Content uploaded by Tafsir Johansson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tafsir Johansson on Jan 26, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
Edited by Maria Chiara Leva, Edoardo Patelli, Luca Podofillini, and Simon Wilson
©2022 ESREL2022 Organizers. Published by Research Publishing, Singapore.
doi: 10.3850/978-981-18-5183-4_J03-07-636-cd
Towards a Harmonized Framework for Vessel Inspection via Remote Techniques
Aspasia Pastra
World Maritime University (WMU)-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute, Sweden. E-mail: asp@wmu.se
Tafsir Joha nnson
World Maritime University (WMU)-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute, Sweden, Sweden. E-mail: tm@wmu.se
Remote inspection techniques (RIT) for performing inspections on the steel structure of ships are changing the
landscape of ship inspection and hull cleaning. Patently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) perform global visual
inspections, ultrasonic thickness measurements and close-up surveys for ships undergoing intermediate and renewal
surveys; magnetic crawlers can conduct ultrasonic thickness measurements and perform hull cleaning; remotely
operated vehicles (ROV) can perform underwater surveys. Moving forward, efforts to maintain good environmental
stewardship, especially at the European Union (EU) level will require not only the seamless integration of RIT, but
also a guarantee that all techno-regulatory elements vital the semi-autonomous platform are streamlined into a
cohesive policy framework materialized through multi-stakeholder cooperation. The aim of this extended abstract
is to present some of the findings from research conducted by the World Maritime University-Sasakawa Global
Ocean Institute (GOI) within the framework of the European Union H2020 BugWright2 project. The findings
mirrored through this piece derives from research pertaining to: the qualitative assessment of international regime
related to ship’s safety, environmental control of pollution and survey standards; and comparative analysis from
case studies regarding the regulation of robotics covering six leading maritime nations. To this end, discussed
herewith are the techno-regulatory elements --- those that bolster support to a harmonized regulatory blueprint for
semi-autonomous platforms in the maritime domain.
Keywords: Remote Inspection Techniques, Ship inspection, Maritime Policy, Drones, Remote Operated Vehicles,
Magnetic Crawlers.
3406
3407Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
Introduction
Automated technologies have transfor med the
global economy and industries. The industry is
witnessing a shift from manual assistance to
progressive automaton --- one that could
inevitably lead to full autonomy in the not-so-
distant future. With cascade of innovative
advancements, service robots become smarter,
smaller, and cheaper, paving the way for a service
revolution where service innovations have the
potential to dramatically improve customer
experience, service quality and productivity
(Wirtz and Zeithaml, 2018).
The maritime industry is embracing automation
which may be the pathway forward for the sector
to achieve environmental compliance as well as a
sustainable maritime future. Electrification,
remote technologies, digitalization, and
connectivity have been immersed in a continuous
evolutionary process that converges the sector in
a powerful combination destined to transform the
way the industry moves people and cargo on the
water.
Relevantly, over the last years, several maritime
administrations have approved remote inspection
techniques for inspecting vessels on a case-by-
case basis, and when recognized organizations
(ROs) have had a rationale to endorse that a
specific survey could be conducted remotely.
Remote inspections, as it seems, could be
conducted through UAV, ROV and Magnetic
Crawlers. The demand for unmanned vehicles
capable of replacing traditional manual-based
surveys is increasing as we speak (Nex et al.
2022).
Although the global commercial shipping fleet is
rising, reaching 99.800 ships of 100 gross tons
and above, the ageing of the fleet constitutes an
environmental concern since older ships generate
higher emissions (UNCTAD, 2021). RIT has the
potential to contribute substantially to mitigating
hull-fouling through regular cleaning of marine
plants and animals on the submerged structures of
a ship (Alexandropoulou et al. 2021, McClay et
al. 2015). Moreover, shipowners could gain
tremendous annual financial benefits of 190
million euros as the direct and indirect costs (i.e.,
the means of accessibility and the opportunity
cost) are diminishing substantially (Robins,
2021). Other substantial advantages of RIT entail
the:
x Improvement of safety at sea as RIT
minimize dangerous tasks for inspection
personnel, such as entering confined
spaces and working at height;
x Reduction of the number of hours spent
on board by inspection personnel that
might facilitate the operation of the ship;
x Provision of high-quality data and
images, making it easier for ship
operators to follow up on hull
maintenance and create a maintenance
plan that can predict the requirements of
individual vessels;
x Enhancement of the survey report that
inspectors submit to ship
owners/operators by accessing
consolidated data for survey preparation
and reporting; and
x Potential that the increased availability
of digital data will contribute to the
development of other Artificial
Intelligence (AI) models and
applications for improving survey time
and quality.
