Unmanned Container Ship study

2/5/2014 UNMANNED
VESSELS; THE
FUTURE?
Ryan Slimmon
Reg. 201016469
Supervisor: Mr. David Clelland
Ryan Slimmon
UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

Page | 1
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................. 3
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 5
AIMS............................................................................................................................................ 7
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 7
The Introduction of Automation................................................................................................... 7
Centrifugal Governor .................................................................................................................. 7
Common types of control............................................................................................................ 8
Present Applications of Automation ............................................................................................. 8
Automatic cars........................................................................................................................... 8
Automated planes.................................................................................................................... 10
Automatic trains ...................................................................................................................... 11
Autonomous marine vessels ...................................................................................................... 12
Present Research ..................................................................................................................... 13
The MUNIN Programme............................................................................................................ 13
MUNIN’s Partners .................................................................................................................... 13
Deliverable 7.2......................................................................................................................... 14
Slow Steaming ......................................................................................................................... 14
Maersk Using Slow Steaming Operation ...................................................................................... 15
Present Technology .................................................................................................................. 15
Autopilot................................................................................................................................. 16
SECurus................................................................................................................................... 16
Marinesoft .............................................................................................................................. 17
Legal issues with unmanned Vessel ............................................................................................ 17
University College Cork ............................................................................................................. 18
MAIN BODY................................................................................................................................. 19
Slow Steaming ......................................................................................................................... 19
Collision Avoidance and Safe Navigation ..................................................................................... 25
Obstacles for Unmanned Navigation........................................................................................... 36
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 44
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 46
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 47
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix 1- Emma Maersk Trade Route...................................................................................... 49

Page | 2
Appendix 2- Emma Maersk TEU ................................................................................................. 51

Page | 3
ABBREVIATIONS
ABS Autonomous Bridge Control
AIS Automatic Identification System
ASC Autonomous Ship Controller
COLREG Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
IALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse
Authorities
IMO International Maritime Organization
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MUNIN Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks
SAR Search and Rescue
SBC Shore Bridge Control
SCC Shore Central Centre
SEC Shore Engine Control
SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea
UAV Unmanned Autonomous Vessel
UUV Unmanned Underwater Vessel
VTS Vessel Traffic Services

Page | 4
ABSTRACT
This document analyses the possible requirement for, and progress towards, developing a
fully autonomous or unmanned container ship. It will focus mostly on the concept of
autonomous navigation for a container ship.
Firstly, there is an introduction outlining the concept of automation and its development of
the years. This section included a description of several forms of automation and there
applications in the marine environment.
Secondly, there is a literature review outlining the large amount of information available on
automation which will highlight the sources accessible for use in this study. This section
features a wide scope of information showing the expansive amount of areas that could be
studied.
Next, taking the information available, aims were produced to outline the main objectives of
this study. The main body of text then followed and this was an in-depth analyse of the main
objective of the study.
The main body was then accessed to conclude if the aims of the project were met and to
provide closing remarks on the experience of conducting this study. References are shown at
the end along with appendices shown additional information and any working followed.

Page | 5
INTRODUCTION
The idea of an autonomous vehicle is not an entirely new concept and it is present in many
forms of transport including the marine environment. AUV’s (Autonomous Underwater
Vehicles) and UUV’s (Unmanned Undersea Vehicles) have been around since as early as
1957. AUV’s have been applied in the oil industry for exploration purposes as well as
applications within the military. Although, we currently don’t have any fully autonomous
ships there is several automated systems used in shipping presently for example the widely
trusted autopilot.
An autonomous ship can be defined as;
Next generation modular control systems and communications technology
[that] will enable wireless monitoring and control functions both on and off board. These will
include advanced decision support systems to provide a capability to operate ships remotely
under semi or fully autonomous control
The concept of an unmanned vessel is an appealing one to shipbuilders and ship owners
alike as it can improve the efficiency of ship operation as well as offer some economic
advantages. It could also be said that by taking out the majority of human interaction we
could avoid such occurrences as the now infamous ‘Costa Concordia incident’. Of course,
even with advancements in creating automated vessels for now there will always be some
form of human interaction. Though, with unmanned vessels remedial tasks can be taken out
of the hands of crew members which would allow them to focus on more demanding tasks
which for now can’t be automated. The idea of removing basic- though important- tasks away
from human control and placing in the hands of an automated system could possibly solve the
issue of fatigue therefore, reducing fatigue induced errors. Of course, it’s hard to argue that
the reason behind error was due to fatigue.
There are 3 main areas that will be assessed to fully identify to potential benefits of
unmanned vessels are; economic, social and environmental/ecological.
When discussing economic advantages with unmanned vessels we are primarily looking at
decreasing labour costs. According to Drewry Report on Ship Operating Costs the cost of
crew for ships contributed to 31-36% of total ship operation costs for bulk carriers which of
course are a substantial amount and the figure is the future could rise further still.
In this day and age companies are always looking to reduce their carbon footprint. Although
ships are only responsible for a relatively small percentage of the worlds greenhouse
emissions it is still an aim within the industry to reduce it.
Slow steaming a proposed method of reducing greenhouse emissions. Slow steaming refers to
the practice of operating transoceanic cargo ships, especially container ships, at significantly
less than their maximum speed. An analyst at National Ports and Waterways Institute stated
in 2010 that nearly all global shipping lines were using slow steaming to save money on fuel.

Page | 6
However, there is a detriment to this option because it could lead to increased charter costs
which in turn would lead to increased crew costs. Due to this fact many companies are
resisting the use of slow steaming as they view it cons to outweigh its pros. This is where an
unmanned vessel offers a distinct environmental advantage as it would eliminate the
increase in crew costs due to slow steaming therefore, possibly encouraging companies and
ship owners to invest in the idea.
Finally, and possibly most appealingly there is a social advantage offered by a fully
automated vessel. Although not true for all sea goers it can be said that a life at sea is not the
most appealing to all individuals. Now if the concept of slow steaming a widely employed
then a reduction in ship speeds will of course lead to increased voyage times thus constituting
further to the above mentioned detriment to family life.
Therefore, studies have shown a lack of appeal (especially to youths) in a life at sea. On the
other hand, with more autonomous vessels leading to smaller demand for labour this will lead
to increase in wages which would naturally create a greater appeal.
Although AUV’s have been around for over 50 years, producing an unmanned vessel may
not be done in the near future though, the technology is present for it to be developed in the
near future. There is an EU funded project titled MUNIN (Maritime Unmanned Navigation
through Intelligence in Networks) have already set a proposal to investigate to possibility of
an unmanned vessel in the future.
An unmanned ship can be achieved by a combination of remote, automatic and autonomous.
When speaking about autonomous we are suggesting a system which has implied constraints
and can still involve high human interaction. The less automated something is the closer we
are to achieving a fully autonomous or intelligent system.
The diagram below should show the transition from a manned ship to an autonomous ship;
Fig 1.1- levels of automation.
This project will focus on the current demand for autonomy in the marine environment by
looking at the implications of autonomous navigation of a container ship. The technology
that could be used for autonomous navigation will be outlined and analyzed. The limitations
i.e. legally of this technology will be accessed so I can produce a conclusion as to whether an
autonomous container ship is a realistic concept.

Page | 7
AIMS
 Analyze the positive implications produced with a container ship performing slow
steaming whilst unmanned.
 Look at the technology required for performing autonomous navigation and assess
whether it is currently available.
 Determine the possible restrictions, for instance legal restrictions, involved with the
concept of an unmanned navigation.
 Conclude, from the study, the possibility of there being fully autonomous navigation
of a container ship, such as the Emma Maersk, in the near future.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Introduction of Automation
Automation may not be an entirely new concept with applications existing as far back as
late 18th century with the centrifugal governor- mentioned below- or even possibly further
back.
However, it wasn’t widely used until 1947 when General Motors created an automation
department within the company. There are two commonly used types of automation;
feedback control and sequence control[37]
. General motors made use of the feedback control
which was introduced in 1930’s.
Centrifugal Governor
As mentioned an early example of automation is a device called a centrifugal governor.
This is a type of governor that specifically controls the speed of an engine by the process of
regulating the amount of the working fluid i.e. fuel that is admitted with the aim of
maintaining a constant speed regardless of load conditions[38].
Its operation is relatively simple to explain. For operation in a steam engine for example the
speed is regulated by having the governor connected to the throttle valve of the engine. If the
working fluid (steam) is being supplied too readily to the engines prime mover then the
governor’s spindle will increase accordingly. If the motion of the spindle becomes too fast
the lever arm of the governor pulls down on a thrust bearing to decrease the steam flow.

