See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349120238

Maritime Education and Training as a Tool to Ensure Safety at Sea in the

Process of Introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships in Shipping

Conference Paper · September 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 1,035

1 author:

Inga Bartuseviciene
World Maritime University
30 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Inga Bartuseviciene on 08 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 1822-296 X (print)
ISSN 2351-7034 (on-line)

KAUNAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

KLAIPĖDA UNIVERSITY
IFToMM NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF LITHUANIA
LITHUANIAN SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
THE DIVISION OF TECHNICAL SCIENCES
OF LITHUANIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

TRANSPORT MEANS 2020

Sustainability: Research and Solutions

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 24th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC

CONFERENCE

PART I

September 30 - October 02 , 2020

Online Conference - Kaunas, Lithuania
 368
Proceedings of 24th International Scientific Conference. Transport Means 2020.

Maritime Education and Training as a Tool to Ensure Safety at Sea in the

Process of Introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships in Shipping
I. Bartusevičienė

World Maritime University, Fiskehamnsgatan 1, P.O. Box 500, 21118, Malmö, Sweden, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Rapid changes in technologies, such as the recently introduced Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) which will
coexist with conventional/traditional ships and will later predominate in shipping, determine new safety at sea concerns.
Safety concerns can be discussed from the legal, commercial, technological, and human factor perspectives. Due to a
high level of uncertainty, safety at sea can be ensured by using a proactive approach in the above mentioned fields. A
crucial role in ensuring safety is played by the human factor, which can be influenced by proper Maritime Education
and Training (MET). The paper focuses on ideas about making MET a reliable tool for ensuring safety at sea during the
transition process of MASS introduction in shipping.
KEY WORDS: maritime education and training (MET), maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS), safety at sea

1. Introduction

The current trends and changes in shipping related to the introduction of new technologies are difficult to predict
due to a high level of uncertainty. This uncertainty affects safety at sea and changes in the labour market, because it
seems impossible to define all the challenges and risks of the period of transition from the currently prevailing
conventional/traditional maritime transportation to the coexistence of such ships with MASS and to the predominance
of the latter in shipping, due to unpredictable difficulties in: 1) the functioning of interconnected systems on board and
ashore, 2) human-technology interactions, 3) revision and implementation of the regulatory framework at the
international, regional and national levels, and 4) changes in the labour market and future demands for maritime and
shore-based professionals, since new equipment, together with evolving shipboard and remote control procedures, will
lead to crews and shore personnel performing new or different functions and, therefore, will necessitate follow-up
training, which is not well defined yet. MET can provide assistance to the maritime community and the labour market in
the areas of adaptation to technological changes over the above mentioned transition period and in the ensuring of
safety at sea through proper identification of the new functions of the personnel dealing with the operation of MASS on-
board and ashore, the establishing of standards of competence, and proper organisation of training and reskilling of
needed specialists.
Safety at sea remains the main problem in the shipping industry. Major maritime accidents have resulted in
heavy losses of human lives and severe environmental and economic damage. This issue becomes increasingly relevant
with the introduction of MASS operation. The reactive approach as a response to maritime accidents in maritime policy
leading to changes in regulations, procedures, or training has been used for over 3,800 years [16, 21]. Nowadays, the
shift from the reactive approach in the Maritime Policy of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to a proactive
approach began since 2010. The 2010 amendments of the STCW Convention as not having "roots in maritime
accidents" [6, 21] can be considered as an example of the proactive approach. This approach should be used for MET
implications in order to ensure safety at sea in a world in which conventional/traditional ships coexist with MASS. MET
can become a successful tool for ensuring safety at sea and making a positive influence on the maritime community and
the labour market during the transition period only by using a proactive approach through the involvement of different
actors of the shipping industry (policy makers, companies, educators, etc.) in the research and identification of issues
for further actions, involving prediction of consequences in uncertain and hardly anticipated situations. The results of
the investigation should be taken into account while taking respective measures in overcoming identified risks for
safety, such as defining functions and standards of competence of an-board and shore personnel involved in MASS
operation, changes in legal framework of MET, implementation of of changes on international, regional and national
levels.

2. Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, Levels of Autonomy

MASS is defined as a ship which, to a varying degree, can operate independently of human interaction. This
definition anticipates that the ship will be operated autonomously, however, different descriptions of autonomy can be
observed in literature, starting from the lowest level of automation - manual operation - without an autonomous function
and ending with a fully autonomous level without human involvement, with differently defined levels of automation in-
between: e.g., DNV provides 5 levels of autonomy for navigation functions [5]; Lloyds Register defines 6 levels - from
manual steering to full autonomy [14]; Sheridan lists 10 levels of autonomy, dependent on the ship type, size, the
 369
operational area, and conditions [20]; and IMO names 4 levels [8]. The description of the levels of autonomy according
to different sources is provided in Table 1.

Table 1
Definitions of levels of autonomy provided in literature
Levels of autonomy Degrees of autonomy Levels of autonomy for Cyber-enabled ships:
according to Sheridan according to navigation function [5] autonomous levels [14]
[20] the IMO [8]
10 - The computer does 1 - Fully autonomous A - Autonomous function AL6 - Fully autonomous (&
everything autonomously, ship: the operating (the system will execute the with no supervision)
ignores human system of the ship is able function, normally without
to make decisions and the possibility for a human
determine actions itself to intervene on the
functional level)

9 - The computer informs 2 - Remotely controlled DS - Self controlled AL5 - Fully autonomous (&
human only if it (the ship without seafarers on function (the system will rarely supervised)
computer) decides so board: the ship is execute the operation, but
8 - The computer informs controlled and operated the human is able to
human only if asked from another location. override the action.
7 - The computer executes There are no seafarers on Sometimes referred to as
automatically, informing board ‘human on the loop”
human when necessary
6 - The computer allows AL4 - Human on the loop –
human a restricted time to operator/supervisory
veto before automatic
execution
5 - The computer executes 3 - Remotely controlled DSE - System decision AL3 - ‘Active’ human in the
the suggested action if ship with seafarers on supported function with loop
human approves board: the ship is conditional system
4 - Computer suggests controlled and operated execution capabilities AL2 - On and off-ship
single alternative from another location, (human in the loop, decision support
3 - Computer narrows but seafarers are on required acknowledgement
alternatives down to few board by human before execution)
2 - Computer offers a SC - System decision AL1 - On-ship decision
complete set of decision supported function support
alternatives
1 - Computer offers no 4 - Ship with automated M - Manually operated AL0 - Manual- no
assistance, human is in process and decision function autonomous function
charge of all decisions support: Seafarers are on
and actions board to operate and
control shipboard
systems and functions.
Some operations may be
automated

Undoubtedly, when the ship is at the highest level of autonomy – "The computer does everything autonomously,
ignores human" - the said ship will be crewless, and the main responsibility for the safety at sea falls on the competence
and duties of the personnel working ashore. Therefore, it is important to clearly define their functions, standards of
competence, and concerns for their education and training as implications for changes in MET. It has to be noted that
the definition of the levels of autonomy describing human involvement in decision-taking processes and the presence of
people on-board is important not only for MET, but also for future demands on maritime and shore-based professionals
operating MASS.

