361
1 INTRODUCTION
A marine pilot, also called maritime pilot, port pilot,
harbour pilot, ship pilot, or simply pilot, is a mariner
who makeovers ships through dangerous or congested
waters, such as harbours or river mouths. The terms
maritime pilot and marine pilot are essentially
interchangeable and refer to the same profession: a
mariner with specialized knowledge of a specific
waterway, often dangerous or congested, like harbours
or river mouths. They guide ships safely through these
areas, providing expert local knowledge to ship
captains and crews.
While the ship’s captain holds overall command,
the role of a maritime pilot is equally critical, though
distinct. Maritime pilots are specialists in manoeuvring
vessels during arrivals and departures from ports,
particularly in challenging or high‑risk conditions.
Their responsibilities can be summarized as follows:
− Advisory role during complex manoeuvres:
Although the captain is responsible for the vessel’s
navigation at sea, pilots provide expert advice on
the safest routes and manoeuvring strategies when
entering or leaving a port, where precision is
essential.
− Expertise with large and heavily loaded vessels:
The larger the ship, the more difficult it is to handle.
Cargo carriers and oil tankers, due to their size and
inertia, require the skills of a pilot to ensure safe
passage, protecting not only the vessel and crew but
also the marine environment.
− Specialized knowledge of restricted waters: In ports
with narrow channels or complex approaches,
e-Navigation vs. Autonomous Navigation
– Challenges for Marine Pilots
A. Weintrit
Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland
ABSTRACT: Maritime navigation is currently evolving along two parallel paths: e‑Navigation, designed to
integrate and harmonize ship‑ and shore‑based information for enhanced decision‑making, and Autonomous
Navigation, which seeks to transfer these decisions to automated and remotely supervised systems. This paper
explores how these two trajectories align and diverge, focusing on their impact on marine pilots. The e‑Navigation
concept, including the IMO‑endorsed S‑Mode interface standardization, has demonstrated tangible benefits for
pilotage by improving situational awareness, operational safety, and data exchange through standardized user
interfaces and information flows. In contrast, the transition toward autonomous vessels raises significant
technological, operational, legal, and human‑factor challenges, including redefined pilot roles, liability issues,
mixed‑fleet operations, and cybersecurity risks. While both approaches rely on similar enabling technologies,
their design philosophies differ fundamentally: e‑Navigation augments human expertise, whereas Autonomous
Navigation seeks to reduce or replace it. The paper concludes with recommendations for pilot training,
competencies, and regulatory frameworks, emphasizing human‑machine collaboration and staged
implementation.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 2
June 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.02.03
362
pilots possess the local knowledge needed to guide
vessels safely through confined waters without
incident.
For these reasons, maritime pilots are employed
locally and are intimately familiar with the waterways
in which they operate. Effective cooperation and clear
communication between the pilot and the ship’s
captain are essential, as any misunderstanding can
result in serious operational or environmental
consequences.
2 E-NAVIGATION
2.1 What is a e-Navigation?
In general terms, e‑Navigation refers to the integration
of modern electronic tools and systems aimed at
improving the safety and efficiency of maritime
navigation. It is an IMO initiative defined as “the
harmonised collection, integration, exchange, presentation
and analysis of maritime information onboard and ashore by
electronic means to enhance berth‑to‑berth navigation and
related services, for safety and security at sea and protection
of the marine environment.” The IMO has stipulated that
e‑Navigation must be driven by user needs and fully
account for the human element. As highlighted in [2],
the effectiveness of e‑Navigation in enhancing safety,
security, and environmental protection depends not
only on the supporting technologies but also on the
establishment of robust operational procedures and
comprehensive training for decision‑makers..
Figure 1. Definition of e-Navigation – the three sides of the
same coin [5]
The advantages of the latest developments in
computer science, automation, electronics,
telecommunications, telematics, geomatics, and global
positioning technologies, as well as advances in data
storage, processing, analysis, transfer, and
visualization—should be fully considered and applied
within maritime technology [7].
Key features of e-Navigation:
− Use of ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and
Information System),
− AIS (Automatic Identification System),
− Enhanced communication and decision support
systems.
Main benefits of e-Navigation:
− Improved situational awareness,
− Real-time data sharing,
− Human control remains central.
