Loading...
In the rapidly growing world of autonomous vessels the issue is simple. As technical advisor Richard Purser of the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) succinctly puts it, “The industry is moving more quickly than the regulation.”
Speaking at the well-attended Seawork Insight webinar ‘Autonomy at sea – the future of global regulations for autonomous vessels and underwater systems’ he added: “Our existing IMCA templates were designed for crewed vessels and are not suited for uncrewed operations where the bridge may be thousands of miles away from the hull.”
The webinar highlighted an issue which will receive further detailed examination at Seawork 2026 09 -11June in Southampton, where IMCA will be at the conference on the opening day and the exhibition will feature an Autonomy Pavilion.
Since 1972 IMCA has played a central role in drawing the offshore industry together to improve safety, and has had few greater challenges than the rapid rise of autonomous vessels which has seen the ‘assurance gap’ grow wider.
At the webinar Purser said, “With the assurance gap we are talking about risk management essentially. Without a standardised framework operators are effectively making up their own rules, and that lack of consistency leads to uncertainty.”
In response IMCA’s Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) group produced outline M271 and M272 assurances for Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USV) and Remote Operation Centres (ROC) respectively. As Purser outlined: “Not just a checklist but a bridge between today’s emerging tech and tomorrow’s formal international codes.”
M271 was USV specific, focussed on the hull, propulsion, sensors, energy systems as well as cyber and physical security and pollution controls, while M272 was aimed at shore-based ROC, their culture, operator competence, comms and cyber integrity among targets. Combining the two was designed to provide a full operational picture. Initially released in 2025, and available to download, Purser added, “We desperately need feedback – so get your red pen out and let us know what you think.”
Also offering an insight into the “fast moving field in automation and autonomy” was Roger Moore, also a tech adviser with IMCA with 27 years in the ROV industry.
He made the clear point that there was on-going confusion between autonomy and automation, while the Defence Maritime Regulator (DMR) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) analysis can also be misunderstood
Moore outlined how each assessed the varying levels of autonomy, ranging from crewed and automated, to fully autonomous. In summary he said the key difference is that IMO is regulatory, ship-level and asking where the human interaction is, while DMR is operational, system level and questioning who decides and acts. He concluded, “Both are valid but they ask a fundamentally different question.”
Click here to book for Seawork conference Autonomy in the Real World: Uses, Savings and Setbacks Wednesday 10 June 1000-1115 In Person at Seawork 2026
