M2517 - Unmanned survey vessel (USV) capsizes

Initial Report

An unmanned survey vessel capsized while returning to its home port. Despite concerns from the marine team about worsening weather, the mission at sea was extended due to commercial pressure. This extension pushed the operation beyond the vessel’s planned limits, and while returning to port the USV capsized in a busy area of navigable water. The USV was eventually recovered.

CHIRP Comment

This capsize highlights the dangers of operational decisions that override environmental limits, particularly under commercial pressure. Weather risks were known, but the operation was continued despite this, pushing the vessel beyond safe operating parameters.

As USVs and MASS become more common, there must be clear lines of responsibility. It is essential to identify who has ultimate authority over their deployment and recovery. Without this clarity, confusion or misjudgement could have serious consequences.

Both the owner and operator are legally responsible for the safety of their vessel and any other vessels nearby. Going beyond documented operational limits could make them legally liable. Moreover, a recent IMO decision confirms that state-funded rescue services are not required to recover unmanned vessels. This raises important questions about the environmental damage and navigational risks posed by disabled or capsized USVs left adrift.

Damaged USVs may also present a physical hazard. They can behave unpredictably, may have moving parts, or contain active electrical systems. Without specific knowledge of the vessel, approaching it could be dangerous. This incident also raises the question of whether the owners and decision-makers accepted a higher risk of an incident simply because the vessel was uncrewed. While there may be no immediate human risk, the broader operational, legal, and environmental consequences remain significant.

Current training and certification standards are struggling to keep pace with technological advancements. Remote operations teams often consist of highly experienced professionals with qualifications such as OOW Unlimited, Chief Mate, Master, and Yachtmaster. However, there is an urgent need to revise STCW and related regulatory frameworks to reflect the operational realities of USVs and MASS. Regulations also vary considerably between countries, which adds further complexity when these vessels operate across borders or in international waters.

This event acts as a warning to the maritime industry: as autonomy advances, so must foresight, training, and responsibility. Commercial pressure must never outweigh safety. The maritime community, regulators, and operators must collaborate to ensure that safety standards evolve in tandem with innovation.

Key Issues relating to this report

Pressure – The decision to extend the mission, despite known weather risks, was driven by commercial considerations rather than operational safety.

Situational awareness – Going beyond the USV’s operational limits exposed the vessel to unnecessary risks. This was understood by the operations team but not by the commercial team.

Communications – Transmitting to the entire team the risks associated with this operation should have made the dangers apparent to everyone.

Key Takeaways

Seafarers – Speak up, even when no one is on board. This incident shows the value of professional judgement, even in remote operations. Seafarers and marine teams must remain confident in raising concerns, especially about weather and risk. The absence of crew does not mean the absence of responsibility.

Managers – Commercial pressure sinks safety. Management’s decision to extend operations beyond safe limits – despite the marine team’s input – was a direct contributor to the capsize. Safety decisions must be based on risk, not revenue, with operational teams empowered to act without interference.

Regulators – Remote vessels still need rules. The growing use of USVs and MASS demands a clear legal framework and updated training requirements. STCW must evolve to include remote operations, and accountability for the safety of these vessels must be unambiguous and enforceable.