While the discussion around the feasibility of autonomous shipping continues, Benjamin Brooks, a human behaviour specialist and associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Australia, is more concerned with the impact of autonomous systems on humans.
“What changes when the balance of control is shifted from humans to machines? People are highly responsible, but responsibility is a legal term. The challenge to humans arises when they are not sure what they are in control of.”
Autopilot systems pose a relevant case, Brooks says, because some system control is hidden from human operators. But what happens when the system fails?
“It takes time for humans to figure out the status,” Brooks explains. “Can they analyse the problem and make an appropriate decision? The more automation, or the higher the level, the more the balance of control is skewed. This is why automation systems have to make the state of the system visible to humans, because they must be able to regain control if the system goes haywire. Then it becomes more an issue of control than responsibility.”
Show me the money
Looking at automation or varying degrees of autonomy in the bigger picture of shipping, Brooks believes that the biggest economic benefits may not come from reducing crew. In fact, he says, the biggest benefits could instead centre around berth utilisation in ports. “We need to be quicker to take advantage of space. When ports and ships start to talk to each other and vessels are making return calls, then it is worth investing in advanced automation. An owner could probably pay off investments in a few years.”
“Here we have to be willing to learn from other transport modes and get our inspiration from outside shipping. I recently saw an airline autopilot video from the 1990s, when commercial aviation started to embrace automation. It looked like a giant step back in time, but it could have been shipping today,” Brooks adds.
“In ten years we will have a combination of methods for moving a ship in and out of harbours and ports. There will be some remote pilotage, and some will be the same as today. We are talking about evolution, not revolution. It also depends on the technical level of ships. But by then, even if we have not achieved autonomous berth-to-berth, we may be seeing port-to-port solutions in operation.”
We’re only human
“To err is human,” goes the old saying. If this is the case, can humans ever devise a perfect system? “No,” comes the answer from Brooks. “With automation, we can never be completely certain that the system will not fail. The best we can do is strive for development of error-tolerant, or resilient systems. Progress in understanding humans and human error has improved, but it has taken an extremely long time. We still do not have a complete understanding of where errors occur in shipping.”
It also has to do with computer capability, he says. “Let machines do what they do well, and help them enable humans to do what they do best. We have a long way to go in the maritime business before computers are cleverer than humans.”
Through it all, Brooks says, “The Master’s responsibility is not likely to change. There will still be a captain. But where will they be? What would we think if the pilot flying us from Oslo to Hamburg was in Miami?”
The remote pilot scenario is a good illustration of how intriguing automation solutions can be, says Brooks, and how risky. “If we are going to automate, we have to err on the side of caution. Redundancy is a partial answer, and triple redundancy is a generally acceptable level. But is it worth it in a maritime context? Regardless, investment cost is not a good reason to hold back from automation,” he says. The main issue is one of risk: “We need to be able to guarantee that risk is equal or less with automated systems.”
For the long run, Brooks has a qualified faith in the makers of machines: “The big leap will be quite challenging, but never underestimate the power of human ingenuity.” That being said, he does not see the big leap happening in the near future. His pragmatic prediction for the path of autonomy of shipping in ports: “As I suggested earlier, I see an evolution not a revolution. The roles of marine pilots, tug masters and Vessel Traffic Service Operators will morph, they will need to be more flexible, more technologically literate, but they will still need to retain and develop their skills around working in teams of humans”.
The biggest challenge in the whole process may well be seeing the path to autonomous systems as an opportunity rather than a danger to be avoided, Brooks concludes. “There is no doubt that increasing levels of automation are coming. People have the option of embracing and shaping that environment, or ignoring it and hoping it goes away. If I could provide any advice it would be that the first option is far better than the second.”
