495
1 INTRODUCTION
Fundamental requirements for all transportation
systems are safe, efficient and sustainable move of
any goods from a shipper and its entire and timely
delivery to the respective client. Nowadays, this is
ensuredbycontributionsofthedifferentcomponents
andsub‐systemsofthetransportationsystems.
Thebasiccomponents
andsubsystemsare:
transport means (in maritime transportation:
vesselsofvarioustypesandsizes),
drivers (ship crews incl. captain, officers,
engineers,A.B.ʹs,Motormenetc.)
transport paths (open sea, coastal waters and
inlandfairways)
traffic management (e.g. ship reporting systems,
VesselTrafficServicesystems)and
organizationalcomponents(incl.internationaland
nationalbodiesandinstitutionslikeIMO,IHObut
also classification societies as well as national
water and shipping administrations that provide
implement and enforce i.a. standards, rules &
regulations).
Untiltoday,accordingtotheestablishedrulesand
regulations, crews on‐board operate the merchant
ships.
Additionally, especially in areas with high
traffic density, ships are monitored and their crews
are supported from shore‐based surveillance and
controlcenters.
VesselTrafficServices(VTS)arewellknownand
recognizedinthisrespect.ThereareIMOResolutions
that provide definitions, standards and guidance on
specificationoftheservices
(InformationServiceand
optionallyNavigationalAssistanceServiceandTraffic
OrganizationService)and how toimplement andto
maintain them. From an engineering point of view,
VTScanbesimplisticallyconsideredasasystemthat
collects environmental and traffic data in order to
createatrafficimagethatiscontinuouslyanalyzedby
theoperatorswhoassessifthereareanydeveloping
Merging Conventionally Navigating Ships and MASS -
Merging VTS, FOC and SCC?
M.Baldauf&S.Fischer
HochschuleWismarUniversityofTechnology,BusinessandDesign,Warnemünde,Germany
M.Kitada,R.A.Mehdi,M.A.Al‐Quhali&M.Fiorini
WorldMaritimeUniversity,Malmö,Sweden
ABSTRACT: Current maritime transportation and shipping is characterized by rapid technological
developments effecting the basic concepts of operating ships and even changing traditional paradigms of
controllingships.Thee‐NavigationconceptoftheInternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO)specificallyaims
at more comprehensive and reliable support of
the human operators on‐board and ashore. However,
autonomousunmannedshipsremotecontrolledorevenautonomouslynavigatingareexpectedtocomesoon.
In this paper, selected operational aspects of maritime traffic merging conventional and unmanned remote
controlled ships in coastal areas are discussed. Furthermore, some preliminary results of experimental
simulation
studies into a future scenario of maritime traffic are presented and preliminary conclusions in
respecttojobprofilingandtrainingrequirementsarediscussed.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 3
September 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.03.02
496
oralreadyexistingrisksthatrequireinteractionwith
the traffic. If a VTS operator becomes aware of a
vessel, e.g., not complying with the rules, violating
regulations, or in case she or he detects a situation
with a risk of grounding or collision then VTS can
intervenebysendingout
information,warning/advice
orinstructionstoallorindividualvesselsusingVHF
voicecommunication.
Figure1.Monitoringvesseltrafficandprovidingservicesto
ensuresafeandefficienttrafficflow‐Functionalsketchofa
VTS
Besidestherecognizedmonitoringofvesseltraffic
in seaareas of the national territories by VTS, there
are an increasing number of company‐based Fleet
OperationCenters(FOC).Theymonitorthesafeand
efficientprogressofcompany‐ownedshipsaswell.In
the same way as VTS, an FOC operates 24
hours a
day, 7 daysa week. On the other hand, contrary to
VTS,FOCsevenmonitorshipsonaworld‐widescale.
Sofar, the relationbetween thenavigators on board
andtheoperatorsashoreischaracterizedbythestatus
quo that the shore operator provides additional
informationin
ordertosupportthedecisionmaking
processes of the bridge team on‐board. However,
until now, there is no guidance about any potential
relationsbetweenVTSandaFOC.
