# Ships Without Sailors?



## D1566 (Sep 7, 2009)

Interesting;
http://gcaptain.com/ships-without-sailors-it-cant-happen-soon-enough-opinion/


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Initially they will carry a Crew until the concept is proven to be reliable.


----------



## tiachapman (Mar 25, 2008)

sign of the times. shipowners never were in favour of manned ships crews were just a must and had to be paid


----------



## Ian Lawson (Apr 30, 2017)

tiachapman said:


> sign of the times. shipowners never were in favour of manned ships crews were just a must and had to be paid


I don't think that's completely true. There is an abundance of members on the site who swear by their previous employers and the converse is probably true, to a lesser extent I hope. But lets face it, in our private life we try for the best deal and are not above employing guys who are willing to undercut the boss by doing 'foreigners'. Owners were no different. They wanted value for money.

(*))


----------



## woodend (Nov 23, 2009)

This has always been an interesting concept that has interested me. J haven't seen a full concept presentation as one or two problems are certainly glaring:
To where does the unmanned arrive.....Pilot Station
How and where does the mooring crew board?
Who controls the mooring crew?
Present regulations in regards compulsory pilotage require a Master / Pilot relationship.
I am afraid I find it all rather mind boggling! So much unknown.


----------



## saudisid (Mar 17, 2014)

Going back to 67 when I was sent to Southampton on MAR. The powers that be there were telling us by the time we sailed as Master ALL ships would run on Atomic Power and the crews would join at the Pillot station and get off at same place. vessel would then do its own thing !!

Alan


----------



## Tony Morris (Oct 7, 2006)

Just from the engineering side I cannot see this happening too soon. What will they do when the owners buy the cheapest fuel and the purifiers need manual cleaning continuously, a small bore pipe to a fuel line pressure sensor
fractures due to vibration, a mechanical seal on a oil / water pump fails, or a million other things occur in the middle of an ocean? IMHO until every eventuality is covered totally unmanned ships will not come about.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

Steal one! Have a large enough (ish) vessel that can carry your own helicopter. Find an unmanned contain ship and you just take it wherever you want and take the pickings. Who is going to stop anyone? Crew are not that great at stopping pirates. Without crew on board it would be simple.


----------



## tunatownshipwreck (Nov 9, 2005)

If they start sailing ships without sailors, they'll have to put as many lawyers aboard.


----------



## Dave McGouldrick (Jan 1, 2007)

A bean counter's dream. Get rid of all those expensive humans. No feeding bill - no accomodation to build.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Tony Morris said:


> Just from the engineering side I cannot see this happening too soon. What will they do when the owners buy the cheapest fuel and the purifiers need manual cleaning continuously, a small bore pipe to a fuel line pressure sensor
> fractures due to vibration, a mechanical seal on a oil / water pump fails, or a million other things occur in the middle of an ocean? IMHO until every eventuality is covered totally unmanned ships will not come about.


Tony, the Americans have been running an unmanned ex Warship on Trials for quite a while now, like the proposed cargo vessel it is on a fixed route from one Naval Base to another although of course any problems have not been published.
Like yourself I wonder what happens if those problems you mention happen.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

I read recently about a nuclear armed drone submarine the Russians are experimenting with. The control systems on such a vessel must be interesting to say the least.


----------



## China hand (Sep 11, 2008)

As soon as it becomes economically viable, the unmanned ship is here.


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

At what point does it become economically viable to leave valuable property with nobody taking care of it?

Is there any precedent from which guidance might be taken?

As a small child I can remember being in Richard Jones' grocery shop in Chester, gazing in awe as cash was loaded into small canisters (about the size of a cocoa tin) and duly despatched overhead from the sales counter to the accounts office by a deft pull by the ruddy-cheeked saleswoman on a thing like a lavatory chain. Whang- and off it went! There, of course, in-store security was all around and the cash-in-transit was almost certainly safe.

Valuable goods on the open ocean? That's a different matter. What do insurers say? The risks no doubt will have been taken into account. Who, on standing his first watch, was not conscious of the value of the tin can which floated beneath his feet?


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

Will She?

I must go down to the sea again, to see just how safe is my freight?
In a modern tin can, with no deck-boy nor man, to look at the draft or the weight.
Is she still upright? Is she deep? Is she light? Is she ballasted duly in trim?
Where man would once check to ensure against wreck, I wonder what happened to him?