3. Benefits and Risks of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships Introduction to Shipping

The benefits of MASS have been presented in several papers. They can be divided into three groups [14; 13]:
- Related to safety as eliminating human error - they might reduce maritime accidents caused by fatigue and
alcohol abuse, poor judgment, stress, inadequate staffing, poor living conditions, etc. [13];
- Financial benefits are highlighted, since MASS reduces operational manning costs, fuel consumption,
increase operational times, maritime shipping capacity, etc. [19];
- Social impact is emphasized, because it is envisaged that MASS compensates for a shortage of seafarers,
 370
improves the lifestyles of seafarers, etc. [19].
However, according to Komianos [13], it is difficult to calculate the overall financial benefits on a large scale,
since some costs will be reduced, including the costs for the crew, fuel consumption, etc., however, additional costs for
land-based services, such as the control center, equipment, maintenance crews in port expenses, etc., will appear, and
the shore personnel wages will increase. Moreover, the implementation of new legal regulations and the introduction of
changes to MET also imply costs.
As noted before, MASS have the potential to reduce human-based errors, however, simultaneously new types of
risk will arise and will have to be addressed. They can be divided into several sectors, including, e.g., ship safety, cargo
safety, maritime traffic safety, environmental safety, and occupational safety and security [20]. According to the results
of AAWA project, due to the nature of the shipping industry, the transition from the current conventional concepts on
marine transportation to a stage dominated by autonomous, unmanned ships is expected to take place slowly and has
been claimed to require at least a couple of decades. During that period, there will be a mixture of vessels with different
levels of autonomy operating at sea. In the worst case, this may lead to unexpected behaviour of some systems, hazards,
and, consequently, risks [20]. The most important issue is that the impact of MASS on safety has not yet been studied
sufficiently extensively and deeply. The gaps in such a kind of information are being to some extent filled by a
performing number of industry initiatives and projects, with over 20 of them being recently implemented or in
progression [3, 17], e.g., AAWA [20], NAVSAC, performed by USCG Navigation Safety Advisory Counsel;
MASRWG – by UK Maritime Autonomous Systems Regulation Working Group); SARUMS – by EU Safety and
Regulations for European Unmanned Maritime Systems, etc.
Researchers identified the following safety-related risks: the system, human-system interactions, software,
network and communications, cyber security, risk assessment and response to emergencies due to the lack of trained
crew members on-board and a decreased crew size, firefighting and damage control, liability, insurance, quality
assurance, higher vulnerability to hijacking or piracy, etc. [13, 14, 20]. The challenges dealing with safety can be
divided into legal [11], commercial [24], technical [19], and human-factor related ones [25].
Some benefits and challenges of MASS introduction to shipping from Human factor, commercial and social
impact points of view are presented in the Table 2.

Table 2
Benefits and challenges of MASS introduction to shipping
Benefits Challenges
Human factor
Elimination of human error by reducing maritime Uncertainty in human-technology interaction, no clear
accidents caused by fatigue and alcohol abuse, poor definition of functions on-board and ashore, no clear
judgment, stress, inadequate staffing, poor living standards of competence of personnel: knowledge and
conditions, etc. skills
Commercial
Reduction of operational manning costs, fuel consumption, More investments needed in land-based services,
increase of operational times and maritime shipping technologies, implementation of legal acts, changes in
capacity MET
Social impact
MASS compensates for a shortage of seafarers, improves Uncertainty in changes in labour market demand-
the lifestyles of seafarers supply of needed personnel: maritime and shore-based
professionals.

