Part B | 24
542 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
try, and academic AUV users, the Code of Practice was
a practical document that dealt with immediate issues
of water-space management, environmental protection,
operational considerations and training as well as vehicle marking and other matters. It was updated in 2008
with additional sections, among others, on deployment
in congested waters, rules on salvage, protection of
data, and damage to third parties, and broadened its
coverage to AOVs [24.51]. A succinct code of practice
specifically for commercial use of AUVs concentrating
on safe operations, mission planning and launch and recovery has been produced by the International Marine
Contractors Association [24.52]. Research supported
by the European Defence Agency (EDA), through the
Safety and Regulations for European Unmanned Maritime Systems (SARUMS) program, has led to an extensive draft best practice guide on handling, operations,
design and regulations connected with unmanned maritime systems. Directed toward military use of these
systems, the starting position in this paper is that these
autonomous systems are vessels, and that the main content of the COLREGS applies. An earlier EDA study on
maritime unmanned surface vehicles summarized what
additional rules and guidelines that should be developed, which included adopting a classification scheme,
sponsoring research into systems to enable the vehicles
to comply with the COLREGS, and promoting cooperation with US agencies to examine whether these
vehicles could become a specific class for the purposes
of COLREGS.
There is active research into providing autonomous
marine vehicles with both a rules-based approach to
preventing collisions and with a common sense capability. Benjamin et al. examined a behavior-based control
framework, and demonstrated the system in operation
on an autonomous surface platform [24.53]. An alternative, path planning, approach has been investigated and
demonstrated by Naeem et al. focusing on maneuvering
and preventing head-on collisions [24.54].
There is a role for insurance in mitigating or
limiting the financial consequences of legal risks, especially risks to third parties. The practical issues
have been set out by Edwards [24.55], and Griffiths
et al. provide case studies from scientific and industry
users that have made insurance claims connected with
AOVs [24.56].
References
24.1
J.G. Bellingham, K. Rajan: Robotics in remote and
hostile environments, Science 318(5853), 1098–1102
(2007)
24.2
J.A. Dowdeswell, J. Evans, R. Mugford, G. Griffiths,
S.D. McPhail, N. Millard, P. Stevenson, M.A. Brandon, C. Banks, K.J. Heywood, M.R. Price, P.A. Dodd,
A. Jenkins, K.W. Nicholls, D. Hayes, E.P. Abrahamsen, P.A. Tyler, B.J. Bett, D.O.B. Jones, P. Wadhams,
J.P. Wilkinson, K. Stansfield, S. Ackley: Autonomous
underwater vehicles (AUVs) and investigations of
the ice-ocean interface: Deploying the autosub AUV
in antarctic and arctic waters, J. Glaciol. 54(187),
661–672 (2008)
24.3
A. Jenkins, P.D. Stanley, S. Jacobs, S.D. McPhail,
J.R. Perrett, A.T. Webb, D. White: Observations beneath Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and
implications for its retreat, Nat. Geosci. 3, 468–472
(2010)
24.4
T.B. Curtin, D.M. Crimmins, J. Curcio, M. Benjamin,
C. Roper: Autonomous underwater vehicles: Trends
and transformations, Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39(3),
65–75 (2005)
24.5
D. Yoerger, A. Bradley, M. Jakuba, C.R. German,
T. Shank, M. Tivey: Autonomous and remotely operated vehicle technology for hydrothermal vent
discovery, exploration, and sampling, Oceanography 20(1), 152–161 (2007)
24.6
M.V. Jakuba, C.N. Roman, H. Singh, C. Murphy,
C. Kunz, C. Willis, T. Sato, R.A. Sohn: Long-baseline
acoustic navigation for under-ice autonomous
underwater vehicle operations, J. Field Robotics
25(11/12), 861–879 (2008)
24.7
J.E. Strutt: Report of the Inquiry Into the Loss of
Autosub2 Under the Fimbulisen, National Oceanography Centre Southampton Research and Consultancy Report, Vol. 12 (National Oceanography Centre, Southampton 2006)
24.8
L. Lippsett: R.I.P. A.B.E. – The pioneering autonomous benthic explorer is lost at sea, Oceanus
48(1), 42 (2010)
24.9
G. Griffiths, A. Trembanis: Towards a risk management process for autonomous underwater vehicles, Proc. Mastercl. AUV Technol. Polar Sci., ed. by
G. Griffiths, K. Collins (Society for Underwater Technology, London 2007) pp. 103–118
24.10 M.P. Brito, G. Griffiths, P. Challenor: Risk analysis for autonomous underwater vehicle operations
in extreme environments, Risk Anal. 30, 1771–1788
(2010)
24.11 R. Stokey, T. Austin, C. von Alt, M. Purcell, R. Goldsborough, N. Forrester, B. Allen: AUV bloopers or
why Murphy must have been an optimist, Proc. 11th
UUST (1999) pp. 32–40
24.12 G. Griffiths, N.W. Millard, S.D. McPhail, P. Stevenson, P.G. Challenor: On the reliability of the autosub autonomous underwater vehicle, Underw.