I must go down to the sea again, to ensure that she’ll get up the channel,
With no-one aboard. Can we really afford to entrust navigation to flannel?
Will the man on the beach with electric outreach feel the wind and the tide up his jacksie?
Or, duly laid-back, will trustworthiness crack; as he orders his home-going taxi?

I must go down to the sea again. I’ve seen many wrecks on the beach,
Since days of yore and a truthful sealore, the truth has had plenty to teach,
From a freight-rate and a young mate, ambitious to rise in his calling,
Or a sad joke and an old soak, with history truly appalling.

I must go down to the sea again. I’ve seen both the worst and the best,
Where all who sail will succeed or else fail. No mercy is shown in the test.
There are pound signs. There are fine lines. Survivors are few, where they’ve crossed.
She’s a tin can. This is management, man. She’ll float, yes she will. Or she’s lost. 


BY
17.05.2017


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

BobClay said:


> I read recently about a nuclear armed drone submarine the Russians are experimenting with. The control systems on such a vessel must be interesting to say the least.


That must be disappointing for the young Russian conscripts rushing for a place in their undersea service.


----------



## spongebob (Dec 11, 2007)

Today, all these concepts sound possible, electric cars, driverless cars, why not ships and even aeroplanes.
Many of us scoff at the ideas, some have seemingly valid reservations and a few see the trends as inevitable.
Only today I hear about a new design of storage battery that will enable a car to be fully recharged within five minutes and with a range that will improve the present relatively short distances between charges.
Battery powered container ships? Don't rule it out but perhaps after our time.

Bob


----------



## kewl dude (Jun 1, 2008)

I saw a piece on TV today that said self-driving cars are probably ten years away. The stated problem is self-driving cars are programmed to follow driving rules. The problem is that many, if not most human drivers, do not follow all of the driving rules all of the time.

They illustrated several areas around the US, where due to quirks in street/highway design, everyone must break the driving laws to go that way. This is accepted by the local populace, and the local law enforcement agencies. But it stymies self-driving cars.

So self-driving cars have to be programmed to drive like a human anywhere in the US.

Greg Hayden


----------



## david freeman (Jan 26, 2006)

An Olde worlde chestnut ?? This has been around theses pages before, and I remember at college in 59-61 one of the lectures who spent time at the RN station in WWII at Milford haven saying the 'blue print' for crewless/unmanned convey ships was on the drawing boards then? It is the investment and time that is needed, and in times of emergency people have a value? but what that is I will leave you too decide- WAS Manpower cheap in WWI & WWII??? I am slightly older and more cynical.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Varley said:


> That must be disappointing for the young Russian conscripts rushing for a place in their undersea service.


David, not after the Kursk I would have thought.


----------



## Kaiser Bill (Jun 28, 2006)

Ah, my dear shipmates, who is going to feed the bloody cat ? (Smoke)


----------



## Engine Serang (Oct 15, 2012)

I have spent the greater part of my career faultfinding and trying to repair automation that has gone wrong, in many cases badly wrong. These shining, chrome plated gizmos were fitted only months previously with a salesman's promise that they were rigorously tested and had Class approval. Boll1x, did someone mention the self-cleaning separator?

All a beancounter wants to hear is how much money he is going to save and there is no doubt that modern automation can be quite good but intrinsically risky. Many unmanned ships won't get further than the fairway buoys if indeed they don't crash into them.


----------



## Ian Lawson (Apr 30, 2017)

Too much emphasis is placed on the accountants. Ultimately, the fleet managers and sector managers are drawn from either deck or engine. It is they who exercise day to day budget control.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

"Open the pod bay doors please HAL "
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."[=P]


----------



## Pat Kennedy (Apr 14, 2007)

It will happen sooner or later. 
I can remember working on the docks in the late 60s when containerisation started to gain a foothold.
"Ah", we said, "but they will never be able to put railway lines and the like in containers, our jobs are safe". Little did we know.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

Ian Lawson said:


> . Ultimately, the fleet managers and sector managers are drawn from either deck or engine. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Ultimately there won't be anyone from deck or engine that can fix or manage the damn things!
> ...


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

#26 

A most profound observation!


