Addressing theaccidental risks of maritime transportation: could autonomous shipping technology improve the statistics?

• Autorzy: Hoem Å.S. , Fjørtoft K. , Rødseth Ø.J.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.13.03.01

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A paradigm shift is presently underway in the shipping industry promising safer, greener and more efficient ship traffic. In this article, we will look at some of the accidents from conventional shipping and see if they could have been avoided with autonomous ship technology. A hypothesis of increased safety is often brought forward, and we know from various studies that the number of maritime accidents that involves what is called “human error” ranges from some 60‐90 percent. If we replace the human with automation, can we then reduce the number of accidents? On the other hand, is there a possibility for new types of accidents to appear? What about the accidents that are today averted by the crew? This paper will present a method to assess these different aspects of the risk scenarios in light of the specific capabilities and constraints of autonomous ships.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS); autonomous ship; autonomous shipping technology; maritime transportation; maritime accident; human error; maritime risk; accident statistics

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 13, no. 3
• Strony: 487--494
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz., rys., tab,

Twórcy

autor

Hoem Å.S.

• Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

autor

Fjørtoft K.

• SINTEF Ocean, Trondheim, Norway

autor

Rødseth Ø.J.

• SINTEF Ocean, Trondheim, Norway

Bibliografia

• 1. Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty (2018), Safety and shipping Review 2018 – an annual review of trends and developments in shipping losses and safety, Munich, Germany, June 2018.
• 2. Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty (2012), Safety and Shipping 1912‐2012: From Titanic to Costa Concordia, Munich, Germany, March 2012.
• 3. Baker, C., McCafferty, D. (2009). ABS Review and Analysis of Accident Databases.
• 4. Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. In Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Man–Machine Systems 1982 (pp. 129‐135).
• 5. Bell, J., & Healey, N. (2006). The causes of major hazard incidents and how to improve risk control and health and safety management: A review of the existing literature. Health and Safety Laboratory.
• 6. DNV GL (2018), Class Guideline ‐ Autonomous and remotely operated ships, DNVGL‐CG‐0264, September 2018.
• 7. DMAIB (2013). The Danish Maritime Accident Investigation Board: VEGA SAGITTARIUS Grounding on 16 August 2012. Marine accident report 2012003009. Issued on 27 March 2013. Valdby: DMAIB.
• 8. Eleftheria, E., Apostolos, P., & Markos, V. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship accidents and review of safety level. Safety science, 85, 282‐292.
• 9. EMSA (2018), Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2018. EMSA, Lisbon, Portugal, 2018.
• 10. Equasis (2018), The World Merchant Fleet in 2017 – Statistics from Equasis, www.equasis.org, retrieved January 2019.
• 11. Caridis, P. (1999). CASMET. Casualty analysis methodology for maritime operations. National Technical University of Athens.
• 12. Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of safety research, 37(4), 401‐411.
• 13. IMO MSC/Circ.102/MEPC/Circ.392. 2002. Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO Rule‐Making Process. As amended. London: IMO 2002.
• 14. IMO MSC.255(84). 2008. Code of the international standards and recommended practices for a safety investigation into a marine casualty or marine incident (casualty investigation code). Adopted May 16, 2008. London: IMO 2008.
• 15. IMO Resolution A.884(21). Amendments to the code for the investigation of marine casualties and incidents (A.849(20)). London: IMO 1999.
• 16. Karvonen, I. 2018. Human Factors Issues in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship Systems Development. The 1st International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship.
• 17. Leveson, N. 2012. Engineering a safer world: applying systems thinking to safety.
• 18. Man, Y., Lundh, M., Porathe, T., & MacKinnon, S. (2015). From Desk to Field–Human Factor Issues in Remote Monitoring and Controlling of Autonomous Unmanned Vessels. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2674‐2681.
• 19. Matsumoto T. et. al 2018. Guidelines for concept design of automated operation/autonomous operation of ships. International conference on maritime autonomous surface ship.
• 20. NTSB, National Transport Safety Board. 2015. Grounding of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Kulluk, near Ocean Bay, Sitkalidak Island, Alaska December 31, 2012. NTSB/MAB‐15/10.
• 21. Pomeroy, R. V., & Earthy, J. V. (2017). Merchant shipping’s reliance on learning from incidents–A habit that needs to change for a challenging future. Safety science, 99, 45‐57.
• 22.Porathe T., Hoem Å., Rødseth Ø.J., Fjørtoft K., Johnsen S.O. (2018), At least as safe as manned shipping? Autonomous shipping, safety and ʺhuman errorʺ. XXXX
• 23. Rødseth Ø.J (2018). Defining Ship Autonomy by Characteristic Factors, Proceedings of ICMASS 2019, Busan, Korea, ISSN 2387‐4287.
• 24. Rødseth Ø.J (2018b). Assessing Business Cases for Autonomous and Unmanned Ships. In: Technology and Science for the Ships of the Future. Proceedings of NAV 2018: 19th International Conference on Ship & Maritime Research. IOS Press 2018 ISBN 978‐1‐61499‐870‐9
• 25. Rødseth Ø. J. (2017). From concept to reality: Unmanned merchant ship research in Norway. Proceedings of Underwater Technology (UT), IEEE, Busan, Korea, ISBN 978‐1‐5090‐5266‐0.
• 26. Rødseth Ø.J. & Nordahl H. (eds.). 2017. Definition for autonomous merchant ships. Version 1.0, October 10. 2017. Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships.
• 27. http://nfas.autonomous‐ship.org/resources‐en.html. [Accessed 2018‐12‐12].
• 28. Scarborough, A., Bailey, L., & Pounds, J. (2005). Examining ATC operational errors using the human factors analysis and classification system (No. DOT‐FAA‐AM‐05‐25). Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City OK CIVIL AEROMEDICAL INST.
• 29. Wróbel, K., Montewka, J., & Kujala, P. (2017). Towards the assessment of potential impact of unmanned vessels on maritime transportation safety. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 165, 155‐169.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).