3408 Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
Despite the various guidelines issued by the
respective classification societies (i.e., ABS, and
DNV), there are currently no standard agreed-
upon procedures at the international level for the
execution of class and/or statutory surveys by
remo te mea ns . T he i nt e r na ti o na l ma r i ti me RIT
governance framework is fragmented, to say the
least, and shrouded with both grey areas that
impede the integration of RIT alternatives at both
the regional and national levels (Johansson e t al.
2022).
The quintuple helix is urged to cooperate at the
international level and adopt both policies that can
stimulate beneficial innova tion, and measures that
could safeguard people from risks emanating
from automated technologies (Smuha, 2021).
Therefore, it is recommended that a new output
on the “development of a blueprint for remote
inspections’’ be added to the work programme of
the S ub-Committee on Imple menta tion of
Inter national Ma ritime Or ga nizati on ( IM O)
Instruments. Against the above backdrop, a set of
strands constituting a regulatory blueprint was
developed by the researchers of the GOI within
the overarching framework of the European
Union H2020 BugWright2 project that aims to
change the European landscape of robotics for
infrastructure inspection and maintenance.
2. Elements Integral to the Regulatory
Blueprint
The focus of the proposed blueprint considers, in
tandem, barriers, dynamic governance, techno-
regulatory rules and requirements, policy
framework i mpacts with regards to service
robotics, mobile platforms and individual RIT. To
that end, researchers have reviewed international
agreements relevant to the ocean tec hnology and
climate change regime, intellectual property
rights, and the certification requirements and
standards pursuant to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
framework. Subsequentl y, a state-of-the-art cross
comparative evaluation on selected case studies
regarding the regulation of robotics in the United
States of America, the Netherlands, Canada,
Norway, China and Singapore has been
conducted with a view to carving out how leading
maritime countries are paving the way to
autonomous operations, more specifically
inspections and cleaning through remote
platforms. To satisfy the goals of the above
evaluation, sixty (60) in-depth interviews
conducted with policymakers, classification
societies and subject matter experts engaged in
the field of automation and remote inspection
technologies.
All the key take-aways from the two individual
strands of assessment have been carefully
conceptualized to illustrate a set of current needs
in the for m of a draft regulatory blueprint, which
could be fully exploited by concerned regulatory
bodies, as well as national and international
agencies that deal with RIT i n Europe and across
the world. A synthesis of the main elements is
provided in the following section.
2.1 Element one: Stakeholder Cooperation
In the field of autonomy and robotics,
engagement with stakeholders is crucial to
responsible innovation practices (Leenes et al.
2017). Despite asymmetries, RIT calls for a
‘participatory tur n’ of stakeholder involvement
and a continuous process of learning and
reflection.
Partnerships between and a mong stakeholders are
needed to increase the s uccessful deployment of
RIT. At the governance level, there are non-
human actors that interact with pol icies and
regulations, and participate in effecti ng a
sustainable transformation in relation to RIT
(Johansson et al. 2021). These actors include the
IMO, IACS, various Standard Setting
Organizations and Patent Organizations --- all of
which set the safety, environmental and security
governance framework of shipping. At the
operational level, the human-element includes
manufacturers, service providers, classification
societies, asset owners and insurance companies,
which are directly or indirectly involved in the
application of the policies implemented at the
governance level (Johansson et al. 2021).
A policy regime that can adequately balance out
the different needs of stakeholders could ideally
3409Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
ensure “trust” in the technology and facilitate its
uptake (Smuha, 2021).
2.2 Element two: Uniform Definitions for
Diffe re nt Rypes of RIT and Degree of
Autonomy
Uniform definitions are the common language for
setting a solid foundation for understanding the
various types, features and limitations of RIT. An
effort to conceptualize RIT has been made by
IACS (2016, Recommendations 42, Section 1.1).
According to the provisions, RIT may include the
‘use of: Divers, Unmanned robot arm, Remote
Operated Vehicles (ROV), Climbers, Drones and
Other means acceptable to the Society’ (IACS,
2016, p.1). Therefore, while a common minimum
standard developed by IACS has been developed,
evide ntl y, no mini mum s ta nda rd d efi ni ti o ns on
UAV, ROV or Crawler are provided. Despite the
amalgamated placement of all types under the
common ter m “Remote Inspection Techniques”,
technological and other differences will stay
discernable since each technique differs in terms
of task, outcomes and environmental conditions
(Johansson et al. 2022).