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

I would suspect that autonomous ships would add a whole new dimension to piracy. After all, there must be a means of communication with the ship by the owners and maritime authorities, and communications can be hacked -- perhaps by something like the current ransomeware WannaCry that has crippled half the world's industries and authorities. Imagine contacting your ship only to have a message appear on your computer screens saying "We have control of your ship, and unless you immediately pay us $10m we will run it into the nearest solid land and sink it."

The pirates would never need to take the risk of putting to sea and being taken out by naval vessels; they could simply sit in front of a computer miles from the nearest ocean and be completely untraceable. In fact, one individual teenage hacker could become very wealthy!


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

One way round that is to make the ships fully autonomous, self determining, maybe even self aware ? Give it a couple of Phalanx Gatling Guns and send it on its way.

Would call for some pretty advanced AI admitted. Quantum Computers are on the horizon (*))

Might make the pilots and mooring crews a bit nervous when boarding though. (LOL)


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

#29 What pilots?

What mooring crew?

It's all fully automated, isn't it?


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

The statutory definition of a pilot is "Any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof" (Section 31, Pilotage Act 1987).

A shipmaster belongs to his ship, within the meaning of the Act; and cannot therefore at the same time be a pilot within the meaning of the Act. (The Anna Merryl, Grimsby Magistrates' Court, 2002.)

If a statutory pilot with a mooring crew boards a wholly unmanned ship, who then is the master of the ship?


----------



## Kaiser Bill (Jun 28, 2006)

The ship's cat ?? (Night)


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

As you see the run for the vessel is coastal which is more or less the same as the American vessels test although the American is not carrying cargo, the way the Americans have the set up is that Mooring Crews are placed on and off the vessel when required usually by Boat or Helicopter.
In the event of breakdowns the Engineers and Computer bods are placed onboard and there is Food Packs available if required.
If I remember correctly the American vessel is G/T Electric and there is built in redundancy. 
In regards to Piracy, it would seem that the Routing is not through Pirate infested Waters at the moment, not unless the Vikings remerge.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

Barrie Youde said:


> #29 What pilots?
> 
> What mooring crew?
> 
> It's all fully automated, isn't it?


Well if the pilot gets blasted we can put in the log: "Phalanx units tested and OK"
(Fly)


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

By definition, an unmanned ship has no master; and, likewise, a fully automated motor-car has no driver.

Because each one of these two statements is merely a half-truth (as common sense dictates), the legal consequences of clinging to the untrue half have yet to be determined. 

Plainly, a human-being somewhere will remain responsible for the control of the speed and direction of each one of these two technological developments. 

The questions of Who? and Where? remain some distance from any answer.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

Engineers build bridges that fall down, aircraft that fall out of the sky, ships that break up and sink in minutes. The legal ramifications then go through the roof.

Chicken and egg thing.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

BobClay said:


> Engineers build bridges that fall down, aircraft that fall out of the sky, ships that break up and sink in minutes. The legal ramifications then go through the roof.
> 
> Chicken and egg thing.


And it is radio officers and their ilk who communicate and allow their transmissions to be hacked! [=P]


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

ART6 said:


> And it is radio officers and their ilk who communicate and allow their transmissions to be hacked! [=P]


But all in the name of Queen and Country .... [=P]

Never for personal gain. :sweat:


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

The Insurance implications are interesting but as many are aware at least one Shipping Company in the past ran their vessel's providing their own insurance cover. 
Bearing in mind the above then it will be up to the Shipowner to provide the Competent person to look after the vessel (remotely) rather than an outside Insurance Company determining what the Terms and Conditions are.
I have no doubt that on entering and leaving Port the vessel will be crewed and a Master along with a Ships Pilot will be aboard as I would suggest that Harbourmasters would not be happy having having a crewless ship moving around in the confines of the Harbour.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

the way the Americans have the set up is that Mooring Crews are placed on and off the vessel when required usually by Boat or Helicopter.

Question: If the helicopter is unable to put the crew on board? Like as in weather. The pirate can use the same boat or helicopter as the Mooring Crew. See lower.



In the event of breakdowns the Engineers and Computer bods are placed onboard and there is Food Packs available if required.

Question: Lat 50 South, Long 160 West. The ship is out of range! 


