Autonomy and the insurance angle


Even the smallest autonomous tug concepts need to surmount hurdles and uncertainty related to practical operations and liability, Ben Harris from Te Shipowners’ Club urged at this year’s ITS Convention & Exhibition


T


ugs remain on the frontline of vessel types suited to unmanned and autonomous operations:


they don’t venture too far from shore and typically conduct operations that can be considered ‘dirty, dull and dangerous’, from towing and escorting significantly larger vessels to tackling portside fires. While tugs and towboats may be


considered a ‘testing ground’ of sorts for the wider shipping sector, however, there are still plenty of challenges that need to be properly addressed, Ben Harris, head of claims at the London branch of mutual P&I association Te Shipowners’ Club, told delegates at the 25th International Tug, Salvage and OSV (ITS) Convention and Exhibition. Speaking at the event, which was hosted


in Marseille, France, Harris acknowledged that autonomous operations would most likely be accompanied by “increased vessel efficiency, greater flexibility and reliability [and] the ability to incorporate more environmentally friendly methods of propulsion” – as well as an expected reduction in incidents of human error, which currently accounts for around 47% of claims handled by Te Shipowners’ Club. “It is estimated that, ultimately, the


change will result in a 70% reduction in the number of deck officers and ratings required,” he said, adding that, rather than constituting an overnight change, there will most likely be a transitional period in which “autonomous vessels will remain manned” and “experienced, competent crew will be required to run shore-side operations centres that can intervene when the technology encounters a problem” (some may have found it interesting that he didn’t offer an ‘or if’ alternative).


The COLREGS conundrum However, there are still practical, legal and insurance-related hurdles to overcome. Harris explained: “Of particular concern


“It might behove the marine sector to study the


driverless car sector, spearheaded by the likes of Google and Tesla”


to tug owners will be how autonomous vessels manoeuvre in close quarters to other vessels where there is limited sea room – for example, in ports. Linked to this is navigation and interaction with manned vessels in high traffic density and arrival and departure from ports, as well as the interaction with pilots and vessel traffic services [VTS].” Moving on to the legal challenges


inherent to autonomous vessel op e rat i on, Ha r r is, pe rhaps unsurprisingly, drew attention to the problems likely to arise with regard to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). Again, it is no surprise that Rules 2 and 5 of COLREGS assume a degree of human presence and/ or involvement – Rule 2 laying down guidelines for the master and crew, and Rule 5 making it mandatory to maintain a proper look-out. Harris therefore posed the questions:


“How can either Rule be complied with when there are no crew on board? For example, would shore-side personnel remotely operating an autonomous vessel constitute a ‘master’ or ‘crew’ for the purposes of Rule 2? Would an autonomous vessel fitted with cameras constitute a proper ‘look-out’, and is it even necessary or possible for an autonomous vessel to comply with Rule 5 if it is operating on a pre-programmed route?”


Ship & Boat International November/December 2018


‘No fault’-based insurance It’s possibly too early to provide solid answers for these queries, though it might behove the marine sector to study the driverless car sector, spearheaded by the likes of Google and Tesla, for a potential taster of how to identify and address these legal implications. “Early indications suggest that liability could lie with the manufacturer if an accident is caused due to a defect in the design of a product, but with the driver if the product were being operated remotely at the time of the accident,” Harris said. “For individual drivers, there are suggestions that they may require ‘no fault’-based insurance, which would respond if any damage or injury was sustained while they were operating the car.” Transferring such scenarios to the


small boat sector, Harris continued: “If there were a defect with an autonomous vessel that caused a collision that could be solely attributed to a soſtware malfunction, should the manufacturer be found solely liable, and would this be covered by their product liability insurance? If an autonomous vessel were involved in a collision that was partly the fault of the manufacturer and partly the fault of the shore-side personnel operating the vessel, would liability be apportioned, or would a ‘no fault’-based liability kick in, holding the vessel owner solely liable? A solution will undoubtedly have to be found.”


Remaining vigilant In its potential to reduce the frequency of accidents attributable to human error, as well as cutting the number of claims related to crew injury, illness, death or repatriation, autonomous technology could certainly cut down the average P&I club’s workload. However, during the aforementioned


transitional period, marking the gradual switchover from ‘manned’ to ‘fully


27


Feature 1


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60