Legal aspects of Autonomous ships

IMO is working out rules for these kind of legal questions:

Rule 5 say: “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as all available means appropriate
in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a
full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”

Questions:

  • How will “look-out by sight and hearing” be covered?
  • How will “all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions” be covered?
  • Will legal responsibility be held by somebody sitting in a control room on the other side of the world, watching several vessels simultaneously?
  • Will “MASS” be exempt from the requirement to assist persons or vessels in peril at sea?
    PS: The last question is addressed here:
    Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and SAR | International Maritime Rescue Federation
2 Likes

The IMO cant even make ECDIS work

If you have problems with your ECDIS call a repairman.
IMO makes rules, not fixing things.

So if I was operating autonomous ships the office would be in some place with no extradition agreements and with no cameras. A false name would also be handy.
I am sure that with sufficient remuneration they will find someone who will be happy to risk their liberty for the dubious security of a vessel maintained to the general standards of the Merchant Marine.

Thinking this through, after a couple of glasses on a Saturday evening…
If these ships are under the control of someone ashore (as the IMO discussion proposes) they would not be MASS as described. A more accurate classification would be Automated Remotely-Supervised Ships - ARSS.

So this “secret control bunker” would be the ARSS-hole.
Calls to the the ARSS-Hole to resolve risk-of-collision might be something like “get your ARSS out of my way!” and so on.
Interesting, no…

[Sorry, I’m Irish, it’s Christmas, can’t help meself!]

3 Likes

Accurately described as where the sun don’t shine. I think I will crack open a Guinness.

2 Likes

The rules for ecdis is/was a complete cockup. IMO 100% to blame.
They couldnt understand what a computer is.
Every brand so different you need to do a course on each one.
Hence for the first time in history a Captain is allowed to turn it off of he feels the crew not competent enough to operate it.
( assuming its still got paper based systems)

So the IMO is run by complete incompetent idiots?
Does that incl. those attending as national delegates at IMO as well?
Oh I know; “the whole world is run by idiots” in your opinion. :fearful:
(Except ONE world leader of course) :partying_face:

When you are finish sorting out Singapore, maybe you could help getting the rest of the world on the right track? :rofl:

1 Like

No.

So you have been one of the delegates I presume?

It was clear with the Ecdis fiasco they were way out of their depth
Who are they, mostly silly old farts ex captains who probably cant use a PC and these types are the ones who end up on comittees

I know in the NI the former DP experts they swore by had no clue, never worked for a DP supplier, not technical just SOF ex Captains, nice guys but no clue.
One even wrote a book on DP without having ever worked on a DP vessel.

1 Like

To the HTW sub-committee.

1 Like

It looks like both IMO and NI are in need of your expertise, otherwise it will all be just “old farts ex Captains” running the show. :rofl:
If you have the time on your busy schedule of solving the world’s problems that is. :anxious_face_with_sweat:

PS: Thick books are written about thing both you and I don’t know the foggiest thing about. Most are written by people we don’t know anything about too. :anguished_face:

And an old ex-chief mate helps how…?

1 Like