Another term that should be clarified is one that
relates to ‘close-up survey’, i.e., survey where the
details of structural components are within the
close visual inspection range of the s urveyor and
normally within reach of ha nd. Nowadays.
classification societies approve service suppliers
to p rovi de clos e- up sur ve ys usi ng RIT, s uch as
drones, climbers or remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs). That said, when using RIT, the surveyor
attends the details of the close-up inspection
through a live video stream and the structural
components that are not within hands reach. A
revision of the definition of close-up survey is in
order.
The “degree of autonomy” o f these systems is
also in need of conceptualization. The current
stage of RIT is subject to “supervised autonomy”
or “semi-autonomy” given that an operator shall
remotely operate the technology in question. Over
time, RIT might be fully autonomous and capable
of functi oni ng without human i nter ference. The
“degree of autonomy” is a stress on carving out
the level of the autonomous systems in a fashion
similar to what has been done for Maritime
Autonomous Surface Ships (IMO Doc. MSC
100/20/Add. 1, Annex 2). Such a categorization
could help keep track of the adva ncements toward
autonomy, assisting classification societies with
future potential revisions (Johansson et al. 2022).
2.2 Element 3: Proof of Concept
RIT will need to be considered with the objective
of achieving at least equivalency with a traditional
survey, with safety always being the primary
consideration. This verification should be carried
out in controlled environments where repeatable
tests can be performed (Poggi et al. 2020; Pastra
et al. 2022). Classification societies should get
involved in extensive testing and establish the so-
called “proof of concept” to ensure that these
technologies provide safer and even higher -
quality evidence in the survey process whilst
offering equivalent benefits to shipowners and
operators. To boost the rob ustness of these
systems, more test-based statistics and data
comparison is required to prove that the new
technology is adequately safe and reliable for
mass deployment (Pastra et al. 2022). For
example, classification societies should conduct
trial inspections on the same vessel using an ROV
and cross-checking the data gathered against that
which has been obtained by a diver. Cracks
identified by airborne or underwater images
should be compared to traditional counterparts for
further chec k and balance.
2.3 Element 4: Risk Asse ssment Frameworks
During inspections, several safety issues, such as
cleaning, ventilating, lighting and setting up of
structures, are considered before an onboard
survey is initiated (Poggi et al. 2020).
A risk assessment process that includes a flow
chart could assist classification societies in
determining whether a physical inspection is
necessary. A common risk assessme nt framework
for ship eligibility for remote inspection should be
developed based on the age of the vessel, hull
condition, severity of corrosion, type of survey,
areas to be inspected, ship location,
environmental conditions in the area and
approved service suppliers. Classification
societies should consider remote surveys on a
case-by-case basis. If the classification society’s
3410 Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
risk assessment enables the remote survey, the
organization executing the remote inspection
should conduct another round of risk assessment
to identi fy any po tential hazards to the planned
inspection and subsequently, provide mitigation
measures. This risk assessment should include
risks associated with hazardous areas, payload of
the machine, battery storage, operational
accidents, dropped object risks, collision,
unexpected interruption of the pilot operation and
communication control links (ABS, 2019; CCS,
2018).
2.4 Element 5: Data Governance and
Management
“Data governa nce” is deemed as the allocation of
responsibility and shared decision- making over
the manageme nt of data assets (Earley et al.
2017). In other words, data governance concerns
policy-making decisions for corporate data, while
data management is the tactical execution and
monitoring of governance-related decisions
(Khatri and Brown 2010, Johansson e t al. 2021).
A data gover nance framework is essential to set
the processes which safeguard critical data asset
and how they are formally managed throughout
the enterprise and between enterprises (Sarsfield,
2009; Al-Badi et al. 2018).
Good data governance and manageme nt boost
“trustworthiness” within the ecosystem
comprised of technology and the human-element,
i.e., the ship owner, service provider, and
classification societie (Pastra et al. 2022). Clear
terms about data quality, ownership, copyright,
collection, preservation entity, storage, security
measures and data post-processing should be
included in the form of a contract signed by the
ship operator, class society, and service supplier
(Johansson et al. 2021). The roles and
responsibilities related to data ownership, quality,
storage, security and sharing of information
require an in-depth review of all private contracts
developed by service suppliers. What is
conclusive is the need for reliable mechanisms
that ought to be forged by service suppliers to
ensure long-term usability of data and metadata
that belongs to an asset (the ship) that is involved
in commercial activities (Johansson et al. 2021).
2.6 Element 6: The human element
Autonomous RIT will grow in the future broadly
owing to advanced algorithms, collision
avoidance systems, mi niaturization of onboard
sensors and concurrent work in the domains of
robotics and computer vision (Nex et al. 2022).