If I remember correctly the American vessel is G/T Electric and there is built in redundancy. 

Question: An extra whole engine?


In regards to Piracy, it would seem that the Routing is not through Pirate infested Waters at the moment, not unless the Vikings remerge.

Question: Pirates can follow the ship to anywhere the ship can go. Pirates could find a ship in North Atlantic or South Atlantic or Pacific.
I think the Pirates after one of these unmanned ship is not going to be half dozen of beach 'natives', they will be fully manned and qualified to take the ship over. Take the whole ship or talk part that you want and leave the ship drifting... until it can be found!


If your ship is as valuable you think, then you better have a good crew and pay for the maintenance. Might work out cheaper in the end.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

I am reminded again (just to annoy you I will repeat it here) of the Kongsberg tech commissioning the IAS on Umm Bab. My usual commentary on single failure prone semiconductor population life and lack of forwardly planned renewals elicited the comment that "Not only will this be expensive to support in ten years time, iy will be fabulously expensive".

Turning then to avoidance he pointed out that Kongsberg had obtained and still produced Autronica KM type monitoring systems (as with most other discrete systems most failure modes involved only a single channel failure. They did this, he said, for customers in remote parts of the world where support was difficult to obtain.

Where I wonder could there be anywhere more difficult to get to than along most sealanes once a few hours into FAOP?.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Stephen J. Card said:


> the way the Americans have the set up is that Mooring Crews are placed on and off the vessel when required usually by Boat or Helicopter.
> 
> Question: If the helicopter is unable to put the crew on board? Like as in weather. The pirate can use the same boat or helicopter as the Mooring Crew. See lower.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

At the moment the American is just a test and is a former Warship which I am sure will have good security and is of little value to any Pirate action, it is also on a fixed coastal route, like any vessel that cannot get into Port it will just lay off till a Crew can be placed aboard.
In regards to maintenance Crew it is unlikely that the vessels will be routed 'out of reach' 
I would have thought that the design would have two separate Enginerooms with independent systems so if there is a problem one Engineroom can be completely shutdown.
The Norwegian is on a fixed route and will be manned for two years in order to iron out any problems, perhaps the problems will highlight that the idea is impractical only time will tell.
As an Engineer who was on vessels with the first UMS I was not keen on the idea then but technology has moved on a pace, going as far as having no Crew onboard is indeed a big step and may be a step too far. 

As an after thought in regards to Pirate action, no Crew, no ransom demands and no problems worrying about Crew being injured if the Special Forces are called in to take back the vessel


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

chadburn said:


> As an after thought in regards to Pirate action, no Crew, no ransom demands and no problems worrying about Crew being injured if the Special Forces are called in to take back the vessel


Surely if there is no need for any crew, there need be no pirates aboard either. 

If the owners/operators of the vessel can direct the vessel from an office ashore, there is no reason why hackers/pirates cannot take over and control it from a different location ashore. Your Special Forces might not then be physically prevented from boarding but, once there, they would have to be capable of isolating the vessel completely from the command. This would involve disconnecting all automatic control and operating functions and the shore-ship communications and then taking over the vessel under manual control for the remainder of the voyage. 

Those forces would need to be special indeed.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Ron Stringer said:


> Surely if there is no need for any crew, there need be no pirates aboard either.
> 
> If the owners/operators of the vessel can direct the vessel from an office ashore, there is no reason why hackers/pirates cannot take over and control it from a different location ashore. Your Special Forces might not then be physically prevented from boarding but, once there, they would have to be capable of isolating the vessel completely from the command. This would involve disconnecting all automatic control and operating functions and the shore-ship communications and then taking over the vessel under manual control for the remainder of the voyage.
> 
> Those forces would need to be special indeed.


As you are aware the biggest problem with Piracy was the ill 
treatment and ransom demands in regards to the Crew, that has been eliminated.
In regards to the vessel and cargo that would be up to the Insurance and Government to make a decision on any military action to be taken. The proposed vessel is a container ship so it will have to Dock somewhere to unload the containers.
The Crew are more important than ship and cargo.


----------



## spongebob (Dec 11, 2007)

Surely a purpose designed un manned ship could be made safe against pirates or illegal boarders . A release of mustard gas, a rain of acid or a hail of bullets if attempts to enter the control room eventuates.

