resulting in 297 detentions and an overall detention rate of 3.65% — reinforcing that PSC enforcement is both frequent and statistically meaningful for operators.

2. 2025 PSC Enforcement Landscape — What We Saw

One of the clearest trends in 2025 was that PSC inspections became more consistent and more operationally focused. Inspectors across regions applied similar logic and focused on operational credibility rather than formal completeness.

2.1 Key changes in methodology during 2025

A) Surge in environmental-focused inspections

PSC officers increasingly examined MARPOL compliance through evidence consistency:

• bunker delivery note (BDN) authenticity and matching
• fuel changeover log accuracy
• Oil Record Book (ORB) integrity (Annex I)
• operational records alignment across departments

Industry PSC reporting supports the scale and frequency of deficiencies. According to latest ABS PSC reporting:

• 32,054 inspections were recorded
• 19,967 vessels were found with deficiencies
• 1,189 vessels were detained (detention rate 3.71%)

This highlights a critical truth for operators: deficiencies are not exceptional, they are widespread, and detentions remain a real probability where operational evidence is weak.

B) Stricter checks on e-certificates & e-documents

Ships using e-certificates experienced tighter scrutiny, including:

• QR and portal-based verification
• consistency checks across multiple documents
• mismatch detection across logs, declarations, and records

C) Early but growing focus on cybersecurity readiness

Cybersecurity entered PSC inspections in a limited but noticeable way:

• cyber risk procedures onboard
• crew awareness checks
• evidence of response planning and escalation

While PSC is not a cyber audit, inspectors increasingly treated cyber posture as part of a vessel’s operational discipline.

D) More emphasis on ISM implementation, drills, and emergency preparedness

ISM moved to behavior-based assessment:

• competency-based questioning
• drill realism
• corrective action discipline
• evidence and documentation integrity

Paris MoU recorded ISM Code deficiencies in 4.6% of cases, reinforcing that ISM deficiencies are measurable and persistent. In practical terms: weak drills, weak corrective actions, and inconsistent evidence are increasingly treated as indicators of systemic failure.

E) Increased targeting of older tonnage and high-risk routes

Targeting models increasingly prioritized:

• older ships
• repeat deficiency histories
• higher-risk trade routes

Operators with inconsistent PSC histories faced higher inspection intensity and more frequent escalation into expanded inspections.

2.2 Regional Observations (what matters operationally)

Paris MoU (Europe)

Paris MoU inspection patterns continued to highlight:

• fire safety failures
• emergency system readiness
• ISM documentation and effectiveness

Paris MoU detention performance remains consistent at around 4%. The detention rate was 4.03% in 2024, up from 3.81% in 2023, indicating detentions are not decreasing over time, they remain structurally embedded in the compliance landscape.

Tokyo MoU (Asia-Pacific)

Tokyo MoU inspection reporting shows major deficiency weight in:

• fire safety
• lifesaving appliances
• navigation safety

Tokyo MoU reported 297 detentions and an overall detention rate of 3.65%, emphasizing that detention probability remains significant across Asia-Pacific trade.

USCG (United States)

USCG PSC is known for strict evidence-based inspection behavior and operational control scrutiny.

USCG performed 8,710 SOLAS safety exams and recorded 82 detentions, producing a detention ratio of 0.94% (down from 1.22% in 2023). While the ratio is lower compared to certain MoUs, the inspection model remains intensive and strongly competency-driven.

Image-6

---

3. The Most Common 2025 PSC Deficiencies

Despite regulatory evolution, the most common deficiencies remained consistent — because they stem from systemic operational weaknesses rather than one-off technical problems.

PSC detentions in 2025 continued to concentrate in high-consequence categories:

• fire safety failures
• emergency system failures
• ISM implementation gaps
• navigation deficiencies
• MARPOL record and fuel documentation discrepancies
• machinery readiness issues

These patterns align strongly with inspection focus across major regimes.

Image-7

---

3.1 Safety & ISM (top detention-linked categories globally)

Fire safety

Fire safety remains among the most detention-linked categories globally because it has:

• immediate safety impact
• clear testability
• strong history of recurring deficiencies

Paris MoU’s updated deficiency code structure (July 2025 update) defines fire safety failures in granular terms such as:

• fire doors and openings in fire-resisting divisions
• fire detection and alarm system issues
• fixed firefighting installations readiness failures
• ready availability and condition of firefighting equipment

Common fire detention triggers in 2025 included:

• fire doors not closing properly or found wedged open
• fire dampers inaccessible or non-operational
• fixed firefighting systems not ready for demonstration
• fire detection failures in key spaces

Fire safety failures are rarely treated as isolated incidents. They are interpreted as evidence gaps in maintenance and operational discipline.