Figure2. Sample of a Fleet Operations Centre (Snapshot
taken from https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise‐
magazine/feature‐magazine‐articles/18343‐fleet‐operations‐
centers.html)
IMO’s e‐Navigation initiative makes an effort to
introducestate‐of‐the‐arttechnologiestoimproveand
harmonizethecollection,processingandpresentation
ofdataandinformationtosupporthumanoperators
on‐board and ashore to ensure safety of navigation
from berth‐to‐berth [1]. Even though e‐Navigation
clearly addresses
the human operators; the captain,
the OOW and the whole bridge team as well asthe
VTS supervisor andhis watchstanding operatorsin
shore‐based centers, e‐Navigation is obviously
supportingevenmoreenhancedservices[2].Together
with the increasing level of digitalization and
automation it is supporting the
introduction of
autonomous navigating and even unmanned ships.
Makingthemarealitywillfundamentallychangethe
existingtransportationsystem[3].
2 ONGOINGTECHNOLOGYANDREGULATORY
DEVELOPMENTS
Thecurrenttechnologicaldevelopmentsandresearch
mentionʹunmannedʹ but alsoʹautonomousʹ ships
oftensynonymously.IMOattherecentsessionsofits
MaritimeSafetyCommittee(MSC)
hasintroducedthe
abbreviation,termMASSforʺMaritimeAutonomous
Surface Shipsʺ and recognized the need for a clear
definitionofunmannedshipsandshall alsoaddress
different levels of automation, including semi‐
autonomousandunmannedshipsaswell[4].
However,perdefinition, unmannedshipshaveno
crew, nor even any
human operator on‐board. An
unmanned ship can be remote controlled from any
monitoring and control center either ashore or on
anothermobilestationoritisinautonomousmode.A
ship in autonomous mode has systems, which steer
theshipandʺdecideʺaboutanychangeofthecontrol
settingsby
herown.Autonomousoperatingshipsnot
necessarilyhavetobeunmanned[5].
As in all other transport modes also in the
maritimesector,arangeofautonomyanditspotential
tomanninglevelsaresuggested. Typically,the level
rangesfromfully‐mannedtounmannedvessels,and
definitions have been suggested
by several
institutions as e.g. by Lloydʹs Register [6] or by
ScandinavianMaritimeAdministrations. However,a
working group of the global standard setting
maritimeorganizationIMOhasdefinedthefollowing
fourlevelsofoperationforMASS:
1 Ship with automated processes and decision
support
2 Remotelycontrolledshipwithseafarers
onboard
3 Remotely controlled ship without seafarers
onboardand
4 Fullyautonomousship
Moreover, IMO provided guidelines for MASS
trialsbytheendof2018andintendstodeliverdraft
specificregulationsforMASSby2025.Itisexpected
that regulations take into account all aspects of
operation. Training and
education issues might be
addressed as well, but it is not yet on the agenda.
Experiencesandrelatedstudiesareobviouslylacking.
Also;whileremotecontrollingofshipsisaddressed,
theinteractionwithVTSisnot.
Present concepts proposing and researching the
introductionandoperationofMASSusuallycontaina
kind
of shore‐based control center that monitorsthe
status of such ships and the navigational and
technicalprocesses.IntheMUNINproject[7],sucha
center was named Ship Control Centre (SCC) and
providedfordirectremotecontroloptionsincaseof
itsneed[8].
However, theintroduction of such
transportation
systemshasnotonlyvarioustechnical‐technological,
497
but also administrative‐organizational [13] and
humanfactorrelatedchallenges. Whilethetechnical‐
technological aspects are very well addressed by
numerous research and technical development
projects (see i.a. [14]), the consideration of the
operational aspects, e.g. about the interaction with
other conventional shipsand witha VTS is stilljust
beginning and in a rather initial phase of studying.
Firsteffortshavebeenmadeandprovidedgoodbasis
forfurtherresearchintothetopic([23]‐[27]).
So far, it has not been considered in very detail
andiscomparablyseldomsubjecttoongoingstudies
andresearchactivities.Operationalandhuman
factor
relatedaspectsare,ontheotherhand,ontheresearch
agenda[9],[11].