2.2 The e-Navigation Concept
Thanks to advances in information technology,
seamless communication between sea and shore is now
possible, enabling the maritime community to actively
promote e‑Navigation as a means of preventing
accidents, improving transport efficiency, conserving
energy, and protecting the marine environment.
Large‑scale implementation of e‑Navigation features
appears inevitable [4]. The impact of electronics and
computers on ships’ bridges has been evident for at
least three decades; nevertheless, there remains
considerable debate about whether these systems have
truly improved navigational safety. As the future of
shipping is closely tied to e‑Navigation, it is imperative
to prepare students to meet the challenges posed by the
growing volume of navigational information that must
be effectively selected, processed, and analysed in
order to support correct decision‑making.
To achieve this, traditional methods of teaching
navigation must be complemented by modules that
integrate data from multiple navigational sources and
sensors. Students should be trained to build a
comprehensive situational awareness based on all
available information. They must also develop a
safety‑oriented mindset and the ability to self‑educate
when faced with unfamiliar navigational equipment or
new configurations of integrated bridge systems
(INS/IBS). Proper onboard training is essential,
beginning with sufficient time to familiarize
themselves with user manuals and operational
procedures for the installed systems.
e‑Navigation is envisioned as a “living” concept
that will evolve over time. As technologies, political
priorities, and commercial objectives change, so too
will the information and tasks involved. However, the
need for safe and efficient maritime transport is
unlikely to change. Future decision‑making will
increasingly depend on technology, but human
judgment will remain indispensable. Therefore, the
human element must be fully considered at every stage
of the design, development, implementation, and
operation of e‑Navigation systems.
To support this vision, new and modified education
and training programmes dedicated to e‑Navigation
are required, along with well‑standardised
international procedures for marine navigation. While
the full details of how e‑Navigation will be realized are
not yet fully defined, its presence on the maritime
horizon is unmistakable. Ship transport has long been
the original Intelligent Transport System (ITS), and
developments in this sector are of clear relevance to ITS
research in other modes. The IMO’s e‑Navigation
initiative and the EU’s e‑Maritime programme both
underscore this point, having identified information
architecture as a critical factor for the future
development of maritime transport. This architecture
must account for legacy systems, the international
nature of shipping, applicable legislation and
standards, and the variable quality of available
communication channels [5].
Before the concept of e‑Navigation can be fully
implemented, it is essential to ensure that ongoing
projects, testbeds, and emerging standards are indeed
moving in the right direction. We must ask whether the
current vision of e‑Navigation is truly sufficient and
aligned with industry needs and expectations.
363
2.3 S-Mode
S-Mode, a standardized navigation display mode,
offers significant benefits for maritime pilots by
improving consistency and ease of use across different
Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems
(ECDIS), ultimately enhancing safety and efficiency.
This standardization reduces the learning curve for
pilots, especially when transitioning between vessels,
as they can rely on a familiar interface regardless of the
specific ECDIS model.
Figure 2. At least dozens of different models of ECDIS
available on the market [5]
The IMO has adopted guidance on the
standardization of the design of navigation and
communication systems, including displays,
interfaces, and functionalities, to ensure that bridge
teams and pilots have timely access to essential
information required for safe navigation throughout
the entire voyage, from berth to berth.
Figure 3. At least dozens of different models of marine radars
available on the market [5]
S‑Mode is intended to reduce variability in
navigation systems and equipment by standardizing
key aspects of user interfaces. This standardization will
enable users to access essential information and
functions more quickly, thereby supporting safer
navigation. The guidance is driven by a strong user
need for consistency in the presentation of critical
information required to perform key navigational
tasks, regardless of the equipment manufacturer.
2.4 Key Benefits of e-Navigation for Marine Pilots
There are the following key benefits of e-Navigation for
marine pilots:
1. Enhanced Situational Awareness:
− Real-time data from AIS, radar, and ECDIS
provides a clearer picture of the navigational
environment.
− Access to dynamic and up-to-date charts, tidal
data, and weather forecasts improves decision-
making.
− Integration of information reduces the need for
manual cross-checking between systems.
2. Improved Safety:
− Better collision and grounding avoidance
through predictive tools and real-time
monitoring.
− Alerts and alarms provide early warnings about
navigational hazards.
− Enhanced visibility in low-light or poor weather
conditions through augmented systems.