Some of investigations to overcome the challenges identified in literature needed to be done in order to be
implemented in MET:
1. According to Komianos [13], since MASS consist of several interconnected systems and will be run by
remote land-based or offshore services. Safety in the era of rapid evolution of technology with hardly predicted
consequences cannot be assured based on the knowledge gained from earlier systems. Functioning of all the different
systems (a system of systems) on board and ashore, their design and installation, integration of innovative technologies
into the design and operation of the ships, their relations, management, and regulation, has to be investigated
thoroughly.
2. The human-technology interactions with the growing digitalization and automation due to rapid technological
advancements creating unprecedented challenges and gaps need multidisciplinary research in: 1) integration of systems
with the cognitive capabilities of the users; 2) coordination between humans and machines; 3) influence of fast
introduction of technology on crew's traditional learning experience; 4) comparison of pace of technology introduction
on board and the regulatory development [15].
3. Investigation of legal issues is needed having in mind, that: 1) the existing international regulatory
framework (safety, security, and environmental protection conventions and regulations) does not cover MASS operation
[10]; 2) as identified through research, over 50 IMO legal documents related to autonomous vessels need urgent
revision (e.g., [14, 13]; 3) the number of regulatory barriers increases as the autonomy level is increased [19]; and 4)
regulatory approaches at the national, regional (e.g., EU), and international (IMO) levels will take not less than 6 years
 371
[19].
4. Research in human factor in needed, because: new skills will be essential for the effective operation of new
technologies in an increasingly developing transport system, and the identification of these skills at an early stage is the
key to success in the necessary adaptation process in a country or a transport mode [20]; the importance of
requalification and retraining of workers will be the key to the successful transition of tasks to the age of automation
and technology; thus, e.g., in the maritime sector, remotely controlled automated ships could lead to the elimination of
certain jobs on ships, although this is not likely to happen before 2040 [25].
Comprehensive investigation and identification of possible risks for safety at sea contributes to the definition of
standards of competence, which have to be split up and described as particular knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the
personnel on-board and ashore according to their functions. This information has to be taken into account in the drafting
of a legal framework and the adjusting of MET to the changes in the labour market while meeting new technological
changes.

4. The Need for the Legal Framework Revision

According to IMO, the goal of sustainable MET is properly trained and educated seafarers with emphasis on
refresher training and education upgrades [7]. The role of proper MET in achieving the main objectives of the maritime
community – to make oceans cleaner and ships safer – is crucial. As emphasised by IMO Secretary-General K.
Sekimizu, "the shipping industry depends on competent, well-trained seafarers to ensure safety of life at sea, maritime
security, efficiency of navigation and protection and preservation of the marine environment" [9]. This process is
continuous and dynamic; it depends on a number of factors, including the technological, social, cultural, political, and
economic background of the country and depending on the international (IMO), regional (e. g., EU) and national
legislations.
An updated training regime of STCW will be needed before any further steps are made to allow changes in labor
market, foe example, crew reductions. Crew members need to be trained in any case to fulfill all the functional tasks
and capabilities left for the crew in autonomous ships [20]. The importance of requalification and retraining of workers
will be the key to successful transition of tasks to this age of automation and technology: thus, e.g., in the maritime
sector, remotely controlled automated ships could result in elimination of certain jobs on ships, although this is not
likely to happen before 2040 [25].
The requirements for training and certification of seafarers serving on board sea-going ships are provided in the
STCW Convention, and they have been almost universal (over 160 states have ratified the STCW covering 99% of
world tonnage), therefore it is logical to extend its coverage by creating a sister convention (such as e.g. STCW-F) that
caters to the crewless nature of autonomous ships [1, 20]. According to Rolls-Royce [20], it is probably safe to apply (at
least) the STCW and other national requirements analogically (as if person were on board the ship). If and when
unmanned ship operations are considered as requiring particular training, relevant provisions would probably have to be
amended to accommodate the new requirements for the operation of unmanned or largely automated ships. Similar
types of requirements as in STCW may eventually have to be developed for persons operating ships remotely.
The changes in the legal framework regulating MASS operations have to be taken into consideration while
adjusting MET. For the implementation of MET at the national level, of special importance are the requirements for the
standards of the personnel competence related to the MASS operations on-board and ashore which have to be defined in
the revised (or newly developed) STCW convention.