Oneofthemajorchallengesisseeninthefieldof
addressing the interaction of SCC and VTS. If, e.g.,
therewillbenospatialseparationofunmannedand
remotely controlled ships from conventionally
mannedandnavigating
shipscertaincommunication
needswillariseandneedstobeaddressedindetailat
least on basis of series of case studies for specified
scenariosor bysystematic considerationof potential
situation and environmental parameters of traffic
scenarios. Those challenges include among others
technicalwaysofandproceduresforcommunication
betweenVTSandSCCoperatorsorevenaMASS;not
toraisethequestionwhowillbetheresponsibleparty
incaseofanyaccidentthatmighthappen.Willthere
bea needforoverridingrightsforanyoftheinvolved
parties? Shall such questions given to coastal states
and be
governed by national rules and regulations
exclusively?Isthereaneedforanoverallharmonized
approach and provision of a framework of
operational procedures? To just mention a few
samples.
However,operationalintegration,quiteobviously
requires addressing legal and operational aspects as
well as technic‐technological issues. Experimental
studies are
to approach such challenges in a
systematicway.
3 EXPERIMENTALSTUDIESINTO
OPERATIONALASPECTSOFUNMANNED
SHIPPING
3.1 ExperimentDesign
In order to gain more knowledge and experience in
researching how unmanned ships can be integrated
intothecurrentlyexistingtrafficflowofconventional
shipsalongcoastalareasandfairwaysto
ports,apilot
simulation trial was designed assuming a scenario
with a typical traffic load under usual normal
environmentalconditions.Oneaimofthetrialswasto
providedifferentsetofequipmentformonitoringand
remote controlling the unmanned ship and to test
differentcompositionsofthecontrolteamsin
respect
to the operatorsʹ seafaring background. One of the
groups was with experience as a navigating officer
and the other group was without background of
navigating a ship. The basic initial event of the
scenariowasabreakdownof theautonomous mode
on board the unmanned ship and the need to
take
over command by remote controlling the ship from
theshorecenter.
The traffic scenario for the simulator study was
created using historic AIS/radar data from a VTS
service, and consisted of more than 15 targets. The
simulated area was the German Bight, with good
visibility in daylight, moderate wind
(<2 BFT), calm
sea‐state(2),andnocurrent.Theshipmodelusedfor
the experiment was an average 4.000 TEU Panamax
Container ship (length 218 m; breadth 32 m) with
standard engine, single screw propeller and bow
thrusters, nowadays in usually operating for feeder
services.
3.2 BriefingofParticipants
Participants
came from Asia, Europe, North‐ and
South America and have various cultural
backgroundsaswellasofthemainlanguages.
The participants were briefed on the objective of
thestudy.Theywerefurtherinformedthattherewas
abreakdownofthe autonomousmodeon‐boardthe
unmanned ship, and that
they had to take over
remote‐controlfromtheSCC.Theywereaskedtosail
assafelyandefficientlyaspossiblefromanoriginof
theshiptoafixeddestinationpoint.Allparticipants
were briefed with a voyage plan and introduced to
thebasicmaneuveringcharacteristicsoftheshipto
be
remotely controlled. The unmanned ship steered
remotely in this simulation was a typical 4000 TEU
containership.The followingfigure showsthe initial
situation of the designed traffic scenario. The
autonomousunmanned shipto be controlledby the
participantsismarkedbythecirclesymbol.
Figure3.Seaareaandinitialtrafficsituationforsimtrials
The voyage plan was provided and explained
during the briefing sessions and an introduction to
thebasicmaneuveringcharacteristicsoftheshiptobe
remotelycontrolled wasintegrated using a fast‐time
simulationtrainingtool.
Duringthefirstseriesofsimulationrunsatotalof
24 participants were divided into 12
groups. Six
groups consisted of two experienced seafarers each,
whilst the other six groups consisted of two non‐
seafarers each; there were no mixed groups (i.e. no
groupswithaseafarerandanon‐seafarer).
498
3.3 ConductionofSimulationRuns
Onthefirstday,thegroupsofhadaccesstoacertified
full‐bridge simulator, with conventional handles for
steeringandmaneuveringtheship(includingengine,
propeller, thruster control levers). In this runs also
out‐of‐bridge‐windows view was available to the
attendees.The
remainingsixgroupshadaccesssolely
to a synthetic ECDIS screen that included the radar
and had software‐based handles to input rudder
angle and engine revolution commands by using a
keyboardandmouseinsteadofthelevers.
The VTS coverage related to the traffic flow was
integrated by VHF
communication and was
integratedinallsimulationruns.VTScommunication
includedregularstandardweatherandtrafficreports.
