Container ships carry the heaviest inspection exposure per port call in commercial shipping, and the shortest window in which to do anything about it. A bulker sits at anchor for days. A tanker discharges over a tide. A box ship berths, works, and sails, and every hour of that stay belongs to the terminal rather than to the chief engineer. Into that window, 2026 has stacked three separate obligations. Mandatory container loss reporting entered force on 1 January 2026 through resolutions MSC.550(108) and MEPC.384(81), amending SOLAS Chapter V regulations 31 and 32 alongside Article V of MARPOL Protocol I, and it applies to any vessel carrying even a single container as well as to ships that merely sight a drifting one. All onboard lifting appliances came under direct regulation through SOLAS Chapter II-1 Regulation 3-13 under MSC.532(107). And from 1 September to 30 November 2026, the Paris and Tokyo MoUs run a joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign on the Securing of Cargo Units and Cargo Transport Units, with a published questionnaire and the stated intention of gathering information on practices that contributed to container losses over the past fifteen years. That campaign opens in under two weeks. Start a free trial of Marine Inspection and get the evidence in order before the first inspector boards.
The structural constraint
Every Other Vessel Type Gets a Maintenance Window. A Box Ship Gets a Berth Window.
The work does not shrink to fit. It gets deferred, compressed, or recorded after the fact — and all three show up in the same place when an inspector asks for evidence.
1 Jan 2026
Container loss reporting became mandatory under MSC.550(108) and MEPC.384(81)
1 Jan 2026
Lifting appliances brought under SOLAS II-1 Reg. 3-13 via MSC.532(107)
1 Sep 2026
Joint Paris and Tokyo MoU cargo securing CIC opens, running to 30 November
Three Things That Changed in 2026
Each of these lands on the same operational surface, and none of them was in force eighteen months ago. Taken together they change what a container operator has to be able to produce on demand. Book a Marine Inspection demo and see all three tracked against the same vessel record.
Change 1
Container Loss Reporting Is Now Mandatory
Amendments adopted through MSC.550(108) and MEPC.384(81) modify SOLAS Chapter V regulations 31 and 32 and Article V of MARPOL Protocol I, closing a long-standing gap. The scope is deliberately wide: it reaches every vessel carrying even a single container, and extends to ships that observe drifting containers at sea rather than only those that lost them.
What it requiresThe master reports a loss without delay to ships in the vicinity, the nearest coastal states and the flag administration, then submits a follow-up report marked final once investigation has established the exact number of units lost.
Change 2
Lifting Appliances Came Under Direct Regulation
SOLAS Chapter II-1 Regulation 3-13, introduced through MSC.532(107), brings onboard lifting appliances into direct regulation. The scope is broader than most operators assume, covering cargo cranes, stores cranes, engine-room cranes, hose handling cranes and anchor-handling winches rather than only the obvious deck equipment.
What it requiresCertification, test records and maintenance evidence for every appliance in scope, held per unit rather than as a single vessel-level document set.
Change 3
A Joint CIC Opens on 1 September
The Paris and Tokyo MoUs are running a joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign on the Securing of Cargo Units and Cargo Transport Units from 1 September to 30 November 2026, conducted during routine Port State Control inspections. The questionnaire was published in early August and contains a checklist of ten questions covering the most significant aspects of cargo securing.
What it requiresDocumentary readiness and, more importantly, demonstrable officer familiarity with the approved Cargo Securing Manual. Serious non-compliance can stop cargo operations and, in serious cases, detain the ship.
Inside the Cargo Securing Campaign
The published guidance sets out what Port State Control Officers will examine. The underlying obligation is SOLAS Regulation VI/5.6, which requires all cargoes, cargo units and cargo transport units other than solid and liquid bulk to be loaded, stowed and secured throughout the voyage in accordance with the Cargo Securing Manual approved by the Administration, prepared in line with MSC.1/Circ.1353/Rev.2. Sign up for Marine Inspection and run the ten-point list internally before an inspector runs it for you.
