[QUOTE=lm1883;190833]That’s why he makes the big bucks.
The push here in the states was to give the VTS control, like air traffic controllers, thus placing liability squarely in the VTS domain, something the USCG wanted no part of.
An autonomous ship will have to be directed from somewhere and they will assume the liability for that vessel. Determining who the master is will be a moot point. The question will be how to limit the financial exposure of the company to one vessel instead of the whole company.[/QUOTE]
There are three kinds of liabilities in question, monetary, legal and moral to put it simple.
If an autonomous ship is in the control of a “Command Centre” (maybe a on the other side of the world), which have been contracted by the Ship Management company to keep control of the vessel throughout it’s voyage, the legal responsibility depends on the contractual obligation between those two, but the monetary responsibility may rest with the defacto Owner, who may be a BVI limited company owned by a thrust registered in Delaware, or Lichtenstein.
The “moral” responsibility may rest with the Vessel Operator at the CC, but can he be prosecuted , even if found grossly negligence, or even incompetent for the job?
Will there be any Certification of such Operators and how will that work?
Initially the Operators will likely be recruited from Masters and Officers with existing CoCs and sea time on ordinary ships, with additional training on the systems required for monitoring and controlling autonomous ships. After some years, there may be a shortage of such persons though.
When a autonomous ship approach a port, or a congested waterway, there may be a need for an operator to watch only one ship, not a whole fleet. This can be done by transferring control to a local VTS or Pilotage service, but will the authority operating that service accept legal responsibility as well?
In the case of Singapore, this may be complicated by territorial issues. Ships coming from the West may require special attention from just before One Fathom Bank, thought Malacca and Singapore Straits, until well clear of Horesburgh lighthouse. (Same in reverse for ships arriving from the East)
There are also ships coming from/ going to the South and passing through the Riau Archipelago.
Even if not calling at Singapore Port, it would make sense to have a VTS/CC in Singapore controlling traffic in all this area, but rivalry with Malaysia and Indonesia may make this difficult to obtain. Today VTS Singapore control traffic in Singapore Strait, incl. in Malaysian and Indonesian waters, but that is still not enough to avoid frequent collisions.
So, in short, it will be easy to find somebody to “morally” blame for any accident cause be human control errors, but the legal responsibility will be harder to pin down, especially if it is found that it was caused by a “software problem”, or inadequate programming for that specific voyage, or situation.
So it look like we will still need to have somebody called Master, but he/she need not be on board.