Emergency systems

Emergency systems failures remain highly detention-prone because emergency readiness is binary: it works, or it doesn’t.

Common deficiencies included:

• emergency generator start failure or instability
• emergency lighting not operational
• steering gear or emergency alarms not operational
• unclear muster processes and weak command structure

ISM implementation failures

ISM deficiencies increasingly shaped inspection outcomes in 2025. ISM wasn’t seen as a compliance binder, rather it was treated as evidence of operational leadership.

Common ISM breakdown patterns included:

• weak drill execution and poor debriefing
• incomplete records that did not demonstrate learning or corrective action
• recurring equipment issues without root cause closure
• missing or poor risk assessments for critical operations

Paris MoU’s measurement of ISM deficiencies (4.6% of cases) reinforces that ISM implementation remains a continuous inspection priority.

---

3.2 Environmental deficiencies (strong growth in visibility)

Environmental compliance moved closer to operational verification. Inspectors increasingly relied on cross-checking records rather than relying on declarations.

MARPOL Annex VI

High-frequency issues included:

• incorrect or missing BDNs
• fuel sulfur documentation mismatches
• changeover records not aligned with operational logs

In 2025, Annex VI detentions were often triggered not by obvious non-compliance, but by inconsistency where documentation did not match onboard operational evidence.

MARPOL Annex I

ORB inconsistencies remain a classic finding.

Common deficiency themes:

• corrections without traceability
• missing signatures
• unrealistic timestamps and sequence inconsistencies
• mismatch between ORB entries and tank soundings or operational records

Record integrity issues damage vessel credibility and often lead to inspection escalation.

---

3.3 Machinery & equipment

Machinery deficiencies remain among the most recurring categories because they expose maintenance discipline weaknesses.

Common issues included:

• alarms not operational
• faulty gauges and instrumentation
• repeated issues without documented maintenance follow-up
• overdue work orders and weak deferral evidence

Machinery problems rarely become detentions when they are isolated and well-managed. They become detentions when inspectors see a pattern of poor maintenance execution and weak operational control.

---

3.4 Navigation & bridge operations

Navigation compliance in 2025 increasingly depended on proof of competence.

Common bridge deficiencies included:

• ECDIS not updated or charts/permits missing
• incomplete passage planning
• watchkeeping standards not demonstrable
• bridge team unable to demonstrate competence under questioning

For PSC inspectors, bridge performance is not theoretical, it is validated through real-time questioning and demonstration.

---

3.5 Certificates & documentation

Documentation deficiencies remain underestimated, but they are still high in number.

Common documentation deficiencies included:

• missing or expired certificates
• incorrect versions of documents onboard
• non-standardized recordkeeping practices across the fleet
• weak authenticity handling for e-documents

---

4. Why These Deficiencies Happened (Root Causes Observed in 2025)

PSC detentions are often treated as isolated equipment failures. However, inspection trends observed during 2025 increasingly suggest that a significant proportion of detentions were associated with systemic and operational control weaknesses rather than single technical defects.

Operational root causes behind 2025 detentions

1) Internal audit effectiveness

Internal audits in many cases did not sufficiently test inspection-level robustness, focusing on checklist completion rather than verification of operational behavior, record consistency, and crew demonstration capability. no random sampling

2) Fragmented documentation systems

When logs, certificates, evidence, drill records exist across separate systems but crew is not familiar, crews lose time, and inspectors lose confidence.

3) Crew change cycles leading to knowledge gaps

Crew transitions often caused “demonstration weakness”, the ship may be compliant, but the crew could not demonstrate compliance effectively.

4) Insufficient training realism

Routine drills without challenge conditions leave crews unprepared for:

• questioning under pressure
• complex scenarios
• role-based competence testing

5) Corrective actions not properly followed up

CARs were often raised but not closed with evidence-based closure. This indicates weak safety culture and poor operational discipline, two major PSC escalation triggers.

---

5. How PSC Inspectors are Working (Inspection Behavior Pattern)

Inspection behavior followed by PSCO is following a structured logic:

Routine inspection → inconsistency detected → expanded inspection → detention risk

Inspectors do not look just for defects. They look for evidence integrity and operational credibility.