Bob


----------



## woodend (Nov 23, 2009)

When you read the posts in this rhread and then read the threads asout the two ferries that ran amock in different ports this week it sort of makes you think that the unmanned ship may take a little longer to develop than anticipated by some. I was brought up on the old adage that if it can happen it will in the most inaccessible place and at the most inopportune time.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

woodend said:


> When you read the posts in this rhread and then read the threads asout the two ferries that ran amock in different ports this week it sort of makes you think that the unmanned ship may take a little longer to develop than anticipated by some. I was brought up on the old adage that if it can happen it will in the most inaccessible place and at the most inopportune time.


Like yourself I am sure that there will be malfunctions, there was with UMS, transferring what were/are land based systems on to a juddering ship along with a bit of Salty atmosphere soon shows any weakness which is most probably why the Vessel in Norway is going to be Crewed for two years to see if all or part of the concept is viable.
Who would have thought in 1950's that in the future most Merchant Vessels would not require an R/O and they would be made redundant or that large piece of glowing kit stood in the Radio Shack would be replaced by something the size of a cornflakes box.
Like most Engineers I do have concerns about full automation however it has to be said that even with a manned Bridge ships have collided with each other or run aground.


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

The whole point of merchant ships is to make money.
Ok the crew costs are huge but set against the costs of developing this technology, operating it, insuring it, and keeping it 100% reliable for its operating life.
Remember the 'Savannah' nuclear powered cargo ship?
Great on paper but most countries did not want the risk of nuclear waste/contamination anywhere near their waters.
What happens when the first of these ships has a collision or is wrecked and pollutes pretty beaches or results in some deaths.
I can't see it happening on any significant scale for a very long time.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

chadburn said:


> Who would have thought in 1950's that in the future most Merchant Vessels would not require an R/O and they would be made redundant or that large piece of glowing kit stood in the Radio Shack would be replaced by something the size of a cornflakes box.


Somewhat later than the 1950s but, soon after I went to work at Marconi Marine's head office in Chelmsford in 1967, I got into an argument with my boss, George Gardiner (a kind and very knowledgeable and experienced radio engineer who was involved with many ground-breaking marine radio projects) about the need for R/Os on merchant ships. He was outraged when I cockily forecast that by 1980, the radio room and all its kit would be replaced with communications equipment that was as simple to use as that found in offices ashore - which could be operated by a girl receptionist. He dressed me down in no uncertain fashion (citing, amongst other things, the lack of suitable technology, the permanence of essential international radio regulations, the over-riding need for safety and the Luddite resistance of the shipping industry to new ideas) and made me, the newest and youngest recruit to his department, feel about 6" tall. Not a good start in my new job.

George died long before my "absurd futuristic claims" came to reality and I was about 20 years too optimistic about the rate of progress, so I never got to say, "I told you so!"


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

OK, large unmanned container vessel owned by XXX Lines. Their ship trades to ports A B C & D. Average say three days between ports.

For the ship to arrive safely they need at least a dozen men to bring the ship into the port. Dozen men come aboard and safely tie up. Another two dozen will be required to service the vessel. Then another dozen to take the ship. That means 48 men to on shift work, 8 hours. Then multiply the other three ports that the ship will trade. That is getting up to 200 men. Perhaps XXX Lines have seven ships on the run, so those 200 men will be working 7 days a week... on ONE shift. Allow for a second shift, another 200 that come to 400 men. These people will not come cheap. Way about the other ships coming into the port from different owners. It will require hundreds of people to run these ships. 

It will be cheaper to run with foreign-flag crews as in the old days.


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

Suddenly I have a vision of the impracticable opening scene of the film-version of Les Miserables, where a thousand men are trying to haul a large (and probably unmanned!) ship across dry land, into a dry-dock adjacent to a plainly tidal beach. The thought occurs that not everything has yet been quite thought through.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Barrie Youde said:


> Suddenly I have a vision of the impracticable opening scene of the film-version of Les Miserables, where a thousand men are trying to haul a large (and probably unmanned!) ship across dry land, into a dry-dock adjacent to a plainly tidal beach. The thought occurs that not everything has yet been quite thought through.


