Autonomous Ships (MASS): the Company's Responsibility under the SMS
The MASS Code governs the ship; but according to the IMO, who answers when a remote operation goes wrong remains the ISM Company, and its SMS must say so explicitly.
Operational Explanation
Alongside the development of the MASS Code (Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, adopted as a non-mandatory instrument at MSC 111, May 2026), the Maritime Safety Committee addressed, already at its 108th session (May 2024), a distinct but complementary question: who is responsible, within the ISM framework, for the operational safety of an autonomous or remotely controlled ship. The position agreed at MSC 108 is that responsibility for the safe operation of a MASS ship remains with the ISM Company, exactly as for a conventional ship, regardless of the degree of operational autonomy.
This means the Company's Safety Management System must be able to answer, explicitly and with documentation, questions the traditional ISM Code never had to address: who is the Designated Person Ashore (DPA) responsible for a Remote Operation Centre (ROC)? What competence and certification must a remote operator hold? What procedures govern the handover between autonomous and manual control in the event of system degradation? The Company's responsibility does not change; what changes is the practical content the SMS must regulate to fulfil it.
Regulatory Reference
MASS Code (res. MSC.595(111)), adopted at MSC 111 and in effect from 1 July 2026: it allocates roles according to the ship's approved operating concept, keeps the Master's overall responsibility even when not on board, and requires Remote Operation Centres to be assessed, certified and operated under a robust safety management system. MSC 108 (May 2024) discussed how existing instruments apply to MASS, but its published outcome does not state a general rule on where responsibility rests. To be read together with the MASS Code (adopted at MSC 111, May 2026, non-mandatory, in force from 1 July 2026) and the existing ISM Code (in particular the responsibility and authority requirements of Section 3, and Management of Change procedures).
Scope of Application
Every Company that operates or plans to operate MASS ships, or ships with partial remote-control/autonomous functions, subject to the ISM Code.
Procedure / How to Complete It
- Explicitly define in the SMS the responsibility and authority structure for MASS/remote operations, including who answers for the Remote Operation Centre (ROC) under the approved operating concept. The Code does not assign the ROC to the Designated Person Ashore: the DPA keeps the §4 functions, and giving them the ROC as well is a choice the Company SMS must state expressly.
- Establish competence and certification requirements for remote operators, consistent with the ship's level of autonomy and with the evolution of the MASS Code.
- Document handover procedures between autonomous and manual control, particularly in the event of system degradation or loss of communication with the ROC.
- Treat the introduction of MASS or remote operations as a formal Management of Change, not as a simple extension of existing procedures.
- Coordinate the SMS's evolution with the development of the MASS Code (voluntary introduction phase 2026-2028; MSC 112, in December 2026, is to develop the framework for the Experience-Building Phase, which is therefore not already under way), updating procedures as the regulatory framework evolves.
Practical Example
Example: a Company launching a remote-controlled ship pilot project designates a DPA specifically responsible for the Remote Operation Centre, establishes a documented handover procedure for switching to manual control in the event of loss of communication, and treats the entire project as a formal Management of Change with a corresponding risk assessment.
What Typically Goes Wrong
Common Mistakes Mistake Library
| Mistake | Consequence | How to avoid it |
|---|---|---|
| MASS/remote operations introduced without a formal Management of Change in the SMS | Absence of a documented risk assessment specific to the new operating model | Always treat the introduction of MASS/remote operations as a full Management of Change |
| No DPA or explicit person designated as responsible for the Remote Operation Centre | Ambiguous responsibility structure in the event of an incident during a remote operation | Explicitly designate in the SMS the DPA or the person responsible for the ROC |
| Handover procedures between autonomous and manual control not documented or not tested | Improvised handling of a system degradation situation, with a risk to safety | Document and periodically test handover procedures, including them in the training of remote operators |
What the PSCO Checks
Operational Tips
- Don't wait for the MASS Code to become mandatory (not expected before 2032) to define MASS operational responsibility in the SMS: the MASS Code, in effect since 1 July 2026, already gives the framework of roles to build on, non-mandatory though it remains.
- Name in the SMS an explicit person responsible for the Remote Operation Centre, distinct if necessary from the DPA for the conventional fleet: the choice is the Company's, and that is precisely why it must be written down.
- Treat every introduction of remote/autonomous operations as a formal Management of Change, not as a minor technical adjustment.
Preparation checklist
Educational checklist. This summary supports learning and preparation only. It does not replace the vessel’s approved procedures, manuals, statutory documents, company SMS, or applicable official requirements. Completing it demonstrates neither compliance nor readiness for an inspection: it shows that a list has been read, not that the ship is in order. Always verify the current documents carried on board.
- Responsibility and authority structure for MASS/remote operations explicitly defined in the SMS
- DPA or person responsible for the Remote Operation Centre designated
- Competence and certification requirements for remote operators established
- Handover procedures between autonomous and manual control documented and tested
- Introduction of MASS/remote operations treated as a formal Management of Change
FAQ
Related Topics
Last substantive revision of this page: 29 August 2026 · page fingerprint e68a292f268f