Page | 8
When the flow of the steam to the engine cylinder is reduced it proportionally reduces the
speed of the engines prime mover. This as outlined is only a method of regulation but doesn’t
complete a fully autonomous system on the train.
Common types of control
Feedback control is a ‘closed loop’ control system where if a systems output doesn’t match
the input signal then an error signal is sent to the controller to allow it to perform a corrective
measure to produce the desired output.
The other common type of control is sequence control. This can either be to a fixed
sequence or to a logical one. The most common form of sequence control employs a relay
logic which starts or stops a system based on signals received whilst the system is in
operation. These systems can become complex if involve start up and shut down sequences
which involves use of timers. An example of this control is a lawn sprinkler which works
with a relay which control the times the sprinkler will operate.
PLC’s (Programmable Logic Controllers) are an example of a development in the control
methods used. PLC’s can be used for feedback and sequential control. They have replaced the
majority of hardware i.e. timers, used for these control systems and can operated using a
single computer[37].
Present Applications of Automation
Though there is presently automation used in the operation of ships there is, to date, no fully
autonomous ship in the marine industry. There is however full autonomy present in other
forms of transport or navigation. For example, there are fully autonomous cars like the
Google driverless car and unmanned aircraft like those for military purposes. As the purpose
of all forms navigation is generally to get from point A to B then technology and motive used
in other forms of transport can theoretically be applied to the marine industry.
Automatic cars
A fully autonomous car is not just a concept that’s in development; it’s already a reality.
Present examples of autonomous cars are the Google car operated in the US and a new
project in Milton Keynes, UK.

Page | 9
The Google driverless car[21] is a project being led by Sebastian Thrun who is the director
of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and also, is the co-inventor of Google
streetview, so his credentials are clear regarding this project.
The car is powered by ‘Google Chauffeur’ software, which uses a $70,000 LIDAR (laser
radar) system to generate a very detailed 3D map of the environment surrounding the car
whilst in operation. A velodyne 64-beam laser produces this map and the car uses these 3D
maps-and high-resolution maps of the world- to allow the car to navigate and therefore,
function automatically.
A project team using 10 of the driverless cars has conducted tests of the Google car. For
variation, different car models have been used including 6 Toyota Prius, an Audi TT, and 3
Lexus RX450h. In each of these cars there was a one of twelve selected drivers, who each
had spotless driving records, and sitting in the passenger seat was a Google engineer. The
tests were conducted throughout San Francisco including the Golden Gate Bridge and
Lombard Street which is well known for its steep hairpin turns therefore, presenting a worthy
challenge of the cars capabilities. The car is employed with sensors, to aid with awareness of
surrounding objects such as nearby cars, and the maps created by the Velodyne laser to
maintain on course and within the speed limit. The car whilst able to perform fully
automatically can be overridden just as applying your foot to the brake or accelerator
interrupts cruise control (an automation present in many cars already).
In August of 2012 the project team reported that the cars had been driven autonomously for
over 300,000 miles without an accident and this has led to 3 US states passing laws
permitting the use of autonomous cars.
This success has encouraged a similar project in the UK. A £1.5m project to design and
build a fully autonomous vehicle for use in UK city centres was announced by the
Government on 7th November 2013. The scheme was proposed for the purpose of aiding the
general public’s navigation through Milton Keynes. These cars, described as pods, are large
enough to accommodate two passengers neither of which requires performing any tasks in
operating the vehicle. It will run on special pathways formed around Milton Keynes and can
travel at a maximum speed of 12 mph. The pods have sensors, which detect obstacles such as
people walking near the pathways[20].
Many advantages are presented with driverless cars including the removal of stress that can
come with driving and that- particularly with the pods- passengers can perform more
preferable tasks like reading a magazine whilst travelling to their destination. The removal of
human error in using an automated car is another advantage as Emma Burn, robotics and AI
specialist, highlights regarding the Google car when she mentions how a simple sneeze could
cause a human to dangerously divert there car. This particular advantage can be related to the
marine industry in that collisions between vessels can sometimes be down to human error but
the question would be asked with driverless cars, as it would with a ship, of who is
responsible in the event of a crash. Is it the technology or its human creator?

Page | 10
Automated planes
It is common knowledge that modern day commercial flights use automation such as
autopilot to aid in navigation. A pilot- and co-pilot- are still in the cockpit to perform some of
the tasks in the operation of flying the plane. It is mandatory by international aviation
regulations for aircraft carrying more than 20 passengers to use autopilot as it’s widely
recognized as a reliable and beneficial system. Some advanced autopilots are even able to
land the plane with minimal intervention from the pilot but it’s likely to be a sometime before
a fully automated commercial aero plane is used as it’s still a general consensus to have more
faith in a human pilot than non-emotive computer.
A UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), or a drone, is an unmanned aircraft, which is now
commonly deployed for use by the military and special operation applications. The aircraft is
either remotely controlled on the ground or from another vehicle[28].
The military have greatly increase their use of UAV’s for combative purposes over the
years. An armed unmanned aircraft is called an UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle or
combat drone[29]. These combat drones just like unarmed drones can be remotely controlled
however, recent designs by the military have operational drones that are completely self-
sufficient. The operation and destination coordinates required are programmed into the
combat drone and it is designed to carry out the mission completely autonomously. By not
having a pilot manually flying these fighter crafts items such as cockpit, armor, ejection seat,
etc are not required therefore, the aircraft is lighter and cheaper to assemble after all required
technology is installed.
In September 2013 the US Air Force and the Boeing aerospace and defense corporation
succeeded in converting a retired F-16 fighter jet into a drone[27]. Operations such as take-
off, landing and flying at supersonic speeds are still possible with the jet and therefore, are
being used for training exercises by the Air force. It’s a major advantage for fighter jets to be
unmanned when performing dangerous missions as it removes the risk of human casualties
just like an unmanned ship would have no human casualties if it were to capsize, sink, etc.
Recently the US Air Force announce it will no longer build piloted fighter crafts.

Page | 11
Automatic trains
Trains are another form of transport, which operate with automation due to the advantages
it brings to its industry. The main advantages produced are reducing line operational costs as
well as improving the frequency of service. Another advantage is decrease of labor costs is
using a driverless train, which is a benefit that is also appealing to the marine industry as
well[22].
The London Underground Victoria Line opened in 1967[23] and is the first line, which
employs driverless trains. An operational safety enhancement device used onboard trains is
Automatic Train Operation (ATO) which is the main automation device used for trains. It’s
mostly used on subways as there operations are simpler and so human safety is easier to
achieve. The main aim of this automation is to maintain the train’s timetable whilst
performing at a safe condition. ATO usually operates in sync with Automatic Train Control
(ATC) and Automatic Train Protection (ATP). ATC and ATP aid the ATO system in
maintaining the train’s timetable within a defined tolerance. Corrective measures, such as
adjusting ratio of power to coast if encounter station dwell time, are taken by the systems if
the track goes off its desired schedule[22].
The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has five Grades of Automation
(GoA) [22] to define the level of automation used on a train and they are as follows;
 GoA 0 corresponds to on-sight train operation, similar to a tram running on street
traffic.
 GoA 1 corresponds to a fully manual train operation where a train driver controls not
only the starting and stopping of a train but also the operation of train doors and
handling of emergencies or sudden train diversions.
 GoA 2 corresponds to a semi-automatic train operation (STO) where the starting and
stopping of a train is automated but a standby train driver remains in the driver's cab
to prompt the train to start, to control the operation of train doors, to manually operate
the train if needed and to handle emergencies. Many ATO systems in the world are of
grade GoA 2.
 GoA 3 corresponds to a driverless train operation (DTO) where a train can start and
stop itself but a train attendant may be present to operate the train doors and to
manually drive the train in case of emergencies.
 GoA 4 corresponds to an unattended train operation (UTO) where the starting and
stopping of trains, as well as operation of train doors and handling of emergencies are
fully automated without any regulatory requirement of staff present in the trains.
As highlighted above not all trains are fully automated and human interaction is still
involved even if only to monitor the operation of the train. This would possibly show that
there is still not total faith in the automated system and that further development of the
automation is required.

Page | 12
Autonomous marine vessels
Whilst there is no unmanned or fully autonomous ship there are automated marine vessels
operating at the moment called AUV’s (autonomous underwater vehicles)[30] so research into
unmanned operations in the marine environment has already been conducted. The first AUV
was developed in 1957 at the University of Washington and since has developed to become
quite sophisticated devices. AUV’s are commonly used for purposes in the oil and gas
industry. An example of an AUV is the Hammerhead[31] which was designed at the
University of Plymouth and operates with the aid of GPS tracking from satellites to perform
adaptive tracking & navigation. Further advancements with AUV’s have led to development
of underwater gliders. Gliders[35] propel themselves by using wings to convert vertical motion
to horizontal motion and in doing so can operate at very low power consumption. Gliders can
provide data on temporal and spatial scales that were unachievable with older AUV designs
and are being utilized by the navy but do some at greater cost- typically in the region of
$100,000 (USD). Therefore, this highlights that while further development leads to more
attractive advantages it does require more investment. An example of a glider is the Spray
Glider.
Unmanned surface vehicles (USV) also exist which an unmanned vessel operating on the
water’s surface without a crew. Spartan[32] and Protector[34] are 2 examples of operational
USV’s. Spartan was developed in the US in 2001 as a combative vehicle consisting of a rigid
hull inflatable structure and armed with a 0.50 caliber machine gun. Though it can function
autonomously it does require a two-man boat crew to deploy it. Similarly, the Protector USV
is another rigid-hulled inflatable boat used by Israeli defense for military purposes.
Each of the above examples of AUV’s and USV’s were covered in a seminar presented by
Professor Robert Sutton in November 2013[39] who described how ‘fuzzy logic’ theory[40] was
used in the vehicles operation. Fuzzy logic is a form of many-values logic and the theory uses
approximate instead of fixed reasoning. It used a truth range from 0 to 1 to evaluate its
variables as opposed to truth or false values used by binary sets. For AUV navigation a
Global Positioning System (GPS) and several inertial navigation system (INS) sensors are
utilized. A simple Kalman filter and an extended Kalman filter are used to fuse the data
obtained from the GPS and INS sensors. Prof. Sutton explained the use of ‘fuzzy logic’
theory as a mathematical system for creating an adaptive system for an AUV when changes
in sensor noise characteristics occur in the Kalman filters[41]. Thus far, ‘fuzzy logic’ has only
been used in the operations of AUV’s but Prof. Sutton stated that, whilst no evidence has
been produced yet, there it is logical for ‘fuzzy logic’ theory to be applied for larger marine
vessels like container ships.