Theparticipantsastheoperatorsintheshorecontrol
center could listen to the reports but unable to
communicatewithtotheVTSstationaswellaswith
targets.
Simulation runs on the second
day used exactly
thesametrafficscenarioexceptfortheequipmentset‐
up switched around between groups. For example,
groups that had access to the full bridge on Day 1
worked with limited controls on Day 2, and vice
versa.
In the experiment, the unmanned ship to be
steered remotely
was a usual 4.000 TEU
containership.Thetwoequipmentoptionsusedwere
a control center with complete bridge equipment
provided by a certified desktop ship‐handling
simulator including the bridge view out of the
window simulated as remotely transmitted video
signal.
The secondequipment option was restricted to a
synthetic standard
ECDIS‐based traffic display with
soft control settings for rudder angle and engine
revolutions only. VTS coverage was integrated by
VHFcommunicationrelatedtothetrafficflow.
4 DISCUSSIONOFSELECTEDRESULTSAND
SOMEPRELIMINARYCONCLUSIONS
For purposes of discussion we use samples of
recordedtracksfromthefirstround
ofthesimulation
trials.Therecordedtracksfocusontheactiontaking
by the remote operators when controlling the
unmannedship.As the studiesarestillongoing, for
now, we focus on selected aspects and discuss the
samples qualitatively and remain quantitative
analysisforalaterstage.
Figure 4 presents exemplarily
the track recorded
fromtrialsbyateamofexperiencednavigatorsusing
a clear and almost complete turning circle to
starboard side and a speed reduction in order to
avoid a developing close encounter with a crossing
vesselapproaching from her portside. Accordingto
therulesoftheroad
thiswouldbeamaneuverofthe
stand‐onvessel,whenitgive‐wayvesselisnottaking
appropriateaction.
Figure4. Sample scenario track record (track of remote
controlled ship highlighted in yellow) of a starboard
maneuvertoavoiddangerousencounterwithshipcrossing
fromport‐side
Figures 5 and 6 contain another two samples of
other teams. The recorded tracks in Figure 5 show
tracks for the same situation but the teams had
availabledifferentkind ofequipmenttoconductthe
task. The recorded tracks of the remote controlled
ship (highlighted in light blue) presents sample
outcome
whentheoperators have onlythe standard
ECDIS‐based display available for monitoring and
remotecontrollingtheship.Theleftsnapshotistaken
from a trial of theʺunexperiencedʺ group. The
snapshot on the right hand side is from a trial
conductedbyateamwithnavigationalexperience.
Figure5. Samples of scenario track records for remote
controlofanunmannedship, havingonlyintegratedECDIS
information available in SCC (track on the left hand side:
team ‘no seafaring experience’; right: team with seafaring
experience)
Figure6. Samples of scenario track records for remote
control of an unmanned ship,having available fullbridge
equipmentinthe SCC(leftteam‘noseafaringexperience’;
right:teamwithseafaringexperience)
499
Figure 6 presents tracks for the same group but
having available the full set of navigational
equipment and steering handles for rudder and
engine.
Asecondseriesofsimulationrunsisongoingand
the same is for the detailed analysis of tracks and
other recorded data. However,overall as an
interim
resume, it can be stated that observation show that
withonlyoneexemptionallteamswereabletosteer
the remote ship safely through the traffic of the
remote area. Groups with navigational background
tookactionina rather strategic andmore pro‐active
manner, also tending to use
VHF in order to
coordinate maneuvers withother ships.Experienced
navigators seem to take into account maneuvering
characteristics more sensible and also observe the
response to a maneuver more carefully. This may
becomeatrainingissueforoperators.
From recorded feedback of the participants it
seemstobethatthereis
apreferencetomakeuseof
the fullrange of thebridge navigational equipment.
Participants with seafaring background expressed
that they prefer cross ‐check of displays using view
outofthewindow.
It seems to be another interesting subject to
investigation, how more enhanced equipment, like
e.g. virtual reality based
decision support systems
may or may not have impact on the outcome of
remotelycontrolledunmannedships.
Regarding the operational integration of MASS
intoexistingtrafficitwasobservedthat,inprincipal,
the behavior of the two groups and the provided
technicalinfrastructureresultedindifferentstrategies
tomanagethetraffic
situationsandtosolveidentified
conflicts. From the observed behaviors and the
feedbackprovidedbytheparticipantsaneedforclear
operationalprocedures,especiallyforcommunication
was identified. Communication lines and means
needs to be specified very clearly and need to take
into account the various operators of a scenario
on
boardandashore.Adraftconceptisprovidedinthe
figurebelow.