Technol. 25, 175–184 (2003)
24.13 K. Podder, M. Sibenac, H. Thomas, W. Kirkwood,
J.G. Bellingham: Reliability growth of autonomous
underwater vehicle – Dorado, Proc. IEEE OCEANS’04
(2004) pp. 856–862
24.14 M.P. Brito, G. Griffiths, J. Ferguson, D. Hopkin,
R. Mills, R. Peterson, E.A. McNeil: A behavioural
probabilistic risk assessment framework for man-
542 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
try, and academic AUV users, the Code of Practice was
a practical document that dealt with immediate issues
of water-space management, environmental protection,
operational considerations and training as well as vehicle marking and other matters. It was updated in 2008
with additional sections, among others, on deployment
in congested waters, rules on salvage, protection of
data, and damage to third parties, and broadened its
coverage to AOVs [24.51]. A succinct code of practice
specifically for commercial use of AUVs concentrating
on safe operations, mission planning and launch and recovery has been produced by the International Marine
Contractors Association [24.52]. Research supported
by the European Defence Agency (EDA), through the
Safety and Regulations for European Unmanned Maritime Systems (SARUMS) program, has led to an extensive draft best practice guide on handling, operations,
design and regulations connected with unmanned maritime systems. Directed toward military use of these
systems, the starting position in this paper is that these
autonomous systems are vessels, and that the main content of the COLREGS applies. An earlier EDA study on
maritime unmanned surface vehicles summarized what
additional rules and guidelines that should be developed, which included adopting a classification scheme,
sponsoring research into systems to enable the vehicles
to comply with the COLREGS, and promoting cooperation with US agencies to examine whether these
vehicles could become a specific class for the purposes
of COLREGS.
There is active research into providing autonomous
marine vehicles with both a rules-based approach to
preventing collisions and with a common sense capability. Benjamin et al. examined a behavior-based control
framework, and demonstrated the system in operation
on an autonomous surface platform [24.53]. An alternative, path planning, approach has been investigated and
demonstrated by Naeem et al. focusing on maneuvering
and preventing head-on collisions [24.54].
There is a role for insurance in mitigating or
limiting the financial consequences of legal risks, especially risks to third parties. The practical issues
have been set out by Edwards [24.55], and Griffiths
et al. provide case studies from scientific and industry
users that have made insurance claims connected with
AOVs [24.56].
References
24.1
J.G. Bellingham, K. Rajan: Robotics in remote and
hostile environments, Science 318(5853), 1098–1102
(2007)
24.2
J.A. Dowdeswell, J. Evans, R. Mugford, G. Griffiths,
S.D. McPhail, N. Millard, P. Stevenson, M.A. Brandon, C. Banks, K.J. Heywood, M.R. Price, P.A. Dodd,
A. Jenkins, K.W. Nicholls, D. Hayes, E.P. Abrahamsen, P.A. Tyler, B.J. Bett, D.O.B. Jones, P. Wadhams,
J.P. Wilkinson, K. Stansfield, S. Ackley: Autonomous
underwater vehicles (AUVs) and investigations of
the ice-ocean interface: Deploying the autosub AUV
in antarctic and arctic waters, J. Glaciol. 54(187),
661–672 (2008)
24.3
A. Jenkins, P.D. Stanley, S. Jacobs, S.D. McPhail,
J.R. Perrett, A.T. Webb, D. White: Observations beneath Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and
implications for its retreat, Nat. Geosci. 3, 468–472
(2010)
24.4
T.B. Curtin, D.M. Crimmins, J. Curcio, M. Benjamin,
C. Roper: Autonomous underwater vehicles: Trends
and transformations, Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39(3),
65–75 (2005)
24.5
D. Yoerger, A. Bradley, M. Jakuba, C.R. German,
T. Shank, M. Tivey: Autonomous and remotely operated vehicle technology for hydrothermal vent
discovery, exploration, and sampling, Oceanography 20(1), 152–161 (2007)
24.6
M.V. Jakuba, C.N. Roman, H. Singh, C. Murphy,
C. Kunz, C. Willis, T. Sato, R.A. Sohn: Long-baseline
acoustic navigation for under-ice autonomous
underwater vehicle operations, J. Field Robotics
25(11/12), 861–879 (2008)
24.7
J.E. Strutt: Report of the Inquiry Into the Loss of
Autosub2 Under the Fimbulisen, National Oceanography Centre Southampton Research and Consultancy Report, Vol. 12 (National Oceanography Centre, Southampton 2006)
24.8
L. Lippsett: R.I.P. A.B.E. – The pioneering autonomous benthic explorer is lost at sea, Oceanus
48(1), 42 (2010)
24.9
G. Griffiths, A. Trembanis: Towards a risk management process for autonomous underwater vehicles, Proc. Mastercl. AUV Technol. Polar Sci., ed. by
G. Griffiths, K. Collins (Society for Underwater Technology, London 2007) pp. 103–118
24.10 M.P. Brito, G. Griffiths, P. Challenor: Risk analysis for autonomous underwater vehicle operations
in extreme environments, Risk Anal. 30, 1771–1788
(2010)
24.11 R. Stokey, T. Austin, C. von Alt, M. Purcell, R. Goldsborough, N. Forrester, B. Allen: AUV bloopers or
why Murphy must have been an optimist, Proc. 11th
UUST (1999) pp. 32–40
24.12 G. Griffiths, N.W. Millard, S.D. McPhail, P. Stevenson, P.G. Challenor: On the reliability of the autosub autonomous underwater vehicle, Underw.
Technol. 25, 175–184 (2003)
24.13 K. Podder, M. Sibenac, H. Thomas, W. Kirkwood,
J.G. Bellingham: Reliability growth of autonomous
underwater vehicle – Dorado, Proc. IEEE OCEANS’04
(2004) pp. 856–862
24.14 M.P. Brito, G. Griffiths, J. Ferguson, D. Hopkin,
R. Mills, R. Peterson, E.A. McNeil: A behavioural
probabilistic risk assessment framework for man-