Approved Cargo Securing Manual
Present on board and the latest revision accepted by the flag administration. Obsolete or superseded versions should be withdrawn from circulation so they cannot be used inadvertently.
Lashing instructions for every stowage situation
The manual must contain clear lashing instructions covering all cargo arrangements actually found on board, not a subset that assumes standard stows.
Officer familiarity with the CSM
Including stack weights, tier weights, deck and hatch cover load limits, and permissible load densities for tank top, hatch covers and decks. This is knowledge assessed in conversation, not a document produced from a folder.
Stack weights within limits
Assessed against Section 4.2.1.3 of MSC.1/Circ.1353/Rev.2. Excessive stack weight has featured repeatedly in accident investigations as a contributing factor.
Verified Gross Mass in cargo planning
VGM information must be provided to the master or the master's representative before loading commences, and must be reflected in the ship's stowage plan. Containers without a provided VGM are not to be loaded.
Actual stow conforms to the plan
Including cargo already on board from previous ports, which is where discrepancies most commonly appear on a multi-port rotation.
Securing equipment sufficiency and condition
Sufficient approved portable cargo securing equipment on board, maintained in satisfactory and fully operational condition, supported by valid certification where required.
Cargo Safe Access Plan
Availability of a CSAP covering safe access for lashing operations.
Bridge visibility
Whether the cargo stow plan takes bridge visibility requirements into account, which on a modern high-stack container vessel is a planning constraint rather than an afterthought.
Heavy weather procedures
Available and implemented, including the handling of securing arrangements during and after heavy weather transits.
Escalation
Where serious non-compliance is identified, inspectors may require containers to be restowed before departure, may require cargo operations to cease where VGM has not been provided for units already loaded, and may detain the vessel until loading, stowage and securing arrangements comply with SOLAS and the approved manual.
1 Sep
Campaign opens
Run the ten-point CIC list as an internal inspection across every vessel before the window opens. Capture CSM revision status, lashing equipment condition and certification, portable equipment counts, CSAP availability and officer familiarity evidence — offline on deck, with photographs, and retrievable the moment a PSCO asks rather than assembled while they wait.
The Retrospective Trap
Two findings from the guidance and from prior campaigns deserve separating out, because they change what preparation actually means. Neither is about the condition of equipment on the day of inspection. Schedule a walkthrough and see historical stowage and lashing records held as retrievable evidence.
Previous voyages are inspectable
Port State Control Officers may examine cargo plans from previous voyages to determine whether the vessel has been operating repeatedly outside approved limits. This is a materially different exposure from a point-in-time check. A stow that was corrected before arrival does not erase the plan that produced it, and a pattern across several voyages tells an inspector something a single compliant stow cannot conceal.
What it meansHistorical cargo plans and lashing records are compliance artefacts with a retention requirement in practice, whatever the paperwork says.
The equipment was rarely the problem
A three-month Australian campaign focused specifically on container stowage and securing found that fixed and portable lashing equipment was generally maintained to a reasonable standard — but that many ship officers did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the approved Cargo Securing Manual. The most serious deficiencies related to excessive stack weights, poor weight distribution, and inadequate securing throughout the voyage.
What it meansPreparation that focuses on turnbuckle condition addresses the part that was already passing. Officer knowledge of the manual is the failing variable.
Recurring failure patterns from accident investigation and campaign data
Excessive stack weights
Incorrect weight distribution
Improper securing arrangements
Lashing equipment not specified in the approved manual
Securing inadequate throughout the voyage rather than at departure
Lashings removed prematurely before entering port
Stability considerations not properly addressed
Incorrectly declared VGM and vertical centre of gravity
What Container Fleet Software Has to Carry
The requirements below follow from the 2026 obligations rather than from a generic maintenance feature list. The final column is the test that settles each one in a demo. Start a free trial and run them against your own vessels.
