Cross-Cutting Challenges and Research Gaps

9.1 Technical and operational challenges

1. Joint safety case for autonomy + electrification: Existing FSAs focus either on battery propulsion risks or on MASS-specific risks; few treat their interaction. Combined failure modes need systematic analysis.

2. Scalability of RCC operations: The number of vessels one operator can safely supervise depends on traffic complexity, autonomy maturity, HMI quality and alarm strategy. Formal staffing models for RCCs are still immature.

3. Cyber resilience: Autoremote ferries rely on networked control between ship, shore chargers and RCC. This increases attack surface and potential for disruptive cyber events.

4. Verification and validation of autonomy: Proving that auto-crossing, auto-docking and collision avoidance achieve equivalent safety to experienced masters is non-trivial.

9.2 Human and organisational challenges

5. Competence and certification of remote operators: Remote operator competence is not yet codified in STCW.

6. Authority, responsibility and liability: When autonomy, on-board crew and RCC interact, determining who is "in command" at each moment is complex.

7. Integration with existing organisational culture: Introducing autonomy affects roles, career paths, and identity for bridge officers and engineers.

9.3 Economic and societal challenges

8. Business models: The economic case for electrification is well documented, but the incremental economics of autonomy and RCCs are less mature.

9. Public acceptance: Trials with milliAmpere2 and Zeam show that passengers are willing to use autonomous ferries but may have concerns about safety and responsibility.