Page | 13
Present Research
Due to several possible advantages there’s been a lot of encouragement provided to develop a
concept for a fully autonomous ship. There is of course automation present in industry at the
moment including in navigation. There is no fully autonomous ship but with the current
automation in other forms on navigation and industry there is information available to
conduct research into concept for an unmanned ship.
The MUNIN Programme
Extensive research and analysis of the feasibility of an unmanned vessel has been initiated.
There is currently research being conducted through a 36 month project titled MUNIN-
Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Networks[1].
The MUNIN project started on the 1st of September 2012 and is a collaborative research
project that is co-funded by the European Commissions under its Seventh Framework
Programme. Its primary aim is develop a concept of an autonomous ship than is remotely
controlled on-shore whilst being unmanned. Due to high demand for such a concept there is a
heavy backing provided. The project has a budget of 3.8 million euros with 2.9 million euros
of that budget being funded by the government.
As mentioned MUNIN is a collaborative effort involving eight partners led by Fraunhofer
CML[3]. Each of these partners offer expertise in different areas that cover all important
aspects that need to be considered for a feasible concept to be developed.
MUNIN’s Partners
MUNIN have several established partner co-operating in the research. Each partner offers
different angles or expertise to the project. This collection of partners highlight the wide
range of topics that have to be considered if we are to develop a concept for an unmanned
vessel.
These partners include universities, research institutes as well international companies. These
partners include Fraunhofer CML [3] is located at the Hamburg University of Technology in
Hamburg, Germany and they professionals in the area of contract research for private and
public sector clients within the maritime industry. Another partner is MARINTEK[4] is a
Norwegian company with headquarters in Trondheim. They perform research and
development for companies in the field of marine technology.

Page | 14
There are two universities who are also involved with MUNIN; Chalmers University of
Technology [5] and University college Cork (UCC)[12]. There is a Department of Shipping
and Marine Technology at Chalmers that is assigned to perform research into the latest
technologies for use in propulsion and the navigation of ships. The law department in UCC is
the source of legal expertise for the MUNIN project. They specialize in various areas of the
law including environmental law, human rights, marine law, business law, comparative law,
constitutional law and legal theory.
Other partners include Wismar, a training and research institution in Germany, and a
Icelandic company called Marorka[11] who are a leading provider of energy management.
Finally, there’s Aptomar AS [7], and MarineSoft [10],. The former, is a Norwegian company
specializing in maritime sensor systems like the SECurus system and the latter, an
international provider for maritime software solutions.
Deliverable 7.2
A link on the MUNIN website provided a deliverable titled “7.2: Legal and Liability Analysis
for Remote Controlled Vessels”[2]. This was produced by one of MUNIN’s research partners
The University College Cork (UCC)[12] who offer expertise is the legal considerations
involved with unmanned vessels. They have a law department-at the forefront of legal
research in the EU- comprising of 30 full-time and permanent teaching and research staff.
There is also a large cohort of Masters and PhD students.
The Deliverable is an analytical study of the principal legal obligations and responsibilities
associated with the operation of an unmanned vessel is events of possible collisions,
maintenance, etc. The aim of the deliverable was to obtain a legal and liability framework for
the operation of autonomous or unmanned shipping.
Slow Steaming
Due to high crew costs published in the Drewry Report on Ship Operating Costs[36], along
with pressure from the government for companies to reduce their carbon footprint, shipping
companies are looking for measures of countering these problems.
A commonly explored method of doing this is a reduction is a ships speed while in transit i.e.
slow steaming[13]. Based on figures given by MUNIN[1], fuel consumption can be reduced by
more than 50% and emissions reduced as well by reducing a ships transit speed from 16 to 11
knots while for example travelling the route between Porto de Tubarao and Hamburg[1]. This
can be seen as a huge money saver- as it reduces bunker costs- as well as an environmentally
friendly action.

Page | 15
On the other hand, in performing slow steaming this naturally increases voyage time and as
life at sea is already seen as unappealing to many this creates a new problem.
However, there would be no issue developed if the unmanned vessels were developed to be
able to perform slow steaming. This would have the benefit of improving SFC and amount of
emissions whilst decreasing crew costs as no crew would be required.
Furthermore, slow steaming may not just save money in terms of crew costs and fuel
consumption but could save money in the construction of a vessel. A crew accommodation
block would not be required thus, creating space to possibly carry more cargo. Also, food, air
conditioning units, etc. wouldn’t be required either.
Maersk Using Slow Steaming Operation
Maersk is one shipping company who have identified the benefits of slow steaming and
outline so in their publication “Slow Steaming- the full story”[14].
Maersk recognised the increase in fuel costs and issues with CO2 emissions and set out on
solving the problem. Their solution was to implement the use of slow steaming into their
fleet. This produced a saving of 22% in bunker fuel savings in 2010 and has reduced their
fuel consumption and emissions as well. The success in slow steaming has led to Maersk
reconfiguring their network to the point where in 2010, 73% of the Maersk fleet line were
slow steaming at engine loads below 40 percent.
Maersk clearly see slow steaming as the future for their operations so much so that in 2011
they awarded Daewoo Shipbuilding with two contracts ($1.9 billion each) to build their new
Triple-E vessels[15]. These vessels were designed to achieve the maximum advantage from
slow steaming. This was done by designing the hulls to be optimized for lower speeds and
actually has less powerful engines than its predecessors[15]
Present Technology
Although there might not be a fully autonomous vessel there is currently automation used
onboard ships for their operation. Also, the types of automation used in other forms of
transport could be applied to a marine vessel. Equipment and technology that is currently
used or could be possibly be used for operation of a ship is shown below. By utilizing the
technology below, as well as others, a concept of a fully autonomous ship could be produced.

Page | 16
Autopilot
The majority of ships now operate with autopilot but will continue to have a helmsman
monitoring the operation and taking corrective measures if required. Ships operating with
autopilot are designed around the ‘virtual ship’ principle[25] which is a computer generated
model vessel that performs under set criteria.
Autopilot[24] has been around for several years and what was once a basic system that simply
controlled a ships navigation, it now has more complex setup and can perform more
complicated tasks. The ADG 3000VT Adaptive Digital Gyropilot Steering Control System[25]
is an up-to-date autopilot system created by Sperry Marine. It consists of a microcomputer
and other electronics that provides signal outputs to the ships control system to aid in the
steering of the ship.
The automatic steering of the vessel using this system is performed using three methods.
There is AUTO mode which is the primary mode where the desired heading is maintained
from data that is input from the gyrocompass and the helmsman input. The NAV mode
performs automatic heading keeping using inputs from an external management system to
steer the vessel to pre-determined waypoints. Finally, the TRACK mode uses inputs from an
external navigator. These inputs are corrected for cross-track error by the autopilot to steer
the vessel to a waypoint over a designated ground track. To operate effectively the autopilot
only requires the following inputs; positional data, rate of change of course data and
cumulative build-up of error data[25].
With advanced autopilot systems, which can operate automatically if all required inputs are
programmed by the helmsman, it can be possible to consider that a ship can steer to the
desired waypoint without human interaction onboard the ship.
SECurus
SECurus[8], is a piece of software produced by maritime sensor system experts Aptomar[7],.
The SECurus system combines advanced stabilized long range and highly sensitive IR and
digital video cameras with a unique Electronic Chart System. The ECS touch screen overlays
information from several sources. The system knows the exact geographic position of every
pixel in the pictures from both cameras and can project the image onto the map for easy
navigation or object recovery.
The SECurus system features three different cameras; an infrared camera, a daylight camera
and a Xenon searchlight. The infrared camera is based on an actively cooled Mercury
Cadmium Telluride (MCT) detector with 640x512 pixels resolution in 25 pictures per second.
It also has a sensor with a sensitivity of 18mK which is close to the best sensitivity available
in the market and is important in the measuring of oil thickness. The daylight camera is a
high quality DV camera that is used for surveillance and documentation is light or daytime

Page | 17
conditions. Finally, the Xenon searchlight is a 500W searchlight is used to aid the other two
cameras by pointing a narrow high power beam at the same point that they are pointed at.
These cameras are located on a stabilized platform called the pointing unit. This pointing unit
is stabilized in 3 axes which enable the system to calculate the exact position of every pixel in
the video stream produced by the infrared and daylight camera. This is done in real time and
ensures the system is reliable and very accurate[8].
Marinesoft
Marinesoft is marine software company who are leading MUNIN’s research into necessary
software required for an unmanned ship.
It offers state-of-the-art solutions in the field of maritime simulation of machinery plants,
computer based training applications, information and operation systems, consultancy and
courseware. MarineSoft[10], has more than 20 years of experience in research and
development in the maritime sector, with involvement in national and international research
projects.
Legal issues with unmanned Vessel
The legal considerations involving an unmanned vessel are of course as important as the
technology it would require as highlighted in ‘Deliverable 7.2: Legal and Liability Analysis
for Remote Controlled Vessels’[2]. It covers the basic legal obligations and responsibilities
relating to collision, maintenance, visibility lookout and watch keeping.
The deliverable shows clearly the importance and wide variety of considerations involved
with the legality of operating an unmanned vessel. These considerations include following
rules and guidelines given by for example, the 1977 UK Merchant Shipping (Safety
Convention) Act, the 2002 UK Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) regulations, the
1998 UK Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations.
Other regulations relative to the operation of an autonomous ship is the SOLAS Convention
1974 and the MARPOL Convention 1973/78 among others.