3. Much Better Communication and Coordination:
− Standardized data exchange with VTS (Vessel
Traffic Services) and port authorities improves
coordination.
− Digital route sharing and updates minimize
misunderstandings.
− Reduces reliance on voice communication,
decreasing the risk of miscommunication.
4. Efficient Voyage Planning and Execution:
− Seamless integration with Port Management
Information Systems (PMIS) allows better
timing and manoeuvring.
− Pre-arrival planning and route optimization
tools save time and fuel.
− Pilots can review and adjust routes before
boarding, increasing preparedness.
5. Support for Portable Pilot Units (PPUs):
− e-Navigation systems support PPUs, which
pilots use to bring their own high-accuracy
navigation equipment.
− PPUs provide independent and reliable data
that can be more precise than the ship’s
equipment.
− Enhanced autonomy in decision-making,
especially during tight manoeuvres.
6. Data Logging and Post-Event Analysis:
− Automatic recording of navigational data
supports incident investigation and training.
− Enhances transparency and accountability in
pilotage operations.
7. Regulatory Compliance and Standardization:
− Helps pilots and shipping companies stay
compliant with IMO regulations and SOLAS e-
Navigation mandates.
− Facilitates standard operating procedures and
interoperability across different ships and
regions.
Apart from that e-Navigation with S-Mode it is
huge benefit for Marine Pilots it is in 100% dedicated
for Marine Pilots.
3 WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR
SHIPPING?
If we are talking about the future the most important is
the time horizon - one year, five years, ten, twenty
years or next century.
364
Figure 4. If we are talking about the future – the most
important is the time horizon
Current marine technology developments are
focused in increased reliance on data analytics, remote
operations, and autonomous ships. Technologies
which are mainly in focus:
− Importance of navigation technology in modern
maritime operations;
− Automation in vessel operations;
− Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning in
Navigation;
− Digital twins and real-time monitoring systems;
− Advances in sustainable energy (e.g., electric/
hybrid vessels).
So, what does the future hold for shipping? In the
Author opinion there are seven magnificent trends in
international shipping [6]:
− Alternative Marine Fuels (LNG, Hydrogen, etc.);
− Green Propulsion (e.g. Wind, Solar);
− Smart Shipping Technologies (Internet of Things
(IoT) applications, advanced sensors, and big data
for real-time operational monitoring, Predictive
maintenance to prevent mechanical failures, 3D
printing);
− Digitalization (e.g. Electronic Charts/ECDIS);
− GNSS/PNT;
− e-Navigation, and
− Autonomous Ships.
Figure 5. Perfect pair introduced to marine navigation: GNSS
and ECDIS [3]
Figure 6. The two most important sentences about the
revolution that took place in maritime navigation relating to
ECDIS [3]
Figure 7. The seven great trends observed in technology
development for international shipping can be reduced to
three main trends: digitalization, intelligentization and
decarbonisation
Figure 8. The technology development, digitalization,
intelligentization and decarbonization inevitably lead to
autonomy of international shipping [6]
The most important question: are e-Navigation and
Autonomous Navigation heading in the same
direction? Really? Are they? I don't think so. They're
two completely different directions. This is the final
moment to decide which direction is most appropriate
and attractive at this moment.
4 AUTONOMOUS NAVIGATION
Definition of Autonomous Navigation is clear. It is
navigation carried out by AI and sensors without
human intervention. Technologies involved: sensors,
AI, machine learning, remote operations centres [1].
365
There are defined levels of autonomy (based on
IMO's MASS framework):
− Manned ships with automated processes,
− Remotely controlled ships,
− Fully autonomous ships.
Figure 9. Degrees of autonomy according to IMO [http://
www.unmanned-ship.org/munin/about/the-autonomus-
ship]
Figure 10. Degrees of autonomy according to IMO [8]
Current marine technology developments are
focused in increased reliance on data analytics, remote
operations, and autonomous ships. Technologies
which are mainly in focus.
Autonomous shipping vessels pose major
challenges for science and education:
− levels of autonomy and their implementation
− operating conditions
− changes in the labour market
− education in response to the needs of the labour
market.