Nonetheless, at its current stage, inspection using
RIT is conducted in the presence of the attending
surveyor. Human oversight remains as a safety-
net throughout the deployment lifecycle of the
RIT. Ergo, the human-element cannot be ignored.
Human presence is the common denominator in
all existing technologies and until technological
developments reach the stages of “full
autonomy,” human intervention will remain as a
part and parcel of the operational system (Pastra
et al. 2022). The survey inspection procedures,
and most importantly, the training schemes of
surveyors must be adequa tel y aligned to match
the level of sophistication required to carry out
services using respective RITs (Pastra et al.
2022).
2.7 Element 7: Safety and Liability
Robots are products ; RIT are products; they are
not “person” or “beings” from an ontoligcal
sense. A legal framework, therefore, should be
applied to govern the usage of products
(Alexandropoulou et al. 2021). In short, products
must be regulated. Risks ranging from dropped
object, collision or lost link, and defective
products, inter alia, call the need to solve RIT-
induced liability issues through existing regional
or national policies (Johansson et al. 2022). RIT
are operated using (battery-produced)
“electricity”, which is viewed as a product in
accordance with Article 2 of Directive
85/374/EEC (Johansson et al. 2022). According
to Article 1 of the Directive, the producer shall be
liable for damages caused by a defect in product
so developed. Article 7 of the Directive renders
the producer/manufacturer the opportunity to
resort to the defense mechanism under specific
conditions.
The Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
of remote technologies should follow
internationally agreed and accepted requirements
for safe commercial operations (i.e., ISO
3411Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
Standards). Whether a manufacturer is concretely
liable will depend on relevant international or
industry standards and w hether the product
specifications have successfully followed those
standards. Manufacturers for RIT, during the
design phases should ensure that connectivity will
not directly compro mise data accuracy and safety
of the product. In parallel, manufacturers should
ensure transparency, accountability,
responsibility for all the intelligent information
technological systems they develop. Certified
products according to international standards
should be provided by manufacturers and utilized
by service providers. Service providers should
ensure the safety sta ndards of the equipment,
including hardware and software, during the
selection and maintenance phases. These syste ms
should be rated for their inte nded operational
environment (intrinsically safe in hazardous
areas, operational wind speed, etc.).
The growing degree of autonomy inevitably
raises the question of who is responsible if an RIT
“violates” a contractual obligation; therefore,
clarity is needed with respect to the
responsibilities incurred in connection with the
usage of remote systems. Clear provisions in the
form of a contract should specify the liable party
(manufacturers, developer of the AI system or
pilot of the drone) in different scenarios when a
remote system operated by a pilot crash and
consequently, causes damage. Different scenarios
include but are not limited to collisions with asset
structures and animals, collisions due to
malfunction of the equipment or cases where
visual line of sight ( VLOS) is not maintained.
The service suppliers should secure third-party
public liability insurance and/or professional
indemnity insurance to protect themselves against
legal liability for property damage or injur y.
Conclusions
National flag state authorities, classification
societies and ship owners are steadily adapting to
RIT-based solutions, especially during the
COVID-19 pandemic due to the special
challenges caused by restricting human-presence
on board ships (Johansson et al. 2022). However,
the absence of a uniform international framework
for remote inspections has led to their approval,
and as mentioned before, on a case-by case basis.
Intro d ucing new techno lo gi es in the mari ti me
sector requires the cooperation of various
stakeholders to carry out a comprehensive process
to amend existing instruments or develop new
policies.
In the field of robotics, “soft law” approaches and
codes of conduct enhance the level of
acceptability for all the different stakeholders,
increase the chance of self-enforcement and
enable a shift from classic or responsive
regulation to smart regulation ( Lee nes et al .
2017).
This paper identifies a framework with seven
main elements that could be taken into
consideration whe n developing a blueprint or
guidelines in the form of Code of Conduct. As
IMO member states are gearing up for dialogue
and discussion for guidelines, it would be worth
considering the basic elements that need
consideration at the international level. These
elements are robust stake holder cooperation,
uniform definitions, extensive testing,
establishment of a risk assessment process, data
governance, human element and liability, serving
as a plinth for regulating maritime robotic and
autonomous systems before unleashing.
Otherwise, full potentials of the system ma y be
impaired due to both foreseen and unforeseen
bottlenecks. The elements discussed in this paper
are consistent with the strategic direction of the
IMO, which aims to implement and enforce the
provisions of its regulatory instruments and
integrate tec hnolo gies withi n its environmental
and safety framework in an effective and efficient
manner.