Figure7. Sketch of existing and potentially required
communication lines for a future traffic scenario merging
MASS and conventional ships in a coastal area with VTS
coverage
In respect to collision avoidance situations
participants expressed uncertainties about what the
othershipintendstodoandwouldprefertospeakto
apersononboardortheremotecontrollerifneeded
or have an indication for the action the automated
system will or is carrying out in addressing an
encountersituation.
Thechallengeregardinginformationexchangeand
distribution of data is seen rather in terms of the
operational integration than in the provision of the
technicalenvironmentforthis.
Algorithms and technical systems specifically
addressing collision avoidance are well under way
andproposalsforsolutionsareunderpreparationfor
further discussion on international level (e.g. [15]‐
[18]). However, solutions need to take into account
notonlyCOLREGSbutalsoobjectivesandoperation
ofshore‐basedtrafficmanagementeitherofaprivate
company like FOC and SCC respectively or a
governmental institution like e.g. a VTS. Especially
the reference to COLREGS
although welcomed was
seencriticalbyparticipantsastherulesnotcovering
allpotentialsituationsandmoreovernotallpossible
combinations of traffic and environmental
parameters. Approaches for technical solutions also
taking into consideration of the ship and situation
specific maneuvering characteristics when taking
actionandmaneuvertoavoidcollisions
aresubjectto
ongoing research studies and allow for provision of
action times and distances respectively when such
action need to be taken at the latest. Such solutions
(e.g. [19]‐[22]), however needs to be adapted and
investigated for situations with MASS involved as
well.
5 MARITIMETRAININGANDEDUCATION–
A
BACKNONEOFMASSOPERATION
Overallasaninterimfinding,itcanbestatedthatthe
observationshaveclearlyshownthat–withonlyone
exception–allteamswereabletoremotelysteerthe
ship safely through the traffic area in this sample
scenario.However,thisbyallmeans,
doesnotmean
thatprovidingtrafficservicesandremotecontrolling
shipscanbeperformedbypersonalwithoutseafaring
experience and a background limited to basics of
shipssteeringandtrafficmanagement.
Taking into account the selected focus of the
exercise to remotely steer the ship through a given
areawitha
mediumdensetrafficscenariowehaveto
notice, that this is just only one process of several
othersbelongingtothecomplextaskofnavigatinga
ship from berth‐to‐berth. The derived preliminary
findings are therefore just very basic and to be
interpreted as one initial beginning of more
in‐deep
studies needed to get insight of the challenges of
mixing traffic of conventional manned and steered
shipswiththoseremotelycontrolledorautonomously
navigating!
Groupswithnavigationalbackgroundtookaction
inaratherstrategicandmorepro‐activemanner,also
tendingtouseVHFinordertocoordinatemaneuvers
withotherships.Experiencednavigatorsseemtotake
into account maneuvering characteristics more
sensiblyandalsoobservetheresponsetoamaneuver
morecarefully.Thisseemstopresentuswithastrong
argumentthattrainingandexperienceamongothers
specificallyinship‐handlingisasignificantissuefor
futureremote
operators.
500
From promotion materials published and
presented at several commercial events as well as
scientificandacademicconferences,remoteoperators
are presented as sitting in a multifunctional chair
containing the steering handles designed in various
ways and watching the situation the environment
presented as live TV‐camera view on huge
multimedia
wide screens. However, equipment, no
matterhowuser‐friendlyorsophisticateditmightbe,
will remain purely as supporting tools for the safe
operation of ships, to be realized by the correctand
properactionoftheoperatorwheninremotecontrol
mode. Familiarization with the handling of such
systems
needs to become part of basic training, but
moreoverknowledgeandskillsoftheconstraintsand
limitsareneeded.
Almost all participants expressed the need for
direct contact preferably by voice communication
withvesselsinthevicinity.Thisrequestimpliesthat
remotecontroloperatorsneedtobeprovidedwiththe
communication
skills ofnavigating officers andVTS
operators respectively. However, a challenge for
operational integration of MASS and its joint
operationinareaswithconventionalvesselsrequires
a solution of the communication paths. Further
specific research is needed of potential options, like
VTSasarelaystation,useofcombinedVHF
andsat‐
communicationandothercommunicationmeans.