What inspectors usually check in the first 30 minutes

If a ship fails in the first 30 minutes, the inspection typically escalates. Inspectors often began with:

1. Boarding condition and first impression
   • safe and well-arranged gangway and access
   • professional reception by ship’s staff
   • crew preparedness and situational awareness
2. Certificates/documental review
   • validity and authenticity of statutory certificates
   • early detection of inconsistencies or anomalies
3. Emergency readiness signals
   • clarity of muster and emergency instructions
   • readiness of emergency equipment
4. Crew questioning
   • “show me the procedure”
   • “where is the equipment”
   • “who is responsible”
5. General walk-through and housekeeping
   • Overall cleanliness and orderliness of accommodation and working spaces
   • Absence of obvious oil leaks, loose materials, or poor housekeeping
   • Condition of deck areas, engine room access points, and common spaces
6. Log consistency probe
   • bunkering records vs BDN
   • ORB vs operational data
   • drill records vs crew answers

This early-stage behavior is critical: it determines whether the ship is classified as controlled and credible or inconsistent and escalation-worthy.

---

6. 2026 Operational Playbook: How to Avoid Detentions

High-performing operators didn’t “prepare for PSC.” They engineered continuous readiness.

1) Pre-arrival digital PSC checklists

Operators used standardized and repeatable checklists aligned with PSC deficiency categories. Sometimes, customized to take into consideration specific PSC behavior in specific areas/ports.

2) Standardized onboard inspections across the fleet

Fleet standardization reduced variability and improved ship-to-ship readiness consistency.

3) Photo/video evidence systems for critical readiness points

Strong fleets developed evidence packs showing:

• equipment condition
• escape routes
• drill readiness evidence

4) Routine internal drills with documented outcomes

Successful drills weren’t recorded as “performed.” They were recorded with:

• observations
• improvements
• corrective actions
• closure evidence

5) Weekly CAR review and closure discipline

High-performing fleets treated corrective actions like operational finance with review rhythm and closure accountability. Not surface level analysis.

---

6. Conclusion — Turning 2025 Lessons into 2026 Readiness

The most important lesson of 2025 is simple:

PSC detentions are predictable.

They are the outcome of weak operational discipline, weak evidence integrity, and inconsistent readiness, rarely sudden failure.

What 2025 revealed clearly:

• inspection patterns are consistent
• detentions remain structurally present across MoUs
• most high-risk deficiencies are preventable
• operational credibility determines inspection outcomes

PSC in 2026 will not become easier. It will become more consistent, more data-driven, and more proof-based.

If operators treat every PSC inspection report as a diagnostic tool and use 2025 trends to fix structural weaknesses, 2026 inspections become manageable. Routine events rather than detention risks.

What is a Port State Control (PSC) inspection?

A Port State Control inspection is a compliance examination conducted by a country’s maritime authority to verify that a visiting vessel meets international safety, environmental, and operational standards. Inspectors assess certificates, crew competence, emergency readiness, machinery condition, and record integrity. If serious deficiencies are found, the vessel may be detained until corrective action is verified.

---

What typically leads to PSC detention?

PSC detentions most commonly result from high-risk deficiencies such as fire safety failures, emergency system malfunctions, ISM implementation gaps, MARPOL documentation inconsistencies, and serious navigation deficiencies. Detentions are rarely caused by isolated minor defects; they usually reflect systemic weaknesses in operational discipline or evidence integrity.

---

How does a PSC inspection report affect future inspections?

A PSC inspection report contributes to a vessel’s and operator’s risk profile within MoU targeting systems. Repeated deficiencies, detention history, or evidence inconsistencies can increase inspection frequency and depth in future port calls. Strong PSC inspection reports, on the other hand, support reduced targeting and improved compliance reputation.

---

Are cruise ship inspection reports evaluated differently from cargo vessels?

Cruise ship inspection reports follow the same regulatory framework but often receive additional scrutiny due to passenger safety considerations. Inspectors may place greater emphasis on lifesaving appliances, fire safety systems, evacuation procedures, and crew competency demonstrations given the higher consequence environment.

---

How can operators reduce PSC detention risk in 2026?

Operators reduce detention risk by standardizing internal inspections, strengthening corrective action discipline, ensuring documentation consistency across logs and certificates, conducting realistic drills, and treating every PSC inspection report as a learning tool rather than a one-time compliance event. Continuous readiness not last-minute preparation is the most effective detention prevention strategy.

Port State Control inspections are not random events they follow patterns. The fleets that analyze those patterns early reduce detention exposure significantly. If your organization wants to turn every PSC inspection report into structured insight, strengthen evidence integrity across vessels, and build continuous inspection readiness for 2026, Navirego can help you operationalize that shift. Book a 15-minute walkthrough to see how structured inspection intelligence improves real-world PSC outcomes. [Explore how NAVIREGO] (https://www.navirego.com/contact) AI-native Inspection Ecosystem helps your team convert inspection reports into real-time insights, performance feedback, and predictive safety intelligence.