Figure 11. Autonomous vessel [http://emag.nauticexpo.com/
article-long/rolls-royces-vision-of-autonomous-vessels]
But we must realize that an autonomous ship does
not yet mean autonomous shipping and autonomous
navigation. Building an autonomous ship is no longer
a major technological challenge; it's only a matter of a
few years of advanced work. However, autonomous
shipping is a major international challenge in legal,
operational, and organizational terms, requiring at
least a dozen years of intensive, coordinated work
under the auspices of the IMO.
There is a long and winding road ahead of us from
autonomous ship to autonomous shipping.
Figure 12. There is a long and winding road ahead of us from
autonomous ship to autonomous shipping
4.1 Degrees of Ships Autonomy
The IMO isn't the only one that has established degrees
of ship autonomy. There are at least a few other similar
classifications.
Figure 13. The IMO regulations for the four levels of MASS
366
Figure 14. Degrees of autonomy according to NTNU
(Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
Figure 15. Degrees of ships autonomy according to China
Classification Society CCS adopted in 2024 for „Intelligent
Ship” Class
Figure 16. The journey towards full autonomy by Maersk
5 CHALLENGES FOR MARITIME PILOTS
IN E-NAVIGATION
Maritime pilots play a critical role in ensuring the safe
navigation of ships, particularly in challenging or
congested waters like harbours, straits, or canals. With
the emergence of e-Navigation—a concept promoted
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to
enhance marine navigation through harmonized data
exchange and integrated systems—maritime pilots
face several new challenges:
1. Integration of New Technologies:
− Challenge: Pilots must adapt to a wide range of
new technologies, such as Electronic Chart
Display and Information Systems (ECDIS),
Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), and
advanced decision-support tools.
− Impact: Some pilots may struggle with training
gaps or inconsistent implementation across
ships.
2. Interoperability and Standardization Issues:
− Challenge: Different ships and systems may use
varying standards and versions of electronic
navigation tools.
− Impact: Pilots must quickly adapt to unfamiliar
systems during each new pilotage, increasing
cognitive load and risk of error.
3. Data Overload and Situational Awareness:
− Challenge: e-Navigation systems generate large
volumes of real-time data.
− Impact: Pilots may experience information
overload, potentially distracting from core
navigational duties and reducing situational
awareness.
4. Cybersecurity Risks:
− Challenge: Increased digital integration makes
navigation systems vulnerable to cyberattacks.
− Impact: Pilots must now consider the reliability
and security of the data they depend on, which
could be compromised or manipulated.
5. Human-Machine Interface (HMI) Complexity:
− Challenge: Interfaces of navigation systems can
be non-intuitive or vary between manufacturers.
− Impact: A poor interface design can impair the
pilot’s ability to quickly interpret data and make
decisions.
6. Challenge:
− Over-reliance on digital systems may erode
traditional seamanship and manual navigation
skills.
− Impact: In the event of system failure, pilots
must still be able to navigate using conventional
methods like paper charts, radar, or visual cues.
7. Limited Authority Over Ship Systems:
− Challenge: Maritime pilots are temporary
navigators on ships they do not control.
− Impact: They may not be allowed or able to
integrate or fully utilize e-Navigation tools, such
as ship-specific ECDIS or route optimization
software.
8. Training and Competency Gaps:
− Challenge: Continuous updates to e-Navigation
tools require ongoing education.
− Impact: There may be inconsistent training
standards for pilots globally, leading to a gap in
technological proficiency.
9. Communication and Coordination:
− Challenge: e-Navigation encourages increased
information sharing between ships and shore-
based authorities.
− Impact: Pilots must coordinate not only with the
ship’s crew but also with port authorities, VTS
(Vessel Traffic Services), and digital platforms,
increasing complexity.
10. Legal and Liability Concerns:
− Challenge: The use of automated or decision-
support systems raises questions about legal
responsibility during incidents.
− Impact: Pilots may face uncertainties around
accountability when relying on digital systems
for navigational decisions.
6 CHALLENGES FOR MARITIME PILOTS
IN AUTONOMOUS NAVIGATION
As the maritime industry moves toward increased
automation and autonomy, maritime pilots—who
traditionally play a critical role in navigating ships
367
through congested or challenging waters—face several
key challenges. These can be grouped into technical,
operational, legal, and human-factor categories:
1. Redefinition of the Pilot’s Role:
− Loss of traditional function: Pilots may no longer
board autonomous ships in the traditional way,
reducing their hands-on navigational role.