Page | 18
University College Cork
The University College Cork UCC[13] in Ireland is, as mentioned previously, a partner in
the MUNIN project who area of expertise if the legal considerations involved with unmanned
vessels. The Law Department at UCC is at the forefront of legal research in Ireland, the EU
and internationally in various areas, including environmental law, human rights, marine law,
business law, comparative law, constitutional law and legal theory.
The law department is composed of more than 30 full-time and permanent teaching and
research staff, and a large cohort of masters and PhD research students.

Page | 19
MAIN BODY
This section features the in-depth analysis of the main topic of this study. It involves 3 main
sections focused around the aims- outlined above- and each of these main sections had
subsequent sub-sections that helps the reader follow closely the work done in the study. The
first section explains the impact of slow steaming and why the increased use of it is
encouraging the concept of an unmanned container ship. The second section features details
descriptions of the technology required autonomous navigation. The third section focuses on
possible obstacles, mostly safety and legal based, with using this technology and the overall
concept of autonomy.
Slow Steaming
Slow steaming is a process that already exists and is becoming increasingly utilised within
the marine industry. The majority of shipping companies, including large shipping companies
are on-board with slow steaming and are already employing it with their ships. Slow
steaming is where a ship reduces its transit speed significantly from its usual speed.
Performing slow steaming provides several attractive advantages including that it helps
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and provides improved specific fuel consumption for ships.
The advantage of reducing the ships specific fuel consumption is an obvious one as it’s a fact
that an engine running at lower speeds burns less fuel even if it runs for longer periods.
Reducing fuel consumption is a money saver that is very appealing to companies and so
reducing transit speed is a way to do this.
Maersk Using Slow Steaming
Maersk are one of the world’s largest shipping companies and they full endorse the process
of slow steaming. They have outlined the key advantages they have encountered in
performing slow steaming in an online document entitled “Slow Steaming: The Full
Story”[14].
Maersk started considering slow steaming in 2007 during a time of rising fuel prices and
when CO2 emissions were of great concern. They started seeing positive results in use of
slow steaming as soon as 2009 when they experienced significant fuel savings and CO2
reductions. In fact, bunker fuel savings were reduced by as much as 22% by 2010 simply by
reducing the speed of their vessels from 24 knots to 12 knots. To put these savings across
another way; Maersk found a saving of 4000 tonnes of fuel for the Emma Maersk in the
round trip from Europe to Singapore. Furthermore, these reductions in fuel use also naturally
reduces that CO2, NOx and SOx emissions. These reductions were very appealing to Maersk
and so slow steaming is now an integral part of their operations even though there were

Page | 20
originally fears that performing slow steaming would ultimately damage the engines. Another
fear of course was that the containers travelling slower would mean that customers received
their ordered goods later than previously[14].
On the other hand, as will be outlined later, if a ship in unmanned then accommodation
blocks can be discarded of in place of more cargo so this may nullify the issue of customers
receiving cargo later than before.
To overcome these other doubts about decreased engine performance Maersk produced
standardised visual reports of the engine under slow steaming to relieve doubts of harm to the
engine. These reports were positive and led to MAN Diesel and Wartsila publishing ‘No
Objection’ letters to endorse the low-load operation of slow steaming. These letters of ‘No
Objection’ were used to help aid fears of damage to the engines under slow steaming shared
amongst ship owners[14].
So, with the doubts of engine performance dealt with Maersk could move forward with the
integration of slow steaming into the operation for their fleet including the Emma Maersk.
This lead to a new issue; reconfiguring the network. This meant that due to the changes in
voyage times there was an impact on port schedules and other related issues. The previous
carefully constructed network of the receiving and delivering of cargo amongst all Maersk
ships had to be redesigned to allow for later arrivals caused by the ships travelling at slower
speeds[14].
The impact on Maersk’s customers was also a worry but by 2011 Maersk had offered its
customers complete reliability even whilst performing slow steaming. To get to this point
though Maersk had to overcome the issues of possible delays out with the already extended
delivery date. These issues were obtained through an investigation by DAMCO- Maersk’s
logistics company. It found that the voyage time from the manufacturer in China to Europe or
the U.S was 70-80 days. Whilst operating at maximum speed it would take 21 days to travel
from Hong Kong to Rotterdam. Reliability however was decreased if the ship whilst on route
encountered an unforeseen incident i.e. a storm, which would lead to a later arrival.
Customers were therefore encouraged to maintain a buffer inventory in this event. Maersk
produced assurances with their customers that reliability would be maximised by performing
slow steaming[14].
It may already be clear that slow steaming is very advantageous but that hasn’t stopped
Maersk from investing further into these benefits. Maersk have aimed to do this through the
development of their Triple-E Class ships. In February and June 2011, Maersk awarded
Daweoo Shipbuilding with 2 $1.9 billion contracts to build 20 of these Triple-E ships. The
design of these ships is due to the fact that the original Maersk ships- including Emma
Maersk- performing slow steaming were not designed for operating at slower speeds but the
new Triple-E ships were designed to do so. The hulls of these ships were designed to sail at
slower speeds and draughts, have less powerful engines and is to be very environmentally
friendly. Compared to other ships currently operating the Triple-E ships will emit 30% less
CO2 between Asia and Africa[14].

Page | 21
Emma Maersk
I decided to choose a parent ship in order to make this study more applicable to an already
existing ship. When selecting a parent ship I decided to choose a well-known container ship
in order have access to as much information as possible. Also, as fully unmanned navigation
is not currently being applied I thought it best to choose a type of vessel that doesn’t require
complex navigation. Furthermore, a container ship generally travels with minimal
manoeuvrability. My ultimate choice is shown below along with some key its specifications.
Emma Maersk is a container ship of the A.P. Moller-Maersk Group. When she was
launched, Emma Maersk became the largest container ship ever built, and as of 2007 the
longest ship in use. Emma Maersk is able to carry around 11,000 TEU in the calculation of
the Maersk company which is about 1,400 more containers than any other ship is capable of
carrying[16]. I selected a trade route of Rotterdam to Suez Canal[48] which is the trade route
currently taken by then Emma Maersk. See Appendix 1 for the trade route for the Emma
Maersk. This trade route has no major obstacles and so with suitable technology, to ensure
the ship maintains course, unmanned navigation could be realistic on this route.
Dimensions
Length overall
(LOA)
1302' 6" (397 m)
Beam 183' 8" (56 m)
Tonnage
Gross 170,974 bt
Cargo capacity 15,000 TEU (1 TEU = 20 ft container)
Net 55,396 nt
Deadweight
(DWT)
156,907 DWT
Power 80,080 kW (109,000 hp) Engine: Wartsila 14RT-Flex96c plus
40,000 hp from five Caterpillar 8M32
Speed more than 25.5 knots, Cruise Speed - 31 mi/h
Crew The ship has accommodation for 30 people, though the normal
crew is only 13.
First Trip Sept. 08, 2006
Construction cost US $145,000,000+
Country of origin Denmark
Emma Maersk specifications[16].

Page | 22
Increased TEU
Naturally, performing at slower transit speeds increases transit times. This in turn means
more time spent at sea for crew personnel. This, for some, is an undesirable prospect as in
leads to a decreased social life. Decreased social life does not just mean less time spent in
clubs or at the cinema but also, relates to family life. More time spent away from friends and
family can cause morale to decrease due to a feeling of isolation from the world for extended
periods of time.
Furthermore, with ships operating at sea for longer periods there is also going to be an
economical implication for ship operation. According to Drewry Report on Ship Operating
Costs[36] the cost of crew for ships contributes to 31-36% of total ship operation costs which
is a fact which indicates that performing slow steaming will lead to increased crew costs as
most members of the crew are paid on an hourly rate. Also, adding a note to the
unattractiveness of longer voyage times mentioned previously, companies may need to offer
greater wages to attract people to work on these ships. Further increased costs would arise
from longer voyages due to the need to store more food on-board, lighting costs, etc.
Therefore, if ship owners desire their vessels to perform slow steaming they’ll require a
solution to the social and economic issues it produces. This solution could be autonomy.
Certain levels of autonomy are already present in all areas of a ship including autopilot which
aids navigation. However, as of yet automation is not completely trusted to perform all tasks
required on-board a ship. For instance, for navigation autopilot is used for controlling a ships
direction in order to maintain a predetermined course but with a helmsman on-board to
monitor navigation with the ability to override the autopilot. Having the helmsman is really a
precautionary measure for a scenario that may not even occur and thus, would mean no action
would be performed by this personnel. Companies would benefit from not paying for a
potentially redundant crew member.
The question though is why companies persist in employing helmsman if there is usually no
need for them. Part of the reason may be tradition; the idea of having a captain of a ship who
is in charge of the operation of the vessel. This tradition would surely be sacrificed if it would
save money in crew costs.
Another large advantage to having no crew on-board a ship is removal of items that would
only be required if there were crew to consider. Most significantly, crew quarters wouldn’t be
required as they wouldn’t anyone to occupy them. This is of great benefit for a container ship
where making use of all available space is crucial. If ships were altered to no longer have
accommodation blocks then this extra space could be utilised as space for carrying more
cargo and therefore, more money can be made per voyage from the extra cargo supplied to