5. Considerations for the Training of Personnel Dealing with MASS Operations

MASS are more likely to alter jobs rather than to eliminate them [22] and this, combined with the creation of
new types of jobs, will lead to the definition of training and reskilling needs and changes in MET. The demand for
seafarers will be reduced, however, the need for the new concept-oriented crew who necessitate heavy training
programs will be increased [8], and the workforce in shipping will need training and reskilling [25]. However, more
investigations have to be done in this respect as well.
A proactive approach to accidents has to be taken into consideration in education and training, based on
multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary research involving intersections of computer science, social science, engineering
design, and psychology [15] and involving different parties, such as policy makers, business representatives, educators,
etc. As noted in Lloyd's Register [14], special training will be needed in: relevant information technology knowledge,
knowledge of conventions and regulations, customized specialized training, engineering technology training, logical
and critical thinking training, and leadership training.
The literature review revealed some considerations related to the skills and competences of personnel involved in
MASS operations, which need more research:
- Seagoing experience: will ashore personnel need experience in seagoing to better understand the
consequences of their decisions [8]; do persons working in the Shore Control Centre (SCC) require to have a sufficient
amount of experience related to similar ships, i.e. with regard to dimensions, deadweight, and power and their relations;
should the requirements of competence, based on hands-on training in sea service and simulators, be higher for the
supervisors in the SCCs [20].
- Dividing engineering functions into two parts: 1) automatic support (AS): operation of ship by automation
 372
systems and personnel in combination, 2) automatic operation (AO): without the need for personnel intervention [5].
- Communication functions: 1) of unmanned ships with conventional ships; 2) communication in ports with
different entities due to the shipping traffic in ports [8]. Communication between the ship and shore needs to be
bidirectional, accurate, scalable, and supported by multiple systems creating redundancy and minimizing risk as well as
having sufficient communication link capacity for the ship sensor monitoring and remote control and the ability to
monitor equipment in service in real time detecting [20].
- Watchkeeping: the responsibilities for safe watchkeeping involve several persons, including the company, the
master, the chef engineer officers, and the whole watchkeeping personnel, whose responsibility is to ensure "that a safe
continuous watch or watches appropriate to the prevailing requirements on lookout, bridge, engine room, radio watches
and conditions are maintained on all seagoing ships at all times" [20].
- Skills in safety critical and challenging situations: well-designed simulator training would be needed for
practicing challenging safety critical situations, but this is problematic, since, at least in principle, the simulator cannot
present unimaginable surprising situations. Generation of challenging situations demands creativity and understanding
of maritime accidents from the developers of training [20].
- "Digitalization" skills and combination of them with maritime skills: the tasks of seafarers will change to
more digital ones, especially in operation monitoring and system management, and also in less operational work. Skills
can be divided into three domains: 1) data fluency and the ability to interpret and analyze large amounts of data; 2)
digital operation of equipment such as ships, cranes and winches; and 3) software engineering of fundamental programs
and systems Education and training will need to be adapted to equip seafarers with the new skills required [25].
- Port operations: in order to understand the skills required in major areas of port operations in the context of
automation, these can be categorized as follows: terminal operation, including waterway ship scheduling service;
foreland transport service, including railway and road transport service connected to the port; hinterland transport
service, including including railway and road transport service connected to the port; and warehouses related to the
port [25].
- Personnel operating ships from a remote location need the combination of maritime and technology skills in
operations: planning of voyage, mooring, unmooring, operations at open sea, port approach and docking, etc. [20].
The needs for special training in information technology knowledge, the knowledge of conventions and
regulations, customized specialized training, engineering technology training, logical and critical thinking training,
leadership training, and seagoing experience have to be taken into account while adjusting MET to prepare the labour
market for the introduction of MASS in shipping.

