Why autonomy isn't the only path: misconceptions about maritime automation

Conversations about maritime automation often jump straight to fully autonomous ships, a destination still many years away. This insight unpacks why that framing is misleading, what supervised, human-in-the-loop automation actually means in practice, and why human oversight remains the centre of the picture even as systems take on more of the routine work.

Automation in shipping is often discussed in the context of fully autonomous vessels, but fully autonomous ships remain a long-term concept and are likely to develop slowly, in stages.

The misconception that full autonomy is the main use case for automation can distract from more practical forms of automation that already exist today, as automation in specific operational areas is already possible.

Supervised automation refers to tools and systems that perform operational tasks automatically with some human oversight. These systems can also be referred to as human-in-the-loop systems, with IBM defining human-in-the-loop systems as those where “a human actively participates in the operation, supervision or decision-making of an automated system.”

The IMO recognises this type of operational structure within its framework for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), describing vessels with automated processes and decision-support systems where “seafarers are on board to operate and control shipboard systems and functions,” and where “some operations may be automated and at times be unsupervised but with seafarers on board ready to take control.”

The framework mentions that, even in increasingly automated environments, a vessel’s crew should remain responsible for supervising vessel operations where required.

Supervised speed automation is one example of this approach, and it does not remove the role of the crew. Instead, it focuses on managing propulsion settings, while allowing the crew to override the system at any time. This type of approach is already being explored through systems such as DeepSea Technologies’ HyperPilot, which focus on supporting crew decision-making while maintaining human oversight.

As the ceiling for what automation can achieve rises and it becomes more capable, the role of human oversight remains essential to safe and effective operations. Prateek Rana, Maritime Decarbonisation Consultant, Siglar Carbon, supported this sentiment, stating that “machines can only be trusted to a certain extent, the human element is always required to make important decisions.”

Christos Papadopoulos, Energy and Environmental Engineer at a large global shipping company, spoke about the importance of maintaining human oversight when implementing autonomous and semi-autonomous tools, stating that, “the crew must be trained for the system. They must know its limitations and how to intervene.”

Crew judgment and their ability to intervene are important aspects of implementing autonomous tools into a vessel’s stack. Ultimately, in the event of an emergency or unexpected events, the crew are better placed to ensure an effective response.

The goal is not to replace human decision-making, but to support it. Viewing automation as a distant concept is misleading, as incremental, supervised approaches are already a good way to close the gap between optimisation insights and vessel performance.

Download our new report 'Precision in motion' or watch our latest webinar where we discuss all about this topic here.