− Remote guidance limitations: Transitioning to
remote piloting or supervisory roles may reduce
their ability to assess real-time conditions and
make fine-tuned decisions.
− Skills shift: Pilots will need to acquire skills in
monitoring AI systems, interpreting sensor data,
and managing remote-control interfaces.
2. Communication & Coordination:
− Human-machine interface (HMI): Ensuring
intuitive and reliable interfaces for pilots to
communicate with autonomous systems is
complex.
− Unclear authority: There may be ambiguity in
command hierarchies between pilots, remote
operators, and onboard autonomous systems.
− Situational awareness: Without being physically
onboard, pilots may struggle to maintain
situational awareness, particularly in complex or
dynamic environments.
3. Integration with Legacy Systems:
− Mixed fleets: Pilots will need to manage
navigation for both traditional manned ships
and varying levels of autonomous vessels,
complicating operations.
− Port infrastructure: Ports may not be uniformly
equipped to accommodate autonomous vessels,
limiting pilot effectiveness
4. Safety and Liability:
− Accountability issues: Legal frameworks for
responsibility in case of accidents involving
autonomous ships are still evolving.
− Decision-making responsibility: Determining
who is liable when an autonomous system
makes a poor decision—pilot, shipowner, or
software provider—remains unclear.
5. Training and Regulation:
− Lack of standardized training: There is currently
no global standard for training pilots in dealing
with autonomous vessels.
− Regulatory lag: International maritime
regulations (IMO, SOLAS, etc.) have yet to fully
adapt to the presence of autonomy in pilotage.
6. Cybersecurity and System Reliability:
− Vulnerability to cyberattacks: Autonomous
systems are exposed to hacking risks, which
could impact pilot operations.
− System failures: Pilots may face critical
situations due to malfunctioning AI, sensor
errors, or software bugs without sufficient
override capabilities.
7. Ethical and Employment Impacts:
− Job displacement concerns: Automation may
reduce the demand for traditional pilotage
services, raising concerns about employment
and role relevance.
− Human oversight ethics: Determining how
much human oversight should be maintained,
and under what circumstances intervention is
necessary, poses ethical dilemmas.
7 COMPARISON: E-NAVIGATION
VS. AUTONOMOUS NAVIGATION
It is not at all easy to compare e-navigation with
autonomous navigation. We should take for
consideration the following aspects: definition,
purpose, automation level, human role, technologies
used, communication focus, regulatory driver, stage of
implementation
1. Definition
e-Navigation: A strategy led by the IMO to enhance
maritime navigation through the integration of
modern digital technologies.
Autonomous Navigation: The use of AI, sensors,
and automation to allow ships to operate with
minimal or no human intervention.
2. Purpose
e-Navigation: Improve safety, security, and
efficiency by supporting the decision-making of
human operators.
Autonomous Navigation: Replace or reduce human
decision-making with automated systems for
navigation and ship operations.
3. Automation Level
e-Navigation: Low to moderate – supports human
operators (e.g., electronic charts, integrated bridge
systems).
Autonomous Navigation: High – includes decision-
making by AI, remote or fully autonomous ship
operation.
4. Human Role
e-Navigation: Humans are always in control; e-
Navigation tools aid decision-making.
Autonomous Navigation: Human role varies: from
remote monitoring (remote-controlled ships) to
fully autonomous (no crew).
5. Technologies Used
e-Navigation: ECDIS, AIS, VTS, GNSS, digital
reporting, integrated bridge systems.
Autonomous Navigation: AI, machine learning,
computer vision, LiDAR, radar fusion, autonomous
control systems.
6. Communication Focus
Enhancing data exchange between ships, shore, and
other entities.
Autonomous Navigation: Real-time data
processing for autonomous decision-making and
self-navigation.
7. Regulatory Driver
e-Navigation: the IMO e-Navigation Strategy
Implementation Plan (SIP).
Autonomous Navigation: Ongoing IMO MASS
(Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships) regulatory
development.
8. Stage of Implementation
e-Navigation: Widely implemented; adopted
globally.
Autonomous Navigation: Emerging field; in
experimental, pilot, or limited deployment stages.
Table 1. Comparison: e-Navigation vs. Autonomous
Navigation - Summary Table.