6. Continuous Upgrade of Qualification of Trainers/Instructors Needs Attention

In order to make MET a reliable tool the issue of competence of trainers/instructors have to be considered while
implementing changes. After conducting “Train the Trainers” and “Train the Assessors” courses for more than 15 years
for Lithuanian, Turkish, Ukrainian trainers, it was noticed, that trainers need continuous upgrade of their qualification
in education sciences, especially in teaching/learning and assessment methodology. It was noticed, that
teachers/instructors need better understanding of some ideas of education science:
- understanding and application of three domains or learnings (cognitive, psychomotor and affective);
- proper understanding of importance affective domain in education and training;
- ability to formulate learning objectives depending on the selected domain of learning and the levels of
competence in the selected domain;
- ability to select teaching/learning means and methods, assessment and evaluation methods depending on the
formulated learning objective according to the levels of competence in the selected domain of learning (e.g. the
teaching and assessment methods to reach learning objective in cognitive and psychomotor domain have to be
different);
- be creative to engage learners in learning activities by using different teaching/learning methods, promoting
higher levels of learning domains (e.g., synthesis, evaluation in cognitive domain);
- use new investigations of neuroscience, psychology, education sciences to improve education and training,
e.g. neuroscience for learning [2], brain based ergonomics [4, 18, 26], using algorithms in education and training
process in development of study books can save financial and human resources, effectively organize group work and
simulations. For example, the practical courses in the field of emergency medicine provided by Crisis Research Center
in Lithuanian University of Health Sciences based on application of algorithms in education and training process have
great success in preparation of specialists for emergency situation.
- transformational role of education and training, in which people are engaged in a new way of seeing,
thinking, learning and working [23];
- involvement in educational research together with specialists in education sciences, such as for example,
action research, on continuous basis.
The issue related to the continuous upgrade of competence of teachers/instructors in education sciences need
special attention in order to make MET a successful toll in implementing changes and new challenges in shipping.
 373
7. The Need for a Comprehensive Research Project Involving Different Actors

In order to be prepared to meet the challenges of technological changes in the shipping industry, a number of
initiatives related to the regulatory framework, safe operations of MASS, and technology developments [17] have
already been taken. However, not much has so far been done with respect to MET, which has to be adjusted to the needs
of the labor market based on a constant dialogue and close monitoring of the developing technologies and the levels of
automation [25]. Having in mind, that training and education require years from the initial idea to a fully developed and
introduced program constantly supplying specialists with the required skills and knowledge, an interdisciplinary
comprehensive research project, involving different actors from the shipping industry and aiming to facilitate the
understanding of potential impacts and opportunities for maritime transportation, preparing appropriate responses for
industry partners, and identifying appropriate MET-building needs for workers in the transport chain, is immediately
needed. The following topics have to be included in the research:
1.Identification of the functions of crew onboard and personnel ashore according to the levels of autonomy of
MASS and the foreseen risks and challenges.
2.Description of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and standards of competence according to each identified
function.
3.Strategy (Road map) for the implementation of international regulations at the regional and national levels,
including the development of model courses for MASS operators.
4.Practical recommendations and measures of MET adjustment in order to implement changes.

8. Conclusions

By summing up, it can be mentioned that autonomous shipping is possible from a technological perspective; the
benefits of autonomous shipping has been recognized for different actors in the maritime industry from safety, financial
and social perspective, even issues regarding the regulatory environment, appear to be solvable [20]. However, at same
time new types of challenges from legal, commercial, technological and human factor perspectives will appear. The
challenges and risks of introduction MASS to shipping can be reduced by proper MET, which has to take into
consideration the following ideas: a proactive approach has to be used in adjusting MET; the regulatory framework
establishing the requirements for personnel dealing with MASS operations has to be established and implemented at the
international, regional, and national levels; the continuous upgrade of competence of teachers/instructors in education
sciences need special attention; an interdisciplinary comprehensive research project involving different actors from the
shipping industry and aiming to facilitate the understanding of potential impacts and opportunities for maritime
transportation, to prepare appropriate responses for industry partners, and to identify appropriate MET-building needs
for workers in the transport chain is immediately needed.

