Stop Thinking in Degrees of Autonomy; Start Thinking in Operations.
You may still hear autonomous ships being explained through the four degrees of autonomy.
The language is familiar, simple, and easy to repeat. It helped the maritime industry begin a difficult conversation about ships that may operate with automated processes, remote control, or higher levels of autonomy.
The four-degree framework provided a useful common starting point for the IMO’s Regulatory Scoping Exercise to assess how existing instruments might apply to varying levels of automation and remote-control operations.
For those interested in background information, the four degrees classification are still visible in IMO background material.
But the MASS Code has Already Moved On!!!!!
Following the completion of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise, IMO moved toward the development of a goal-based instrument regulating the operation of MASS, in the form of its recently adopted non-mandatory Code.
It is crucial to distinguish that this adopted Code is structured around MASS operations and functions, not a ship-wide Degree One to Four classification. It takes a goal-based and operational approach, asking how the operation should be arranged, assessed and shown to be safe, secure, and environmentally sound.
Now that the non-mandatory MASS Code has been adopted, it is time to explain and discuss MASS through the Code’s own approach.
Why A Degree Label Is Not Enough
Operating logic of the adopted Code is vital.
A degree label can make autonomy appear more fixed and hierarchical than it really is. The adopted Code points to a more operational reality, where one function can be autonomous, another can be remotely operated, and another can still require people on board. The arrangement can also change during the voyage, depending on location, traffic density, weather, connectivity, port requirements, coastal State expectations, system condition or emergency circumstances.
A ship should therefore not be described through “one degree” in any simple way.
This matters in practice because different stakeholders need more than a label. They need to understand how the ship will behave in different operational areas including in pilotage waters, who has authority during port approach, how operating modes may change, how control is transferred between ship and shore, and how responsibility, control, liability, and accountability should be addressed.
Adopted Code Seeks Sustainability and Responsibility of Operations
The Code asks a practical question.
How is the entire operation arranged, and how it can be shown to work safely, securely and in an environmentally sound manner?
That question moves the focus away from a fixed label and toward the operation itself.
The Code uses more operational language. Instead of placing the whole ship into degrees of autonomy, it looks at how MASS functions are designed, operated, limited, monitored and kept safe within defined operational conditions, with or without crew on board and with appropriate human oversight and control.
To test viability , MASS operations should be examined via the following:
- MASS Functions
- Concept of Operations
- Operational Envelope
- Operational Design Domain
- Modes of Operation
- Operational Limits
- Risk Assessment
- Task Allocation
- Fallback Arrangements
- Contingency Plans
- Human Oversight and Control
- Software Principles
- Connectivity
- Emergency Response
- Management of Safe Operations
When a Remote Operations Centre (ROC) and remote operators are involved, the shore-based setup is part of the overall safety and operation. The ship cannot be considered on its own. Instead, the ship, software, people (onboard and ashore), and remote operations should all be viewed as one connected system.
The Real Shift
MASS is not simply a ship with more technology on board. It is a whole operating system.
When control, monitoring, watchkeeping, judgement and emergency response are no longer confined to the ship itself, and can also be shared and transferred between ship and shore; what does this actually look like in practice?
This can be explored by the following situations:
- If a function is remotely operated: who is controlling it, from where, under what conditions, and with what fallback if the link is lost?
- If a function is autonomous: what are its limits, how is its performance monitored, and at what point should a human intervene?
- If a ship changes mode mid-voyage: how is that change managed, recorded, and understood by whoever is responsible at the time?
- In each of these cases where relevant who has the authority and competency to monitor, decide, and intervene?
These questions point to the kind of operational evidence that needs rigorous testing for credibility.
What Comes Next: A Language Still in Transition
The current discussion should not be treated as finished.
The four-degree model framework belonged to an earlier stage of IMO’s work. With the adoption of the Code, the focus has shifted to a more operational phase. The next stage, including the Experience-Building Phase (EBP) and future work toward a mandatory Code, is likely to refine this approach further.
As technology develops and practical experience grows, industry definitely will need a more detailed way to describe MASS functions, modes of operation, levels of human involvement, Remote Operations Centre (ROCs) arrangements, fallback states and operational limits.
Understanding MASS operations is critical. Industry cannot afford ambiguity or inconsistency in the interpretation of the MASS Code or in the language used to describe MASS operations. High-value assets, safety, responsibility, and trust are at stake.
This Experience Building Phase is important. It gives industry and administrations time to test whether the Code’s operational approach is clear enough, practical enough, and flexible enough for real maritime conditions.
Shipping Australia’s CEO, Capt. Melwyn Noronha said:
“The conversation has shifted. We need to focus on putting the Code into practice and putting it to the test. That’s why it is important to align the discussion with the Code’s approach.”
What will decide the future of autonomous shipping is not a simple label attached to a ship. It is whether the operation behind each function (whether remote, autonomous or manned) can be properly understood, evidenced, and trusted.”
Note
This article provides commentary on selected aspects of the non-mandatory MASS Code and IMO’s earlier autonomy-degree model. For full details, readers should refer to the full text of the non-mandatory MASS Code and relevant IMO documents.
Further Reading:
A Revolutionary Turning Point in Maritime History: The IMO Adopts the MASS Code
Inside the MASS Code: Rethinking Maritime Safety in a Distributed World
IMO’s Autonomous Ship Code Experience-Building Phase (EBP): Where Real Work Begins
New international framework will regulate ships operating with little or no human crew