3412 Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
References
Al-Badi, A., Tarhini, A. and Khan, A. I. “Exploring
big data governance frameworks”, Procedia Computer
Science 141, (2018): 271-
277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.181
Alexandropoulou, V., Johansson, T., Kontaxaki, V.,
Pastra, A., and Dalaklis, D. “Maritime Remote
Inspection Technology in Hull Survey & Inspection: A
Synopsis of Liab ility Issues from a European Union
Context”, Journal of International Maritime Safety,
Environmental Affairs and Shipping 5, no 4 (2021):
184-195.
American Bureau of Shipp ing (ABS), “Guidance Notes
on the Use of Remote Inspection Technologies”,
(2019), https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-
and-guides/current/other/242-gn-remote-inspection-
tech/rit-gn-feb19.pdf
China Class ification Society (CCS) “Guidelines for
Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”, (2018),
https://www.ccs.org.cn/ccswzen/articleDetail?id=2019
10000000003817
Earley, S., Henderson, D. and Data Management
Association. DAMA-DMBOK: Data Management
Body of Knowledge (NJ, USA: T echnics Publications,
LLC: Bradley Beach, 2nd ed., 2017)
EU Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC, 1985,
Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning liability for defecti ve products, OJ L 210,
7.8.1985, 29–33
International Association of Classification Societ ies
(IACS, 2016) Rec 42 Guidelines for Use of Remote
Inspection Techniques for surveys,
https://iacs.org.uk/publications/recommendations/41-
60/rec-42-rev2-cln/
IMO Doc. MSC 100/20/Add. 1, Annex 2, Framework
for the Regulatory Scopi ng Exercise for the Use of
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), Dec. 7,
2018, ¶ 1 and IMO, MSC 99th Briefing (2018),
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/P
ages/08-MSC-99-MASS-scoping.aspx
Johansson, T., Dalaklis, D. and Pastra A. “Maritime
Robotics and Autonomous Systems Operations:
Exploring Pathways for Overcoming Internationa l
Techno-Regulatory Data Barriers”, Journal of Marine
Science and Engi neering 9, no. 6 (2021),
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/6/594)
Johansson, T., Skinn, J, Dalaklis, D. and Pastra A
(2022 in press) “Harmonizing the Maritime Service
Robotics Techno-regulatory Regime: Six Blocks of
Influence for Good Environmental Stewardship”,
Intersentia, Cambridge University Press (TBC).
Khatri, V., Brown, C.V. “Designing data
governance”. Commun. ACM 53, (2010):148–152.
Leenes, R., Palmerini, E, Koops, B.-J.,Bertolin i, A.,
Salvini, P. and Lucivero, F. “Regulatory Challenges of
Robotics: Some Guide lines for Addressing Lega l and
Ethical Issues”, Law, Innovation and Technology 9,
(2017): 1-44,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1304921
McClay, T., Zabin, C., Davidson, I., Young, R., and
Elam, D. “Vessel biofouling prevention and
management options report”, Homeland Security,
March 2015,
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a626612.pdf
Nex , F., Armenakis, C., Cramer , M , Cucci , D A ,
Gerke , M , Honkavaara , E , Kukko , A , Persello , C
and Skaloud , J. “UAV in the advent of the twenties:
Where we stand and what is next ” , ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 184, (2022):
215-242,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.12.006
Pastra, A., Schauffel, N., Ellwart, T. and Johansson, T.
“Building a Trust Ecosystem for Remote Technologies
in Ship Hull Inspections”, Journal of Law, Innovation
and Technology 14, no.2, (in press: available
September 2022).
Poggi, L., Gaggero, T ., Gaiotti, M. Ravina, E and
Rizzo C.M. “Robotic inspection of ships: inherent
challenges and assessment of their effectiveness”,
Ships and Offshore Structures 17, No. 4, (2022): 742-
756, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2020.1866378
Sarsfield, S.,The data governance i mperative (IT
Governance Publishing, 2009).
Wirtz, J. and Zeithaml V. “Cost-Effective Service
Excellence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketi ng
Science 46, no. 1 (2018): 59-80.
3413Proceedings of the 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2022)
ROBINS, “Performance Standards and Cost Benefit
Ana ly s is ” (2021), https://www.robins-
project.eu/download/
Smuha N.A (2021) “From a ‘race to AI’ to a ‘race to
AI regu lation’: regulatory competition for artif icial
intelligence”, Law, Innovation and Technology 13, no.
1 (2021): 57-84,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898300
UNCTAD, “Review of Maritime Transport” (2021)
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/rmt2021_en_0.pdf