Table 1: Capability Requirements for Container Vessel Operators
| Requirement | Why It Exists | What Good Looks Like | Test in the Demo |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSM revision control | Only the latest revision accepted by the flag administration is valid, and superseded copies must be withdrawn | Current revision recorded per vessel with acceptance date and prior versions marked obsolete | Show which vessels are carrying which CSM revision, fleet-wide |
| Lashing equipment register | Portable securing equipment must be sufficient, operational and certified where required | Equipment held by type and quantity per vessel with condition and certification status | Produce a count and condition report for one vessel unaided |
| Officer familiarity evidence | Campaign data shows officer understanding of the CSM is the failing variable, not equipment | Familiarisation records attributed to named officers with dates and content covered | Produce evidence that a named officer covered stack weight limits |
| Historical stowage records | PSCOs may review cargo plans from previous voyages for patterns of operating outside limits | Prior plans and lashing records retained and retrievable per voyage | Retrieve the stowage record for a voyage six months ago |
| Lifting appliance records | SOLAS II-1 Reg. 3-13 brings cranes and winches under direct regulation | Certification, test and maintenance history per appliance, not per vessel | Show the test history for one specific engine-room crane |
| Container loss reporting | Reporting is mandatory without delay, with a follow-up final report after investigation | A defined workflow with contacts, timing and the final report stage built in | Walk the reporting sequence as a procedure, not a policy document |
| Reefer plant maintenance | Onboard reefer sockets, power distribution and monitoring are ship's equipment with their own upkeep | Sockets and distribution held in the equipment hierarchy with inspection intervals | Show the maintenance history for reefer sockets in one bay |
| Short-window scheduling | Port stays are measured in hours, so job planning has to fit the berth rather than the calendar | Jobs filterable by duration and by whether they can be done at sea or alongside | Filter for every job completable in a four-hour window alongside |
| Offline capture on deck | Lashing inspections happen on deck, in bays, mid-passage, with no connectivity | Full offline create, edit and submit with photographs, syncing on reconnection | Airplane mode, record a lashing finding with photos, then reconnect |
Reefers: A Second Fleet Inside the Fleet
Reefer boxes are cargo rather than ship's equipment, but they consume ship's power, ship's monitoring and ship's engineering attention, and the financial exposure attached to them is disproportionate. Failure on a single unit can run from tens of thousands of dollars on produce to seven figures on cold chain pharmaceuticals. Book a walkthrough and see reefer plant held alongside the rest of the machinery record.
How pre-trip inspection actually works
Not a legal requirementPTI is an industry-standard procedure required by most shipping lines rather than a statutory obligation, which is precisely why practice varies and why it is worth being explicit about your own standard.
Pass or fail, no partial creditThe test runs on a go or no-go basis. Every test must be executed without failure, one by one, for the result to pass. A failed unit comes out of service and forces re-equipment.
Two depths of testA short PTI inspects components for abnormalities. A full PTI is the short test plus a cooling capacity check, performed only where no abnormality was found in the first stage.
Thirty-day validityA passed PTI is generally treated as valid for thirty days, which turns it into a rolling scheduling problem rather than a one-off gate.
Energy and time costA conventional test run lasts anywhere from thirty minutes to seven hours, stress-testing the unit at maximum cooling and maximum heating, and requires someone to initiate it and monitor the outcome.
What the ship owns
The boxes belong to the operator or the leasing company. The sockets, power distribution, monitoring system and the engineering attention when an alarm sounds mid-passage belong to the ship, and they sit in the vessel's maintenance scope whether or not anyone has put them in the equipment hierarchy.
Where records go missing
Test results are archived in the unit's data recorder, and downloads can track history including temperatures carried during voyages. That record is excellent. What is frequently absent is the ship-side record: which socket, which alarm, who attended, what was found, and whether the same bay has produced repeated faults across several voyages.