Obviously there are concerns Barry on will it all work when it is actually built, that is what the 2 year Trial Crew are onboard for to iron out any problems including how much time is spent on maintaining the vessel.
In the end it is always about money, the cost of running what is a prototype vessel will be tested against the cost of a manned vessel with less technology and a Crew.
I have heard of a UK Coasting Company many years back built two vessels which were identical barring for one was diesel powered and the other VTE and then did back to back costing.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

So true Barrie.

Another thought. The 'average' ship today is largely crewed by 'third works crews'. Where are you going to get these crews to handle in ports and service the ship when they arrive in say, UK ports? You will not be have the UK crews to do the job. Not enough officers around today and certainly not enough ratings. To get the right people they will not work for pennies either. If it happens it will be costly. Better the sailor for $400 a month to clean, paint and work your ship than pay your stand-by crews that will want a lot more.

I don't doubt the technology is there to do it. I just doubt the practical side. Save for the fancy technology, better to build good sound ships that are designed that work well.

Stephen


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

The discussion becomes increasingly profound.

As though any further illustration might be needed as to the consequences of developments in technology, it is necessary only to look at the seriously increasing congestion on our roads and highways in consequence of on-line shopping and the subsequent delivery services arising therefrom. Road traffic in the United Kingdom is frequently at gridlock. Nobody would suggest, of course, that humanity has yet ground to a halt; but the principle is writ large:- humanity needs humanity in order to survive.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

Won't it be a great life in the future! Machines will do all of the work. Eventually one of the machines will make a decision to get rid of those silly things called 'humans'. They are worthless. They do not work, they want money for doing nothing, take up too much space, too much fuel, and they smell too! By then all of the things that machines do are not even required at all. Worthless. Hopefully one of them, either a machine or the last human, will just pull the plug on the whole mess.


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

Having spent the last thirty five years designing and building process plants, each with increasing levels of automation to the point where the whole plant was operated by one man in a control room (and who's function was simply to observe but not interfere), I don't doubt that a crewless ship is entirely possible. There is, though, a difference between the plants I was building and a ship at sea, and that it that if all else failed the guy in the control room could go home and let the emergency services deal with the problem. But it still needed the guy in the control room to tell someone about it before he bailed out.
So then, this unmanned ship -- but can it really be unmanned? Should there not be someone aboard who is qualified to at least do something if the s**t hits the fan with the control system? What would the IMO Regulations require?

Perhaps every "unmanned" ship must carry a master and a chief engineer. That will make the bean counters happy since it will cut out all of those people of lesser ranks, but just imagine to trying to recruit a master and chief who will be the only ones aboard in a long sea passage across the Pacific, in a ship that has no bridge and only two cabins? How long before they kill each other?

But aircraft have been flying with automation for years, to the extent that an aircraft can take off, fly to a destination, and land without any real human intervention. So why can't ships?

Perhaps simply because aircraft seldom fly for more than a few hours, but ships sail for weeks.


----------



## Ian Lawson (Apr 30, 2017)

Stephen J. Card said:


> So true Barrie.
> 
> Another thought. The 'average' ship today is largely crewed by 'third works crews'. Where are you going to get these crews to handle in ports and service the ship when they arrive in say, UK ports? You will not be have the UK crews to do the job. Not enough officers around today and certainly not enough ratings. To get the right people they will not work for pennies either. If it happens it will be costly. Better the sailor for $400 a month to clean, paint and work your ship than pay your stand-by crews that will want a lot more.
> 
> ...


I presume you mean 'third world Crews'. If you are talking about 'average' then I would say that falls into the Filipino remit and to the best of my knowledge the'average' Filipino' AB earns USD1800pcm. More if he is ITF, AMOSUP et al., I am amazed that there are still people out there who are happy to put nonsense around about USD400.00 pcm for crew of any nation. I recall
in the not too distant past people used to compare UK ratings with Filips by say offensive things like 'Pay peanuts and don't expect better than monkeys'. The UK ratings were replaced by them quite simply not being up to the job required of them and their disinterest in seagoing life in general.


----------



## China hand (Sep 11, 2008)

All of the foregoing do not accept one thing. It will take time, there will be mistakes. BUT, when the whole operation is cheaper to run without a crew than with a crew, it will happen.(Scribe)


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

#58 

Hi, CH.