Page | 23
the customers. As well as removing accommodation blocks there are other things that are not
required without a crew. Notable inclusions would be reduced cost of lighting and air-
conditioning that would’ve been required for crew comfort. There also wouldn’t be a need for
storage of supplies such as food, etc. These may not seem to be significant cost savings but in
a long-term reducing costs like these could be very beneficial. Of course, redesigning ships
to account for these possible changes would possibly require expensive costs but these costs
are likely to be outweighed easily but the savings and additional income.
The accommodation blocks on the Emma Maersk has the capacity for 30 crew members-
even though it usually only operates with around 13 men[17]. The Emma Maersk may already
be one of the most productive container ships in the world but the income produced by this
vessel could still be increased by removing the large accommodation block and utilising the
extra space with further cargo.
Drawing 1.1: TEU Details for Emma Maersk (Bays 21-32 only)
The above diagram shows the TEU capacity of the Emma Maersk taking into account nine
tiers on deck. It is not official and was produced by AXS-Alphaliner who conducted thorough
analysis so the figures are likely to be accurate. The diagram represents the profile view of
the Emma Maersk showing the TEU capacity between bays 1-46 measured from the front of
the ship. The figures shown within the blue and orange areas represent the TEU capacity in
each row. The capacity under the deck is 7,032 TEU and above deck is 7,872 TEU giving a
total capacity of 14,904 TEU. The black line passing horizontally from aft to fore represent
the deck line of the ship[17].
I have shown a section shown above that only includes bays 21-32 as this section includes the
accommodation block of the Emma Maersk. Also, within this section is the engine room. The
engine room is located under the accommodation block, at levels of bays 27 and 28 and the
Wartsila engine used is 26 metres long. It has been assumed that the engine room is flanked
by two holds that have a 6 row width at levels of bays 27 and 28. The bunker tanks for fuel
storage are located adjacent to the engine room and are assumed to be located just forward of
the engine room at levels of bays 25-26.

Page | 24
From the assumptions given about the location of the engine room it can be observed that the
brown area on the Drawing 1.1[17] between bays 26 and 27 is the accommodation block and
the engine room. The brown are at bays 25 and 26 is the bunker tanks location. I’ve assumed
from the information given the accommodation block is only the brown area located above
the deck line. I used this assumption in calculating the possible extra cargo that could be
carried by utilising the space vacated by the removal of the accommodation block. I’ve
assumed that the cargo that could be stowed in the space vacated by the accommodation in
the same at that in bays 25-28. From the data given in Drawing 1.1[17] the TEU stored in each
of these bays is 186. With the drawing at 100% zoom the distance between each pairing of
bays i.e. 27-28 is 1cm including the spacing margin included in the drawing. The space in the
drawing taken up by the accommodation block is 2cm including the spacing’s- shown as
yellow- on each side of the accommodation block. This would mean that theoretically 4 more
bays could be located in this vacated space. Based on the figures in Drawing 1.1[17] for TEU
stowage in each bay between 25-28; each bay can stow 186 TEU. This leads to the possibility
of the Emma Maersk carrying a further 744 TEU if the accommodation block is removed and
4 more bays are introduced.
Therefore, based on these results it would be safe to assume that the possibility of this ship
becoming unmanned would be very appealing to Maersk. A 0.5% increase in the TEU value
may not appear significant but the increased income received from this increase would surely
be so. Of course, it should be noted that the Emma Maersk’s crew and therefore, its
accommodation facilities may be larger than any other container ship so this increased TEU
will not be as high for other ship removing its accommodation blocks. However, the benefits
in doing so would still be present for these smaller ships and so the prospect of an unmanned
ship would still be appealing.
Reducing Emissions
At this present time all industries including the marine industry are enforcing all possible
measures to reduce their carbon footprint and in general, reduce all emissions they produce.
Whilst operating at slower speeds a ship will produce fewer Carbon Dioxide emissions. Strict
regulations mean ships have to follow rules regarding levels of harmful emissions. As well as
Carbon Dioxide there are other harmful gases such as Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide
that have to be regulated. Emission Controlled Areas (ECA) are those areas outline by the
government where a ship must operate its engines at fuels that burn less harmful gases. For
instance, a container ship operating with Heavy Fuel Oil- which produces high Sulphur
content when burned- will switch to using Marine Diesel/Gas Oil in ECA’s. Based on figures
given by MUNIN[1], fuel consumption can be reduced by more than 50% and emissions
reduced as well by reducing a ships transit speed from 16 to 11 knots while for example
travelling the route between Porto de Tubarao and Hamburg.

Page | 25
Collision Avoidance and Safe Navigation
Detection of a possible collision and the necessary actions for collision avoidance is of
paramount importance for a ships safe operation at sea. Whilst the seas and oceans may be
vast there is always a possibility of such an incident happening at sea as has happened in the
past. Obviously, the classic case would be the Titanic but there have been several other
dangerous collisions in history. At present it requires a combination of human awareness and
suitable Collision Avoidance technology to prevent accidents. Collision Avoidance systems
are already present in the automobile industry by large manufacturers such Audi and
Mercedes-Benz[49]. By using radar or, a laser and camera system it helps detect an imminent
crash or at least reduce the severity of it.
If the concept of a fully autonomous ship is to be realised then the risk of collision avoidance
is got to be a major consideration. For safe unmanned navigation the necessary quality of
technology will need to be implemented. This technology will need to also be reliable,
affordable and most of all; available.
For the process of safe navigation of a ship there are a few key elements involved. These key
elements are selection of course, detection of deviation from course and correction of
deviation. For a container ship, that usually travels on a relatively straight course, the course
travelled is mostly straight with little manoeuvring involved. Only extreme weather
conditions or unexpected obstructions will cause a deviation. Whilst a helmsman still
currently overseas the navigation it is usually technology that controls it with little human
interaction. The proposal of an unmanned ship would suggest technology having complete
control of navigation with monitoring and possible human interaction performed remotely
ashore.
Shore ControlCentre
As mentioned, for ensuring safe navigation is the sharing of information. The information of
the navigation process is between the AIS on-board the container ship and personnel on-shore
via a satellite link. These on-shore personnel are located at a Shore Control Centre (SCC).
Each SCC can supervise up to 100 vessels with each operator overlooking 6 vessels each.
Additionally, there is a relieve operator per 30 vessels. There are also supervisors in charge
of the operators and each of them monitor 5 operators/30 vessels each. There are situation
rooms contain the personnel for up to 30 vessels[42].
As with the crew on-board a manned container ship there are ranks at each SCC. This is to
maintain consistency between the manned and the autonomous ship operations. Therefore,

Page | 26
there is a situation team including a captain- whose is the one in charge, a chief engineer and
the operators.
During the normal operation of the container ship the on-board systems will follow the
predetermined route of trade whilst monitoring surroundings for possible issues. The SCC
will simply be monitoring the safe operation of the ship-via timely updates from the ship- but
without a requirement to intervene.
When there becomes a requirement to make any adjustments during navigation the ships
systems will autonomously adapt to correct. The SCC will monitor that correct actions are
taken and will intervene but only if absolutely necessary. Either way the SCC will
acknowledge the adjustment and may look further into the problem encountered to avoid a re-
occurrence.
In the event that the AIS is unable to make the requirements adjustments then the SCC will
be forces to intervene. This would lead to them operating the ship from shore via the remote
bridge. The ship will still provide the navigational data required for the SCC to perform the
remote control of the ship. This information is transferred via a direct link (communication
link).
The most extreme condition in which the SCC will have the most significant impact would be
a Fail Safe situation. There is no communication between ship and shore in this situation and
so is a very undesirable scenario. The SCC will be required to start eh recovery planning and
monitor the situation whilst the ships systems strive to maintain safety as much as
possible[42].
Like most new or developing concepts the possible challenges/difficulties have to be
considered. In the case of the SCC the main challenge would be establishing trust in the
system. This would mean implementing suitable measures in place to avoid equipment
redundancy and improve reliability. The personnel at the SCC would also need to be trained
well to ensure complete understanding of the autonomous systems and their own
responsibilities.
The Shore Engine Control (SEC) will be performing remote tasks in order to alter engine
operations when required. The Shore Bridge Control (SBC) perform tasks involving ensuring
safe navigation by monitoring and observing the surroundings.
The next section of this report will outline the systems that are likely be important in the
autonomous navigation of a container ship i.e. the Emma Maersk.
Autopilot
The majority of ships now operate with autopilot but will continue to have a helmsman
monitoring the operation and taking corrective measures if required. Ships operating with
autopilot are designed around the ‘virtual ship’ principle [39] which is a computer generated
model vessel that performs under set criteria.