Reefer sockets, power distribution and alarm response belong in the vessel's maintenance record, not in an email chain.
Machinery Upkeep Inside a Berth Window
The scheduling problem on a container vessel is different in kind from other sectors. Work is not deferred because the plan is poor; it is deferred because the opportunity closes. A system that lists every overdue job without telling you which ones fit the next port call is describing the problem rather than solving it. Start a free trial and filter your own backlog by what actually fits.
Sea passage work
Jobs achievable underway with machinery running or on a redundant unit. On liner rotations with short legs this window is itself compressed, and the constraint is usually manpower rather than time.
Plan against the leg length, not the month
Alongside work
Jobs requiring shore support, a technician attendance, a part delivered to the berth, or machinery shut down. These must be matched to a specific port call with the part already there, which means the requisition has to precede the opportunity by weeks.
Plan against the rotation, not the due date
Anchorage or waiting time
Unplanned and unpredictable, but real. Fleets that hold a ready list of jobs achievable in an unexpected six-hour wait convert congestion into completed maintenance rather than into idle hours.
Keep a standing list, filtered and current
Dry dock
Everything that fits nowhere else, accumulated over the cycle. The risk on a high-utilisation vessel is that the docking list absorbs work that could have been done alongside, inflating the docking spend and the off-hire with it.
Audit the docking list for work that belonged elsewhere
Evaluating a Platform for a Box Fleet
Run this against every shortlisted platform, with a chief engineer and a chief officer present rather than an IT manager. Book a demo and work through it against your own rotation.
Table 2: Buyer Questions Specific to Container Operations
| Area | The Question | A Real Answer | What Should Worry You |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIC readiness | Can we run the ten-point cargo securing list as an internal inspection today? | A structured inspection produced live, with findings convertible to tasks | A blank checklist builder you are expected to populate |
| Familiarisation | How do we evidence that a named officer understands stack weight limits? | Attributed familiarisation records tied to specific CSM content | A training matrix with dates and no content detail |
| Historical retrieval | Can we produce a stowage and lashing record from six months ago? | Retrieved in the demo, from your data, in under two minutes | Records exist but require a request to someone else |
| Lifting appliances | Are cranes and winches held individually with their own certification history? | Each appliance as a distinct asset with test records attached | Lifting equipment grouped as one line in the hierarchy |
| Window filtering | Can we filter overdue jobs by whether they fit a four-hour berth window? | Duration and location attributes on jobs, filterable live | A flat overdue list sorted only by date |
| Reefer plant | Where do reefer sockets and power distribution sit in the hierarchy? | Modelled per bay with inspection intervals and fault history | Not modelled at all, because the boxes are cargo |
| Deck offline use | Can a chief officer record lashing findings in a bay with no signal? | Airplane mode demonstration with photographs and clean sync | Read-only offline or an assumption of deck coverage |
| Loss reporting | Is the container loss reporting sequence built as a workflow? | A guided procedure covering immediate and final reporting stages | A procedure document stored in a library |
2026 CONTAINER COMPLIANCE REALITY
The campaign window is narrow and specific. The joint Paris and Tokyo MoU Concentrated Inspection Campaign on cargo securing runs from 1 September to 30 November 2026 and is conducted during routine Port State Control inspections rather than as separate visits. Confirm the current questionnaire directly with the MoUs, since guidance is issued and updated close to the start date. Guidance on lashing software is still in progress. The revision of the CSM Guidelines under MSC.1/Circ.1353/Rev.2 has been advancing, including provisions on the use of lashing software as a supplement to approved stowage and securing plans, but agreement was not reached on all performance standards and validation requirements. The work was expected to be finalised at CCC 12 in September 2026 for submission to the Maritime Safety Committee, so treat any current lashing software position as provisional. The statutory floor is unchanged. ISM Code Element 10 requires a documented maintenance system and SOLAS Chapter IX makes ISM mandatory for SOLAS-certified ships, independently of any campaign. Pre-trip inspection is a commercial standard, not a regulation. PTI practice varies by line and by depot, so define your own standard explicitly rather than assuming a common one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the 2026 cargo securing CIC and when does it run?