I disagree. Nobody here doubts that it will happen. We merely question with what degree of success or ultimate overall benefit to anybody? These are reasonable points to ponder.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote: 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Look at what's happened since the first satellite was put into space, just 60 years ago, within the living memory of most on here. So what do you think could happen over the next 60 ?

Well, Arthur C. Clarke also gave that some thought and wrote: 
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Ok Mr Clarke was a science fiction writer. He was also an engineer. (Gleam)


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

China hand said:


> All of the foregoing do not accept one thing. It will take time, there will be mistakes. BUT, when the whole operation is cheaper to run without a crew than with a crew, it will happen.(Scribe)



I doubt the operation will be cheaper.

The people that will handle the ships into the port will not be 'port' employers. They will need to be 'owner' employers. The 'controller' who brings that vessel will be in charge and he will have the responsibility in the same was as a shipmaster. The pilots will not have that responsibility. Would you put you on the line because a ship, an unknown ship, expect to suddenly on the bridge and expect you to control the ship into port? Nope. You have to a controller who is the shipowner's controller and have knowledge of the ship. If a Marersk ship is bringing into port you want 'anyone' to bring the ship and also 'service' the ship while in port? You want a Maersk controller and a Maersk riding crew. If you have an HAPAG vessel you want a HAPAG controller and HAPAG riding crew. It would have to be a Maersk team and a HAPAG team in EVERY port that the vessel will have to trade. I see that cost as being a lot more than a normal crew as we know.


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

BobClay said:


> Arthur C. Clarke once wrote:
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> Look at what's happened since the first satellite was put into space, just 60 years ago, within the living memory of most on here. So what do you think could happen over the next 60 ?
> ...


Technology made greater advances in the previous 60 years. My Grandmother, born in 1898 lived through the introduction of powered flight, the motor car, the telephone, radio, television, recorded speech, rockets with nasty things on the end that went "BANG," breaking the "sound barrier," organ transplants, first satellite, man on the moon,and nuclear power. Modern technology seems mesmerised by the race to make things as small as possible. 
Apart from telly screens.


----------



## BobClay (Dec 14, 2007)

Well your previous sixty years seems to be overlapping mine a bit. But regardless, the fact is, Clarke's words are without doubt prophetic. That's the job of a science fiction writer, particularly one who knows his science in the first place.

So, providing we don't destroy ourselves, the elephant in the room, people who say things are impossible and will never happen, might do well to ponder on those words.


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

Is there a parallel here with Concorde?
Supersonic passenger flight was technically possible, even reliable.
But where is Concorde now?
In the museum while its less glamorous but more financially successful sisters continue by making a profit for their owners.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

The Paris crash killed off Concorde when Customer numbers fell, although there were still a number who wanted to do the East/ West flight and arrive before they started.


----------



## China hand (Sep 11, 2008)

Barrie Youde said:


> #58
> 
> Hi, CH.
> 
> I disagree. Nobody here doubts that it will happen. We merely question with what degree of success or ultimate overall benefit to anybody? These are reasonable points to ponder.


Hello Barrie,
Point taken, but I did say when the whole operation....... Ultimate overall benefit? Who knows.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

Ian Brown said:


> Is there a parallel here with Concorde?
> Supersonic passenger flight was technically possible, even reliable.
> But where is Concorde now?
> In the museum while its less glamorous but more financially successful sisters continue by making a profit for their owners.


I think that's a very good parallel.

When a ship can complete two round voyages without a single ER UMS alarm going off (and without a wiper sitting in the control room to cancel the "unimportant" ones!) I will start t think that it is technically possible.

Whether the economics make sense is a whole different thing. We have seen several attempts to sail with very small crews abandoned and it is I think quite well known that a very big European shipowner who claims to run with crews of 16 manages to overlook the permanent riding squad of 6...


----------



## Ian Lawson (Apr 30, 2017)

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> I think that's a very good parallel.
> 
> When a ship can complete two round voyages without a single ER UMS alarm going off (and without a *wiper sitting in the control room to cancel the "unimportant" ones!) *...


Now I am worried!


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

Ian Lawson said:


> Now I am worried!


You won't find this in the log books of course. And the hours of rest are "flogged" to suit. But I am told that this is common practice aboard some car carriers... a good surveyor or PSC inspector can spot it...


----------