Thegivenfeedbackcontainsremarksthattraining
for controlling remotely certainly needs to include
training of safety and emergency procedures. From
observations and the feedback of the participants it
becomes apparent that sufficient training must be
provided in regard to legal frameworks operational
procedures,
the rules and regulations to be applied
globally and regionally when remotely steering a
ship.ThisincludesnotonlyCOLREGSbutespecially
the operational regimes in place in the VTS areas
worldwide.
Asanoveralloutcomeinrespecttothedraftand
developmentofjobprofilesitseemsthatshore‐
based
operatorsneedtohaveaprofilewithenhancedskills
andknowledgeofVTSoperators.Presently,theyhave
to be holder of a Certificate of Competence as a
navigating watch officer as a prerequisite. In this
respect, existing STCW requirements for watch
keepingofficerscouldformthebasisforderivingfirst
minimum training standards and programs or even
study curricula. Consequently, the IALA model
courses for VTS operators seems to be the starting
point for the development of training programs for
shore based remote control operators. Further
operational aspects of the integration of MASS into
conventionaltraffic have beenidentified.However,
this requires more detailed research and in‐depth
studies that shall follow from the pilot studies
presentedinthispaper.
6 SUMMARY
In this paper we introduced investigations and
selected interim results of a simulation experiment
whichstudiedfortheveryfirsttimetrafficscenarios
consisting of conventional manned and future
unmanned ships. Simulation trials have been
planned,designedandimplementedinordertostudy
different equipment options for monitoring and
remote controlling unmanned ships navigating in a
coastalVTS‐monitoredarea.
Inapilotstudythefirsttrialshavebeenconducted
with experienced seafarers and non‐experienced
personnelfromthe
maritimedomain.Qualitativeand
quantitative analysis of the first set of simulations
runs arestill ongoing. Forpurposes of analysis first
principle comparison of different groups and
equipment options are presented. The planning,
conductionandoutcomeofthesetrialsisdiscussedin
thelightofevolutionaryneedsofcontrolcentersand
requirements from human operators when remotely
operatingunmannedshipsinareaswithconventional
traffic.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The workand preliminaryresults presented in this paper
belong to ongoing research which is partly conducted
within the “MTCAS‐electronic maritime collision
avoidance” project funded by the Federal Ministry for
EconomicAffairsandEnergy(Germany).
Besides, it also contributed to the project on further
development, and implementation of the e
‐Navigation
concept by new and enhanced shore‐based applications
(TSDGstudy)fundedby KoreaResearchInstituteShips&
OceanEngineering(KRISO).
AspecialthankgoestothestudentsofWMUʹsMSccourse
program who participates in the simulation trials. The
students represent a wide spectrum of the global
community
ofmariners.
REFERENCES
[1]Burmeister HC, Bruhn WC, Rodseth ØJ, Porathe T
(2014). Can unmannedships improvemaritime safety?
InproceedingsofTRA,Paris/France,14.‐16.April2014
[2]KitadaM,BaldaufM,MannovA,etal.(2019).Command
ofvesselsintheeraofdigitalization.In:KantolaJ,Nazir
S,BarathT(eds.)
Advancesinhumanfactors,business
management and society. AHFE 2018, Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 783. Springer,
Cham.DOI:10.1007/978‐3‐319‐94709‐9_32
[3]Lloyd’s Register (2017). Shipright design and
construction,additional designprocedures:designcode
for unmanned marine systems. Lloyd’s Register,
London.
[4]IMO (2018). Vessel
traffic services. Accessed 11
September 2018. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/
Navigation/Pages/VesselTrafficServices.aspx.
[5]Weintrit A (2016). e‐Nav, is it enough? TransNav, the
International Journal onMarine Navigationand Safety
ofSeaTransportation,vol.10,no.4,pp.567‐574.
[6]PoratheT,BurmeisterHC,RødsethØJ(2013).Maritime
unmannednavigationthroughintelligenceinnetworks:
The MUNIN Project, in proceedings of COMPIT,
Cortona/Italy15‐17.April2013.
[7]Baldauf M, Kitada M, Mehdi R, Dalaklis D (2018). e‐
Navigation, digitalization and unmanned ships:
challenges for future maritime education and training.