The Paris and Tokyo MoUs are running a joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign on the Securing of Cargo Units and Cargo Transport Units from 1 September to 30 November 2026, conducted during routine Port State Control inspections. It assesses compliance with existing SOLAS requirements on loading, stowage and securing, and is also intended to gather information on practices that may have contributed to container losses at sea over the past fifteen years. The published guidance contains a ten-question checklist for inspectors covering the Cargo Securing Manual, officer familiarity, stack weights, Verified Gross Mass, securing equipment, the Cargo Safe Access Plan, bridge visibility and heavy weather procedures.
What happens if VGM has not been provided for a container?
Under SOLAS, Verified Gross Mass information must be provided to the master or the master's representative before the container is loaded, and containers without a provided VGM are not to be loaded. Where such containers are already on board, the guidance directs that the Port State Control Officer should consider requiring cargo operations to cease until the issue is resolved. The campaign also checks that VGM is correctly reflected in the ship's stowage plan rather than merely held in a document, and incorrectly declared VGM and vertical centre of gravity both appear among the recurring failure patterns identified from accident investigation.
Can inspectors look at our previous voyages?
Yes, and this is the aspect operators most often overlook. The guidance indicates that inspectors may examine cargo plans from previous voyages to determine whether the vessel has been operating repeatedly outside approved limits. That converts historical stowage and lashing records from internal documentation into inspectable evidence, and it means a compliant stow on the day of inspection does not neutralise a pattern in the record behind it. In practice, retain cargo plans and lashing records in a form that can be retrieved by voyage rather than reconstructed from terminal correspondence.
What does the mandatory container loss reporting requirement involve?
Amendments adopted through MSC.550(108) and MEPC.384(81) modify SOLAS Chapter V regulations 31 and 32 and Article V of MARPOL Protocol I. The master of a vessel losing containers must report without delay to ships in the vicinity, the nearest coastal states and the flag administration, and then submit a follow-up report marked as final once investigation has established the exact number of units lost. The scope covers all vessels carrying even a single container, and extends to ships that observe drifting containers at sea rather than only those that lost them. Build it as a guided workflow rather than a procedure filed in a document library, because the first report is time-critical.
Is reefer pre-trip inspection a regulatory requirement?
No. PTI is an industry-standard procedure required by most shipping lines rather than a statutory obligation, which is why practice varies between lines and depots. It runs on a go or no-go basis, with every test executed without failure for the result to pass, and a passed inspection is generally treated as valid for around thirty days. A short PTI inspects components for abnormalities while a full PTI adds a cooling capacity test, performed only where the first stage found nothing abnormal. A conventional test run takes anywhere from thirty minutes to seven hours and stress-tests the unit at maximum cooling and heating, so it carries a real energy and manpower cost.
How should maintenance be planned around short port stays?
By attribute rather than by due date. Jobs need two properties beyond their interval: how long they take, and where they can be done — at sea, alongside with shore support, or only in dock. A flat overdue list sorted by date is unusable on a liner rotation, because it tells a chief engineer what is late without telling him what is possible before the next sailing. Fleets that manage this well also keep a standing list of work achievable in an unexpected wait, which converts congestion into completed maintenance, and they audit the docking list afterwards for work that could have been done alongside at a fraction of the cost.
Be Ready Before the First Inspector Boards
CSM revision status per vessel, lashing equipment counts and certification, officer familiarisation evidence attributed to named people, historical stowage records retrievable by voyage, lifting appliances held individually under Regulation 3-13, and reefer plant inside the equipment hierarchy — captured offline in a bay on deck and available the moment somebody asks.