Page | 27
Autopilot[25] has been around for several years and what was once a basic system that simply
controlled a ships navigation, it now has more complex setup and can perform more
complicated tasks. The ADG 3000VT Adaptive Digital Gyropilot Steering Control System[25]
is an up-to-date autopilot system created by Sperry Marine. It consists of a microcomputer
and other electronics that provides signal outputs to the ships control system to aid in the
steering of the ship.
The automatic steering of the vessel using this system is performed using three methods.
There is AUTO mode[24] which is the primary mode where the desired heading is
maintained from data that is input from the gyrocompass and the helmsman input. The ADG
3000 keeps course with minimal rudder motion- maximum efficiency- to adapt the steering
input control by continuously monitoring the ships speed and heading.
The next mode used is NAV mode[24]. This mode performs automatic heading keeping using
inputs from an external management system to steer the vessel to pre-determined waypoints.
The difference between NAV mode and AUTO mode is course to steer is provided by an
external navigation system that differs in the information given by the ADG 3000. Through
the information provided by this external system the ship is able to maintain its
predetermined course. The autopilot is set to NAV mode when AUTO is selected by the
MODE switch.
The TRACK mode[24] uses inputs from an external navigator. These inputs are corrected for
cross-track error by the autopilot to steer the vessel to a waypoint over a designated ground
track.
Finally, there’s the Helm Mode[24] is a manual full follow up mode of steering that is selected
by the MODE switch. Autopilot is in standby during this mode as the steering (rudder
position) is manually controlled.
To operate effectively the autopilot only requires the following inputs; positional data, rate of
change of course data and cumulative build-up of error data.
With advanced autopilot systems, which can operate automatically if all required inputs are
programmed by the helmsman, it can be possible to consider that a ship can steer to the
desired waypoint without human interaction onboard the ship.
To ensure the autopilot works effectively there is the off-course alarm[24]. This alarm is a
simple knob that is manually set to a value of which there is to be an alert raised when the
ship steers off course by that value. The value at which the alarm is raised is dependent on the
weather conditions. For instance, this value could be as low as 50 for calm conditions but for
heavy conditions, where course deviation is more likely and frequent, the value would be set
to a value such as 100. Whilst at this moment adjustments can be made manually if the idea of
an unmanned vessel is to be fully realized then the autopilot would need to operate fully
automatically in instances on course deviation.
For the efficient use of an Autopilot system testing is required prior to a ships departure.
SOLAS[50] have outlined some of the regulations required for Autopilot use;

Page | 28
SOLAS Ch-V Safety of Navigation, Regulation 19, Use of the automatic pilot[50]
 In areas of high traffic density, in conditions of restricted visibility and in all
other hazardous navigational situations where the automatic pilot is used, it
shall be possible to establish human control of the ship's steering immediately.
 In circumstances as above, it shall be possible for the officer of the watch to
have available without delay the services of a qualified helmsman who shall
be ready at all times to take over steering control.
 The change-over from automatic to manual steering and vice versa shall be
made by or under the supervision of a responsible officer.
The manual steering shall be tested after prolonged use of the automatic pilot, and
before entering areas where navigation demands special caution.
* Refer to the Recommendation on performance standards for automatic pilots
adopted by the Organization by resolution A.342(IX).
Regulation 19-1, Operation of steering gear
In areas where navigation demands special caution, ships shall have more than one
steering gear power unit in operation when such units are capable of simultaneous
operation.
GlobalMaritime Distress and SafetySystem[46]
The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) became effective in 1999 and is
worldwide satellite based network of automated emergency communications for ships at sea.
It involves a set of procedures, types of equipment and communication protocols followed to
ensure safety at sea.
Types of equipment used in GMDSS include; Emergency Position-Indicating Radio
Beacon (EPIRB) are required on SOLAS ships and are designed to transmit to alert rescue
coordination centers via the satellite system from anywhere in the world. Another item is an
automated system called NAVTEX. This is used to distribute information including SAR
notices, weather forecasts, etc. GMDSS also includes Inmarsat satellite systems and other
high frequency equipment[46].

Page | 29
Automatic RadarPlotting Aid[43]
Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA) is a specialized radar system used commonly in the
marine industry. It aids in collision avoidance by tracking an objects course, its speed and the
closest point of approach. ARPA can be sued for ships such as small yachts and so could be
used for a container ship. The systems display had adapted over the years of its operation and
now uses a Raster-scan display that meets IMO performance Standards[43].
Electronic Chart Displayand InformationSharing[44]
ECDIS is a computer-based navigation information system that is now vastly preferred
instead of paper nautical charts. It uses information from electronic navigational charts and
sensors such radar or Navtex to display a ships position, heading and speed. It uses either
visual or audible alarms to inform the operators of possible collisions or hazards. ECDIS
complies with IMO regulations[44].
Automatic Identification System[45]
AIS is a system involving the exchange of information between ships or, satellites. It is an
automatic system used as a tracking method on-board ships and by the Vessel Traffic
Services (VTS) to identify and locate vessels. AIS is a vital aid used in preventing collisions
at sea.
The information provided by AIS can be displayed on the ECDIS. For international ships
whose gross tonnage is 300 or more then the IMO and SOLAS make AIS a requirement.
Below is an example of how AIS data can be displayed graphically[45].

Page | 30
AIS was developed by the IMO technical committees as a technology to avoid collisions
among large vessels at sea that are not within range of shore-based systems. AIS does so by
identifying the position and heading of any nearby ships and adds acts as precautionary
measure when the SCC can’t monitor such things. AIS is usually used along with a radar
system and has collision alarms to alert operators of nearby ships[45].
SECurus System[8]
Aptomar[7] are one of MUNIN’s research partners who specialise in navigational technology.
Aptomar’s primary goals- as outlined in their brochure- are ‘to protect personnel from injury’
and ‘to safeguard against health hazards’. These goals can be considered very relevant in the
development of the concept of an unmanned ship.
They have provided the SECurus system[8] which is an unmatched navigation system already
used in the marine industry and is mandatory on NOFO class vessels.
The SECurus system combines advanced stabilized long range and highly sensitive IR and
digital video cameras with a unique Electronic Chart System. The ECS touch screen overlays
information from several sources. The system knows the exact geographic position of every
pixel in the pictures from both cameras and can project the image onto the map for easy
navigation or object recovery.
The SECurus system features three different cameras; an infrared camera, a daylight camera
and a Xenon searchlight. These cameras are in contained within the pointing unit on a
stabilized platform.
The pointing unit is the main sensor system which is located at the top of the bridge roof
which is the optimum position to allow the best view of the surrounding environment. To
allow for use in varying weather conditions and locations the pointing unit is carefully

Page | 31
designed to still function in extreme conditions. If the SECurus system is to be trusted for
navigation on an unmanned ship then the information produced must be accurate. This is
achieved by ensuring the pointing unit is part of a stabilized platform. This allows the
pointing unit to produce clear and easily readable pictures in 3 axis; horizontal, vertical and
rotational of the cameras. The SECurus combines motion and position information from the
navigation instrumentation on the vessel with its internal orientation sensors to determine the
exact position and direction of the cameras in real time. This input allows the stabilization
algorithms to ensure that the camera platform is stabilized in 3 dimensions.
The infrared camera is based on an actively cooled Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT)
detector with 640x512 pixels resolution in 25 pictures per second. It also has a sensor with a
sensitivity of 18mK which is close to the best sensitivity available in the market and is
important in the measuring of oil thickness. The daylight camera is a high quality DV camera
that is used for surveillance and documentation is light or daytime conditions. Finally, the
Xenon searchlight is a 500W searchlight is used to aid the other two cameras by pointing a
narrow high power beam at the same point that they are pointed at.
Drawing 2.2- SECurus systemwith ‘Infrared Video’ and ‘Daylight Video’
The results of the images and videos from the camera are analysed on the Bridge Console.
This is a 23 inch touch input screen that has been widely approved for maritime and navy
applications. A vectorized version of the sea maps allow for quick zoom and repositioning in
the map whilst using the Electronic Chart System. As well as data gathered by the SECurus
stabilized sensors, installed on the bridge roof, there is also pre-existing data from radar and
AIS. The SECurus sensors include a ‘Normal’ video camera, a long range active infrared
camera and a searchlight. These sensors allow day and night vision, aid in search and rescue,
security and surveillance, and FIFI. The long range sensor also aids in oil spill monitoring.
The data gathered by the cameras include pixels that are already geographically determined
therefore, the pictures can be directly projected onto the accurate position on the map. The

Page | 32
positional accuracy of the information transferred from the camera images allows for reliable
information to aid navigation.
Drawing 2.3- SECurus Sensors
The Computer rack contains a high performance quad core processor specially built for
marine environments. This computer interface to the bridge console computer and the pointing
unit via cat.5 Ethernet cables. The inputs from the vessel sensors and other sensors are
connected to this computer such as;
 GPS receiver (required)
 Gyro Compass (required)
 Motion Reference Unit (MRU) (required)
 AIS transponder (possible)
 ARPA target data from vessel radar (possible)
 Oil Spill Detection radar interface (possible)

Page | 33
Drawing 2.4- Range Chart for SECurus Sensors
The SECurus system is used as Hazard Control on the bridge and Hazard Awareness back on
land. It is used on offshore structures, floating production units and fixed platforms to
perform emergency operations such as maritime security, oil spill monitoring and response
and search and rescue missions. SECurus is uses infrared to detect oil spills and projects the
location of the spill onto the sea chart.
A possible scenario to consider regarding safety of an unmanned container ship is the threat
of piracy. Piracy is already a major threat is the marine environment. It is already a proposed
safety precaution for offshore vessels and platforms. SECurus provides 24/7 surveillance over
ranges of up to 20 nautical miles away. It provides an automated alarm system that would
alert the crew half an hour in advance of the potential threat reaching the platform. These 30
minutes offers a significantly greater reaction time for personnel than the couple of minutes
provided under the current man and binocular system performed on offshore structures.
Using the superior security system provided by the SECurus system allows the removal of the
labor-intensive duties performed by the crew in monitoring for threats.
The current threat monitoring system used on offshore structures is similar to that used on
vessels such as container ships and the threat of piracy is present with those as well.
Therefore, if SECurus is proposed as a security measure for offshore structures it is realistic
to suggest as a security system on a container ship. Similarly to offshore structures there
would be reduction in crew required to perform monitoring tasks if SECurus is utilized.
Another use for the SECurus system is for search and rescue operations. These operations
involve the detection and location of the desired object to be found. Using the day/night
cameras provided by the SECurus system allows detection in all weather conditions. SECurus
can detect an object in the sea up to 2 nautical miles away. It will deduce the objects location
and display this location accurately on the sea chart and is able to track it if its position
varies. All involved rescue parties will be able to share in the information through
information in AIS.

