Autonomous ships code gathers momentum as commercial concepts proceed at practical pace

For vessel owners and operators, autonomy is not always the ultimate goal or single end-state, but rather a tool that can be applied at different levels depending on operational needs.

“In that sense, a higher autonomy level is not always better,” said Mr Kei. “The right level depends on the operational context, risk profile and human involvement required, and different operations may require different degrees of autonomy.

“Autonomy is a journey, and its incremental steps should be developed through a gradual, safety-focused progression that introduces new capabilities in controlled phases.”

Mr Kei said early steps may rely on advanced, non-autonomous decision-support systems, such as automated monitoring, advisory functions, and other smart tools that enhance situational awareness across vessel systems.

“This phased approach allows the maritime industry time to test technical feasibility"

“As operational experience increases, higher levels of autonomy can be introduced incrementally, expanding from decision-support functions to more autonomous capabilities across multiple shipboard domains,” he explained.

“Regulatory and technical requirements that apply a step-wise approach provide progressive assurance, testing and validation at each stage, which ultimately supports learning from real-world experience while also building trust among crew, operators, regulators and other stakeholders.” 

Bridging human factors and training gaps   

Human factors engineering (HFE) remains one of the most significant challenges in the progression toward autonomous maritime operations, according to Mr Kei.

“While many emerging technologies must consider how they influence human activity, autonomy is fundamentally built around human involvement,” he said. “Every autonomous function interacts with human decision-making, oversight and intervention, which means the human element cannot be treated as an afterthought.”

Current industry gaps in HFE for autonomous operations are a lack of focus in research and development work, clear definitions, and a common benchmark for evaluating autonomous navigation solutions.

"The pace of technological development is now outstripping the ability of onboard personnel to adapt,” said Mr Kei. “Skills, competencies and training pathways have not evolved at the same rate as the systems being introduced."

This creates a widening gap between what technology can do and what the workforce is prepared to manage.

“Without targeted investment in training and human-centric design, this gap will continue to grow,” said Mr Kei. “As a result, verification and validation remain at the heart of safety assurance for autonomous technologies. Traditional testing alone cannot capture the full range of scenarios that an autonomous system may encounter at sea.”

Virtual testing and both system-level and full-mission bridge simulation allow developers and assessors to explore edge cases, stress conditions and rare events that would be difficult or unsafe to reproduce in physical trials.

When combined with real-world testing, this creates a more complete picture of system performance.

“To improve transparency, consistency and trust, virtual testing could not only verify and validate test scenarios and standardise performance indicators, but it could also provide data to support regulatory decision-making for MASS,” said Mr Kei.    

Regulations explained  

IMO’s MASS Code will govern varying degrees of autonomy. Operations range from vessels with automated processes and full crews to remotely controlled vessels with reduced manning, all the way to fully autonomous ships navigating without human intervention.

The MASS Code provides a common international reference point. As a goal-based set of standards, it has evolved alongside the development of autonomous technology since 2021, when IMO began scoping MASS trials.

Its goal-based approach aims to define safety objectives while also maintaining flexibility for the industry to adapt to emerging risks.

For the first-phase launch, IMO has advanced the non-mandatory guidelines with support from member states and IACS as part of the working groups helping to refine its structure, core principles and key technical chapters (for example, around navigation and fire safety).

“This phased approach allows the maritime industry time to test technical feasibility and validate the safety of autonomous operations before binding regulations take effect,” said Mr Kei.