In:12
th
AnnualInternationalTechnology,Educationand
DevelopmentConference(INTED),Barcelona,Spain.
[8]IMO (2018). Regulatory scoping exercise for the use of
maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). MSC
99/5/12,27March2018.
501
[9]Noma T (2016). Existing conventions and unmanned
ships‐need for changes? World Maritime University
Dissertations,527.
[10]Chong JC (2018). Impact of Maritime Autonomous
Surface Ships (MASS) on VTS Operations. World
MaritimeUniversityDissertations,Malmö.
[11]PoratheT,HoemA,RodsethO,Fjörttoft(2018).Atleast
as safe as manned
shipping? Autonomous shipping,
safetyand“humanerror”.In:Haugenetal.(Eds)Safety
andReliability–SafeSocietiesinaChangingWorld,pp.
417‐425,Taylor&FrancisGroup,London,UK
[12]Sari N.K. (2017). A Study on e‐Navigation Modus
Operandi.Malmö,Sweden:WorldMaritimeUniversity,
2017.
[13]Quinisio,
BS (2018) Development of a strategy for
management of autonomous ships by coastal states.
WorldMaritimeUniversityDissertations,Malmö..
[14]KongsbergMaritime.(2018).Autonomousshipproject,
key facts about YARA Birkeland
https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/
AllWeb/4B8113B707A50A4FC125811D00407045?OpenD
ocument.[Accessed2019–01–13].
[15]KRATA, P. & MONTEWKA, J. 2015. Assessment of a
criticalareaforagive
‐wayshipinacollisionencounter.
ArchivesofTransport,34,51‐60.
[16]BALDAUF,M.,BENEDICT,K.,FISCHER,S.,MOTZ,F.
& SCHRODER‐HINRICHS, J. U. 2011. Collision
avoidance systems in air and maritime traffic.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
PartO‐JournalofRiskandReliability,225,
333‐343.
[17]Baldauf, M., Benedict, K., Krüger, C.M. (2014)
“Potentials of e‐Navigation – Enhanced Support for
Collision Avoidance” TransNav, the International
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety if Sea
Transportation,vol.8,no.4,pp.613–617,2014.
[18]Mehdi, R. A., Baldauf, M. and Deeb, H. (2019) ‘A
dynamic
risk assessment method to address safety of
navigation concerns around offshore renewable energy
installations’, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering
for the Maritime Environment. doi:
10.1177/1475090219837409
[19]SZLAPCZYNSKI,R., KRATA, P. & SZLAPCZYNSKA,
J. 2018. Ship domain applied to determining distances
for collision avoidance
manoeuvres in give‐way
situations.OceanEngineering,165,43‐54.
[20]TAM, C. & BUCKNALL, R. 2010. Collision risk
assessment for ships. Journal of Marine Science and
Technology,15,257‐270.
[21]TAM, C. & BUCKNALL, R. 2013. Cooperative path
planning algorithm for marine surface vessels. Ocean
Engineering,57,25‐33.
[22]Baldauf M, Mehdi, RA, Fischer S, Gluch M (2017) A
perfect warning to avoid collisions at sea? Scientific
JournalsoftheMaritimeUniversityofSzczecin.53.53‐
64.10.17402/245.
[23]PoratheT,PrisonJ,ManY(2014).Situationawareness
in remote control centres for unmanned ships. In
Proceedings of
Human Factors in Ship Design &
Operation,26‐27.February2014,London, UK.
[24]Ramosa MA, Utne IB, Mosleh A (2019) Collision
avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships:
Operators’ tasks and human failure events. Safety
Science,Vol.116,pp.33‐44
[25]Wrobel K, Montewka J, Kujala, P (2018) Towards the
development of a system‐theoretic model for safety
assessmentofautonomousmerchantvessels.Reliability
Engineering&SystemSafetyVol.178,pp.209‐224
[26]Thieme CA, Utne IB (2017), Safety performance
monitoring of autonomous marine systems. Reliability
Engineering&SystemSafetyVol.159,pp.264‐275
[27]Wrobel K, Montewka
J, Kujala, P(2017), Towards the
assessmentofpotentialimpactofunmannedvesselson
maritime transportation safety. Reliability Engineering
&SystemSafetyVol.178,pp.155‐169