Page | 34
Though this use of SECurus system may not be a primary advantage for conceiving a concept
for an unmanned container ship it is useful to consider. It means that in the possible scenario
that the unmanned ship is nearby to an incident where human personnel are lost at sea after
an incident on a manned vessel then it can offer help even without humans onboard.
TacticalCollaboration and Management System (TCMS)[9]
In the event of emergencies the aim is to be able to quickly gather all relevant information so
that the situation can be rectified and monitored for all possible changes during the operation.
The emergency response operation is aimed to be performed as efficiently as possible.
Technology plays as pivotal part in the gathering of this information and in aiding an
effective operation. The Aptomar Tactical collaboration and management system
(TCMS)[9] provides a situational overview, tactical analysis and decision-making which
allows land-based operations a tactical advantage between the communication between
onshore command and the offshore operations.
The TCMS is a stand-alone tactical tool for collaboration and information sharing with
vessels in safety operations. The system uses data provided by the sensors connected to the
TCMS system. These sensors could be part of the SECurus system or another similar system
i.e. SAR buoys. The operations performed with the TCMS system are replayed and reviewed
for evaluation by logging these operations onto the Aptomar time slider.
The TCMS provides an up to the moment overview of an ongoing operation that aids the
personnel on land and on the vessels. Some of these operations include oil spill recovery,
search and rescue, etc. Through using the TCMS the operator is able to;
 Access real time information from all available resources and sensors connected to the
TCMS system at
- Platforms
- Vessels
- Terminals
- Land operations
 Participate and contribute with own know how directly into the operation
 Import and Distribute safety critical information in real time
 Provide assistance during Search and Rescue operations
 Provide assistance during Oil recovery operations
 Document and Record operational data for administrative purposes, analysis of
incidents and future planning
The available Modules[9] (with their configuration) are provided in the Pdf for TCMS and are
outlined below;
Tactical Collaboration and Management System
• Electronic map of the coverage area, with overlays from available GIS databases, map
solutions or 3rd party service providers

Page | 35
• AIS tracks (symbol, vector and ID tag depicting a target's position, course, speed and
identity)
• Availability of all sensor information, video feeds and data sources
• Two way collaboration by real time sharing of tactical information created at different
locations or imported 3rd party data
• Status and controls for connected sensors
• Easy integration with data from sensors such as e.g. Meteorological/Hydrological
(Met/Hyd)
• Seamless integration with the aptomar Vessel Traffic collaboration and management system
(VTCMS)
Remote web based access (add-on)
• Read only remote web access to TCMS information
• Map based solution with all TCMS information available, including live streaming of
videos and logs.
• Accessible from any computer with internet connection
• Easy access for third party service providers and geographically spread resources to take
part in the operation
Each system is configured to suit the customer’s operational needs; this is in most cases
fulfilled with standard off-the-shelf aptomar TCMS modules.
However, we at Aptomar AS take pride in our ability to create customer specific solutions
adapted to their needs and requirements.
SECurus system (add-on)
• Integration of the aptomar SECurus system
• Access to live DV and IR video
• Control cameras remote
• Availability of all tactical data from SECurus: Detected oil spills, thickness, drift. Search
and rescue patterns, detecte objects, logs.
ROV video streaming (add-on)
• Real time access to ROV video
• Participate in search or inspection operations from any location.
Integration modules (add-on)
• Hardware and software modules for integrating 3rd party sensors into the TCM system, e.g.
• Radars, wind sensors, CCTVs, weather forecasts, GIS databases etc.
• Modules created according to customer needs and requirements.
Logging and Playback (add-on)
• Logging of all data available in the TCM system.
• Easy playback of occurred incidents through the aptomar Time slider.
• Export of chosen information.

Page | 36
The TCMS work station user interface modules to display accurate information through the
integrated Aptomar systems. The systems have been improved through user feedback from
end users.
The work station provides access to all sensor logs, provides a tactical overview during oil
spill recovery operations and live access to all video sources such as those from SECurus,
ROV’s or platform CCTV.
Video
Frame Rate 1-25 FPS, typically 10 FPS
Resolution Typically 720x576 pixels
Encoding H.264/MPEG2-TS
Bandwith 100-2000 kblt/s, typically >= 300 kblt/s
Latency 1-10s, typically 5s
Availability  Aptomar TCMS integration
 Web access
 Direct HTTP source
Input 3rd Party Analog: composite and S-video (PAL,
NTSC and SECAM) supported
Digital: contact Aptomar for specific
requirements
Table 2.1- TCMS Specifications
Obstacles for Unmanned Navigation
As it appears that the necessary technology is available, with Autopilot and SECurus systems,
for the navigation of a ship to be unmanned then the question would be what there can’t be a
fully autonomous ship in the very near future.
One of those reasons could be a financial one. Can companies afford the technology?
Ultimately, the issue with finance is not one that is long term as it is clear that reducing crew
costs and optimising space that would’ve been occupied previously by accommodation
blocks will save a large amount of money over time. The problem with cost is that it would
require a large initial investment to implement the changes to the ships i.e. purchasing of
technology. This high investment may not be an issue for larger companies such as Maersk
but maybe for smaller companies it would be. This could be overcome by implementing the
changes gradually over time as capital becomes available. So for instance, navigation from
the bridge could be converted to become unmanned with the technology at first whilst a crew
remains available for other areas of the ship until these departments can be invested in.

Page | 37
Legal Obligations[2]
The main issues that could be faced in developing an unmanned ship are legal and safety
orientated ones. IMO provide most rules and obligations for the marine environment. There
rules are mostly safety oriented and are provided to ensure efficiency and the avoidance of
collisions, etc. Deliverable 7.2[2] provides examples of regulations provided by conventions
such as SOLAS and INMARSAT based on the relevancy the have with the topic of
autonomous operations[2].
3.1 SOLAS Convention 1974 as amended
The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)11 contains
a number of amendments and was modified by several protocols. It is the most
important of all global instruments for the following purposes:
1. Safety at Sea,
2. Establishing Construction, Design, Equipment and Manning (CDEM) Standards,
3. Establishing navigational standards.
3.2 INMARSAT Convention 1976 as amended
In 1966, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), following a preliminary
consideration in the IMO, decided to study the requirements for a satellite
communications system devoted to maritime purposes. In 1976 the IMO adopted the
Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT)12
which was amended several times. In 1998, INMARSAT’s Assembly agreed to
privatize INMARSAT from April
1999, which comprises two entities:
1. INMARSAT Ltd - a public limited company which will form the commercial arm
of INMARSAT.
2. International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) - an intergovernmental body
established to ensure that INMARSAT continues to meet their obligations.
The main goals of Inmarsat as an international maritime satellite system are to
improve:
1. Maritime communications,
2. Distress and safety of life at sea communications,
3. Efficiency and management of ships,
4. Maritime public correspondence services,
5. Radiodetermination capabilities.
12 The INMARSAT Convention was adopted on 3 September 1976 and entered
3.3 COLREG Convention 1972 as amended
The 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea
(COLREG) was designed to update and replace the Collision Regulations of 1960.
One of the most key innovations in the 1972 COLREG Convention was the

Page | 38
recognition given to traffic separation schemes (TSS) contained in Rule 10. This Rule
provides guidance in determining safe speed, the risk of collision and the conduct of
vessels operating in or near TSS. In this respect, it should be noted that all vessels are
required to comply with Rule 10 which is mandatory for all vessels when operating in
or near TSS. The fundamental objectives of the COLREG Convention are as follows:
1. Establishing collision avoidance standards as will be discussed further in this
deliverable,
2. Safety of life and property at sea,
3. Establishing navigational standards,
3.4 MARPOL Convention 1973/78
The 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) and its 1978 revision are called collectively the 73/78 MARPOL
Convention. In 1969 the IMO decided to convene an international conference in 1973
to prepare an international agreement for the control of the contamination of the sea
by ships. The main objectives of MARPOL 73/78 are:
1. Preservation of the marine environment
2. Establishing pollution prevention standards,
3. Prevention and control of pollution by ships,
4. Protection of the marine environment.
3.5 STCW 1978, STCW 1995, STCW 2010
The 1978 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, (STCW Convention) was amended in 1995 and 2010.13
It applies to seafarers serving on board seagoing ships entitled to fly the flag of a
Party except to those serving on board ships owned or operated by a State and
engaged only on governmental non-commercial service. One of the basic objectives
of the Convention is to ensure that all seafarers serving on board a ship hold
appropriate certificates. Further goals of the STCW Convention are:
1. Establishing mandatory and the minimum standards of competence required for
seagoing personnel,
2. Safety at sea and property,
3. Establishing standards of training, certification and watch keeping for seafarers,
3.6 Load Lines Convention 1966/1988
In 1966 the IMO adopted the Load Lines Convention,14 which was amended by the
1988 Protocol,15 containing provisions determining the freeboard of ships, conditions
of assignment of freeboard, stability and damage assumptions. The main objectives of
the 1966 Load Lines Convention and its 1988 Protocol are:
1. Improving the safety of ships by outlining minimum standards for the safe loading
of ships,
2. Establishing the relevant CDEM standards.