References

1. Carey, L. 2017. All Hands off Deck? The Legal Barriers to Autonomous Ships. National University of Singapore:
Centre for Maritime Law. NUS Law working paper No. 2017/011
2. Collins, S. 2015. Neuroscience for Learning and Development: How to Apply Neuroscienec and Psychology for
Improved Learning and Training. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
3. Covill, J.; Klein-Urena, M.; Shepherd, B. 2019. Autonomous Shipping 2019 and Beyond. Presentation on
Workshop on Marine Autonomous Surface Ships [online cit.: 2019-06-25]. Available from:
http://www.shipfed.ca/data/MarinersWorkshop/2019/Presentations/17-AutonomousShipping-Covill.pdf
4. Dehais, F.; Ayaz, H. 2016. The Brain at Work and In Everyday Life, AXA Research, The Brain at Work
and In Everyday Life International Conference, Paris, France, 2016.
5. DNV GL. 2018. Class Guideline – DNVGL-CG-0264. Edition September 2018 Autonomous and Remotely
Operated Ships.
6. International Maritime Organization. 2010. Adoption of the Final Act and any Instruments, Resolutions and
Recommendations Resulting from the Work of the Conference. IMO Document STCW/CONF.2/32 Dated July 1,
2010. London: IMO.
7. International Maritime Organization. 2013. World Maritime Day: A Concept of Sustainable Maritime
Transportation System. London: Author, pp. 9-14.
8. International Maritime Organization. 2018. MSC 99/WP.9., Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime
Autonomous Surface Ships (MAS), Report of the Working Group. London: IMO
9. International Transport Workers Federation. 2010. STCW: a Guide for Seafarers. London: Author [online cit.: 2019-
06-25]. Available from: https://www.mptusa.com/pdf/STCW_guide_english.pdf
10. International Transport Workers Federation/IFSMA. 2018. MSC 99/5/1. Paper, London: Author.
11. Karlis, T. 2018. Maritime Law Issues related to the Operation of Unmanned Autonomous Cargo Ships, WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs 17(1): 119-128.
12. Kobylinski, L. 2018. Smart Ships – Autonomous or Remote Controlled? Scientific Journals of the Maritime
University of Szczecin 53: 28-34.
13. Komianos, A. 2018. The Autonomous Shipping Era. Operational, Regulatory, and Quality Challenges, TransNav:
 374
The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 12(2): 335-348.
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.02.15
14. Lloyds Register. 2016. Cyber-enabled Ships: Deploying Information and Communications Technology in Shipping
– Lloyds Register's Approach to Assurance. London: Lloyds Register.
15. Man, Y.; Lundh, M.; MacKinnon, S.N. 2018. Towards a Pluralistic Epistemology: Underastanding Human-
Technology Interactions in Shipping from Psychological, Sociological and Ecological Perspecives, TransNav: The
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 12(4): 795-811.
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.04.20.
16. Mukherjee, P.K. 2002. Maritime Legislation. Malmö: WMU Publications.
17. Mylly, M. 2019. Safety and Security in the Automated World of the Future. MyNavix OÜ [online cit.: 2019-06-25].
Available from: https://shipowners.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Maritime-Safety-and-Security-in-Automated-
Future_Markku-Mylly.pdf
18. Parasuraman, R.; Rizzo, M. 2008. Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work. Volume 3 of Human-
Technology Interaction Series. Oxford University Press, 2008.
19. Ramboll and CORE. 2017. Analysis of Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships. Final Report. Danish
Maritime Authority
20. Rolls-Royce. 2016. Remote and Autonomous Ships - The Next Steps, AAWA Position Paper. London: Rolls-Royce
plc.
21. Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U.; Hollnahel, E.; Baldauf, M.; Hofmann, S.; Kataria, A. 2013. Maritime Human Factor
and IMO Policy, Maritime Policy & Management 40(3): 243-260, DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2013.782974
22. Tester, K. 2017. Technology in Shipping. The Impact of Technological Change on the Shipping Industry. Report,
London: Clyde&Co.
23. Tilbury, D.; Wortman, D. 2004. Engaging people in sustainability. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
24. Willumsen, T. 2018. A Commercial Reality Checks for Autonomous Shipping in 2018 Seatrade Maritime News.
25. World Maritime University. 2019. Transport 2040: Automation, Technology and Employment – The Future of
Work. Reports. 58 [online cit.: 2019-06-25]. Available from: https://commons.wmu.se/lib_reports/58
26. Паронджанов, В. 2012. Учись писать, читать и понимать алгоритмы. Алгоритмы для правильного
мышления. Основы алгоритмизации. Москва: ДМК Пресс. (in Russian).

View publication stats