Risk Management Challenges in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASSs): Training and Regulatory Readiness
Source abstract
Abstract
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASSs) raise safety and regulatory challenges that extend beyond technical reliability. This study builds on a published system-theoretic process analysis (STPA) of degraded operations that identified 92 loss scenarios. These scenarios were reformulated into a two-round Delphi survey with 20 experts from academic, industry, seafaring, and regulatory backgrounds. Panelists rated each scenario on severity, likelihood, and detectability. To avoid rank reversal, common in the Risk Priority Number, an adjusted index was applied. Initial concordance was low (Kendall’s W = 0.07), reflecting diverse perspectives. After feedback, Round 2 reached substantial agreement (W = 0.693, χ2 = 3265.42, df = 91, p < 0.001) and produced a stable Top 10. High-priority items involved propulsion and machinery, communication links, sensing, integrated control, and human–machine interaction. These risks are further exacerbated by oceanographic conditions, such as strong currents, wave-induced motions, and biofouling, which can impair propulsion efficiency and sensor accuracy. This highlights the importance of environmental resilience in MASS safety. These clusters were translated into five action bundles that addressed fallback procedures, link assurance, sensor fusion, control chain verification, and alarm governance. The findings show that Remote Operator competence and oversight are central to MASS safety. At the same time, MASSs rely on artificial intelligence systems that can fail in degraded states, for example, through reduced explainability in decision making, vulnerabilities in sensor fusion, or adversarial conditions such as fog-obscured cameras. Recognizing these AI-specific challenges highlights the need for both human oversight and resilient algorithmic design. They support explicit inclusion of Remote Operators in the STCW convention, along with watchkeeping and fatigue rules for Remote Operation Centers. This study provides a consensus-based baseline for regulatory debate, while future work should extend these insights through quantitative system modeling.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Maritime Navigation and Safety · Risk and Safety Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Korea Maritime Institute, 26, Haeyang-ro 301beon-gil, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49111, Republic of Korea
Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology (Yongdang Campus), 93, Sinseon-ro 365beon-gil, Nam-gu, Busan 48562, Republic of Korea
Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology, 367 Haeyang-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49111, Republic of Korea
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Yun, I.H. (Monthly Hyundai Ocean of Dec., 2024). Prepare for the Era of Autonomous Ships, Need to Change the Maritime Education and Evaluation Paradigm, Monthly Hyundai Ocean of Dec.
2. Kim, J.M. (2024). A Study on the Development of Demand Prediction Model for Fleet Capacity of Dynamic Positioning Vessel. [Doctorial Dissertation, Korea Maritime and Ocean University].10.20944/preprints202310.1029.v1 ↗
3. International Maritime Organization (2023). Draft MASS Code: Annex 1 of MSC 108/WP.7, International Maritime Organization.
4. International Maritime Organization (2025). Proposed Amendments to Chapter 15 (Human Element) of the Draft MASS Code (MSC 110/5/1), International Maritime Organization. Submitted to the 110th Session of the Maritime Safety Committee.
5. International Maritime Organization (2025). Role of the Master and Obligation to be on Board the MASS (MSC 110/5/14), International Maritime Organization. Submitted to the 110th Session of the Maritime Safety Committee.
6. International Maritime Organization (2025). Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Requirements for Remote Operators of MASS (MSC 110/5/4), International Maritime Organization. Submitted to the 110th Session of the Maritime Safety Committee.
7. International Maritime Organization (2025). Report on the Progress of the MASS Code Development and Implications for Training and Certification (MSC 110/13/3), International Maritime Organization. Submitted to the 110th Session of the Maritime Safety Committee.
8. A conceptual model of autonomous ship remote operators’ competency10.1017/S0373463324000055 ↗
9. Roles and legal status of the remote operator in a maritime autonomous surface ship: Focusing on the concept of a crew and a master
10. Park, H.R., and Kim, J.M. (2025). STPA analysis for safe operation of maritime autonomous surface ship (MASS) under degradation state. Front. Mar. Sci., 12.10.3389/fmars.2025.1601515 ↗
11. Leveson, N.G. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8179.001.0001 ↗
12. Leveson, N.G., and Thomas, J.P. (2018). STPA Handbook, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
13. Ministry of Science and ICT, and Telecommunication Technology Association (2018). Risk Analysis Guide Using STPA, Ministry of Science and ICT.; Telecommunication Technology Association.
14. Towards the development of a system-theoretic model for safety assessment of autonomous merchant vessels10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.019 ↗
15. Preliminary results of a system-theoretic assessment of maritime autonomous surface ships’ safety
16. Safety verification for autonomous ships10.1051/matecconf/201927302002 ↗
17. Towards supervisory risk control of autonomous ships10.1016/j.ress.2019.106757 ↗
18. Glomsrud, J.A., and Xie, J. (2019, January 22–26). A structured STPA safety and security co-analysis framework for autonomous ships. Proceedings of the ESREL 2019, Hannover, Germany.10.3850/978-981-11-2724-3_0105-cd ↗
19. A framework to model the STPA hierarchical control structure of an autonomous ship10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104939 ↗
20. The impact of redundancy on reliability in machinery systems on unmanned ships10.1007/s13437-021-00259-7 ↗
21. International Maritime Organization (2021). Outcome of the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for MASS, MSC.1/Circ.1638, International Maritime Organization.
22. International Maritime Organization (2024). Development of a Goal-Based Instrument for MASS: Concept on the Management of Remote Operations, MSC 108/4/2, International Maritime Organization.
23. International Maritime Organization (2024). Report of the Working Group (MASS), MSC 109/WP.8, International Maritime Organization.
24. Porathe, T., Prison, J., and Man, Y. (2014, January 26–27). Situation awareness in remote control centers for unmanned ships. Proceedings of the Human Factors in Ship Design and Operation, London, UK.
25. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (2020). Act on the Investigation of and Inquiry of Marine Accidents, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.
26. Banda, O.A.V., and Kannos, S. (Hazard Analysis Process for Autonomous Vessels, 2017). Hazard Analysis Process for Autonomous Vessels, Technical Report.
27. An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 ↗
28. Keeney, S., Hasson, F., and McKenna, H. (2011). The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research, Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444392029 ↗
29. Stamatis, D.H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution, ASQ Quality Press.
30. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis10.1016/0951-8320(95)00068-D ↗
31. Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00179-5 ↗
32. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2018). IEC 60812: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA and FMECA), International Electrotechnical Commission.