Page | 39
Ensuring Safe Navigation
Currently during events that effect the safety of a ship such as accidents or ship defects the
master of the ship is obliged to report such events to the State or States concerned. There are
numerous instruments that are applied to the operation of an autonomous vessel in the event
of an accident. Collision avoidance rules are provided by the Convension on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage (COLREG) convention are applied as well as rules outlined by
SOLAS and MARPOL conventions for incidents involving autonomous vessels[2].
In the concept of an autonomous vessel where there is no personnel on-board then principal
duties that would’ve been conducted by the master and the chief engineer have to be
implemented by the Shore Control Centre (SCC)[42].
To understand the responsibilities that would be taken up at the SCC when a container ship is
unmanned then first it must be seen what the crew’s current duties are for collision
avoidance. When complying with rules and provisions from the COLREG and SOLAS
conventions the officer in charge of the navigational watch is expected to frequently record
the bearings of any approaching ships. This is done to provide early detection of risks of a
possible collision. Rule 2 of the COLREG convention outlines that responsibility lies, and
won’t be waivered, with the owner, master or crew involved in a collision incident.
Therefore, it is their responsibility to comply fully with all rules and precautions. For an
autonomous ship these responsibilities fall to the operator in the SCC who is in charge of the
operations of the vessel[2].
Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from
the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any
precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case[2].
The first factor involved in avoiding collisions at sea is the concept of operating at a safe
speed. This and other important factors at outlined according to COLREG rules. The
importance of operating at a safe speed is that it allows time for the ship to perform all
necessary collision avoidance processes as effectively as possible. This responsibility, which
would usually fall to the master, falls under the SCC’s jurisdiction in the concept of an
autonomous container ship navigation. Two groups of factors are taken into consideration by
the SCC with the first group being as follows[2];
 The state of visibility.
 The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
 The manoeuvrability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and
turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
 At night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back
scatter of her own lights.
 The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
 The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Page | 40
The second group of these factors is related to the operation of radar systems by the SCC[2];
 The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment.
 Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
 The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of
interference.
 The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected
by radar at an adequate range.
 The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar.
 The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to
determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.
If an autonomous container ship is to become a reality then the SCC are going to have an
important role to play and so, they will have several key duties, responsibilities and liabilities.
The SCC will be obligated with performing the measures involved with collision avoidance.
They will also be responsible to monitor the use of any electronic navigational aids that are
utilised such as Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA) and Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS), Automatic Identification System (AIS), and Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)[2].
With the SCC being responsible for the effective use of these navigational aids in the
performance of appropriate collision avoidance procedures they are liable for all procedures
that are indeed performed. These liabilities are basically that the SCC must take the
avoidance measures in a timely and effective manner. Any alteration of speed, whether it be
reducing it or even bringing the ship to a complete stop, must be done efficiently. This
efficiency will be measured on whether provides the ship that may be collided with has been
made clearly aware that an avoidance measure has been performed. This awareness will be
from the information on their radar system or by an observer and so the SCC have to perform
the action in enough time that it is clear to the other ship. The ultimate aim of any collision
avoidance is that, after necessary action is taken, the ships pass at a safe distance. Therefore,
the SCC are liable for the ships avoiding one another[2].
The GMDSS (mentioned earlier), is very important in ensuring reliable communication
during unmanned operations. It became effective after amendments were made to Chapter IV
of the 1974 SOLAS convention in 1988. This chapter outlines the provisions relating to radio
communication services. Also, the SOLAS convention outlines the requirements for Vessel
Traffic Services (VTS) and in addition to the provisions from SOLAS, the International
Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) have outlined
provisions for VTS. It is required that the SCC users are trained thoroughly in these
provisions as they will be the VTS operators for an autonomous container ship[2].

Page | 41
Furthermore, outlined next is the brief explanations of navigational systems used for
collisions avoidance in order to outline legal responsibilities, obligations and liabilities of
VTS operators.
Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA)[43]
Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA) is a navigational aid. It is required by international
regulations that the SCC operators of navigational aid must have technical knowledge this
technology and most importantly; its limitations. These limitation are related to the
capabilities of the ARPA sensors or with the over dependence with the aid. They are required
to gain knowledge factors such as;
1. The criteria for the selection of targets by automatic acquisition.
2. The factors leading to the correct choice of targets for manual acquisition.
3. The effects on tracking of “lost” targets and target fading.
4. The circumstances causing “target swap” and its effects on displayed data.
Amendments will have to be made to the STCW convention in order to account for the fact
that there will be an automatic lookout system in place for an unmanned ship. This means the
SCC operators now have to acquire to knowledge of the ARPA system before having the full
responsibility of navigation and lookout procedures[2].
Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS)[44]
As with the ARPA system, and indeed all navigational systems used for automatic
navigation, ECDIS requires extensive knowledge in order to utilise it properly. The SCC
operators must have a structure of activities clearly defined in order for them to understand
the systems limitations (potential errors in information) so that the information can be
interpreted correctly[2].
Automatic Identification System(AIS)[45]
AIS provides additional functionality and became compulsory in the majority of container
ships from 2002. It is necessary for preventing collision avoidance that the AIS system is
enhanced is order to account for the fact that autonomous navigation is now to be performed
by shore based remote operations. Information models and protocols for services such as AIS
and GMDSS will also need to be developed.
An IMO NAV Sub-Committee meeting took place between September the 2nd and 6th of 2013
that involved revising on-board operational use of AIS[2].
Global Navigational Satellite System(GNSS)[46]
GNSS is both a positioning and an accurate navigation service for the different modes of
transportation, including shipping. GNSS is ideal for safe navigation as it very accurate and
reliable. It is a decision-making aid for preventing collisions or dangerous situation at sea.
The most important legal consideration for GNSS are the obligations and liabilities involved
in its use. The SCC is responsible for taking all necessary measure and action for collision
avoidance when using GNSS. If an accident were to occur then the SCC are liable for any

Page | 42
damage if they’ve incorrectly used GNSS and similarly, the operator of the Automatic unit
on-board (ASC) is liable if they contributed to the accident[2].
Lookout [2]
In order for successful collision avoidance with unmanned navigation the principals of a
proper lookout system must still installed. This lookout system must be supervised and
accessible to the SCC. The navigation aid systems/measures mentioned earlier- ARPA,
ECDIS, AIS and GNSS- would provide the efficient lookout measures to provide safe
navigation.
The ASC will have the responsibilities of a lookout for an unmanned container ship and the
master’s duties call under the radar of the Shore Bridge Control (SBC). Furthermore, the
SCC will also have share some level of the responsibility of the SBC.
The considerations that would have to be taken by the lookout on a manned ship must now be
considered by an autonomous lookout systems. These considerations include the state of
weather and sea, traffic density and traffic separation schemes (TSS).
Therefore, the SCC will be responsible for managing the container ship in adverse weather
conditions and monitor safe steering in areas of high traffic density. For TSS there are rules
of COLREG convention adopted by the IMO that are applied. If a container ship is to use a
TSS then it would be required to[2];
 Proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane
 So far as practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone.
 Normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or
leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic
flow as practicable.
For unmanned navigation the SCC are also responsible for taking over lookout duties
involving visibility. The SCC will use the radar systems to assess the visibility at sea based on
information detected by the Autonomous Bridge System (ABS). Areas of restricted visibility
may arise due to fog, heavy rain, etc. It is the responsibility of the SCC and ABS to avoid
collisions by following international regulations by taking the necessary measures which, in
cases of low visibility, could include operating at a safer speed to adapt to the prevailing
circumstances. There has to be a compliance with the COLREG Rules, in events of restricted
visibility, by the SCC in order to avoid a collision at sea whilst navigating autonomously[2].
Routing [2]
The regulations and criteria for a vessels’ routing system were developed by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) though it is still, initially at least, expected that the given
State(s) establish the ships routing system. These initial routing systems should then be
submitted to the IMO in order to ensure they adhere to IMO regulations. The main purposes
of the routing system are to contribute to safety of life at sea (under the SOLAS Convention),
safe and efficient navigation and the protection of the marine environment. It is inferred by
the provisions of the 1972 SOLAS Convention that an unmanned vessel, such as a container
ship, have routing systems. The routing system for an unmanned ship is practically done by

Unmanned Container Ship study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Unmanned Container Ship study

Similar to Unmanned Container Ship study (20)

Unmanned Container Ship study