Criteria
Autonomous Navigation
Scope
Fully or partially self-
navigating ships
Human
Operator
Minimal to no role (varies by
autonomy level)
Main Goal
Reduce/eliminate human
control of navigation
368
Automation
Level
Supportive
High/full autonomy
7.1 Challenges for Marine Pilots
The following challenges for maritime pilots come to
the fore:
− Loss of traditional roles: In fully autonomous
environments,
− New skill requirements: Data interpretation, system
oversight, remote piloting,
− Legal & liability issues: who is responsible in case of
failure?
− Situational awareness: reduced access to "feel" of
the ship,
− Communication gaps: between autonomous
systems and human-operated ones.
Table 2. Challenges for Marine Pilots.
Loss of traditional roles
In fully autonomous environments
New skill requirements:
Data interpretation, system oversight,
remote piloting
Legal & liability issues:
Who is responsible in case of failure?
Situational awareness:
Reduced access to "feel" of the ship
Communication gaps:
Between autonomous systems and
human-operated ones
The following new opportunities are emerging for
maritime pilots:
− Leading roles in remote piloting centers,
− Advisory roles in system design and safety
protocols,
− Training and simulation experts,
− Hybrid operations: assisting in the transition
period.
Milestones actions on the way forward:
− Continuous training and upskilling for marine
pilots,
− Standardization and regulation by IMO and
national authorities,
− Human-machine cooperation: balancing tech with
human experience,
− Advocacy by pilot associations.
Surprising and difficult to accept conclusions for
marine pilots:
− Navigation is evolving, but the role of pilots
remains critical,
− e-Navigation supports pilots, Autonomous
Navigation challenges their role,
− Pilots must adapt to remain relevant in future
maritime operations.
And finally, the most important sentence:
"Technology will not replace marine pilots, but pilots
who use technology will replace those who don’t."
Some have proposed that potential risks could be
eliminated by removing masters, pilots, and officers of
the watch (OOWs) altogether, relying solely on
advanced automation technologies. Such ideas partly
stem from the ubiquity of technology in modern life,
but more fundamentally, they reflect a
misunderstanding of the critical role marine pilots play
and the limitations of technology.
During my nearly half‑century as a marine
navigator—and as an expert in maritime navigation
and safety at sea—I have witnessed dramatic changes
in maritime technology. These advances have
profoundly altered the roles of both masters and pilots.
Whereas entire sea passages were once navigated
manually, today technology is used for most of the
planned route, with manual navigation reserved
primarily for port approaches, mooring,
collision‑avoidance situations, and complex
manoeuvres such as turning.
What many outside the industry do not realize is
that masters and pilots are always actively navigating
the vessel. They are the ones who make all decisions
regarding the voyage, including route selection and
numerous other operational choices. Even when
technology is used to manipulate controls, the vessel is
continuously navigated in the minds of the masters
and pilots.
Technology undoubtedly offers strengths: it can
monitor conditions consistently over extended periods
and is indispensable for tasks such as cargo and
stability control. However, despite its ever‑improving
reliability, anyone who believes technology cannot fail
at the most inopportune moment has likely never
experienced a computer malfunction. Technology is
inherently limited to performing functions that have
been anticipated and programmed. There is, therefore,
no substitute for human capabilities—particularly the
ability to adapt and innovate in unforeseen
circumstances.
8 CONCLUSIONS
The most important question still remains: e-
navigation or autonomous navigation? We know
already, they're not the same. e-navigation aims to
unify information presentation, while autonomous
navigation aims to completely eliminate the
navigator's role on a navigational vessel. So who would
benefit from unified bridge screens if, ultimately,
there's no one there? What's the point of this work?
Perhaps we should focus on the main goal of
autonomous navigation right away? Well, that might
be too risky, so let's do it step by step, first unifying
within e-navigation concept, and then slowly but
surely phasing out the benefits of e-navigation in
favour of autonomous navigation. Yes, this can
ultimately bring success, but it requires patience and
time.
This decision, whether e-Navigation or
Autonomous Navigation, should be made as soon as
possible, but without undue haste, leaving a long
vacatio legis. Let us remember that the design and
construction cycle of a ship does not last a month or
two. It's a process that takes about three years, and
considering the need for a complete change in
shipowners philosophy and policies, even up to ten
years.
369
Figure 16. The most important question: e-Navigation or
Autonomous Navigation?
This paper is intended for professionals and
stakeholders engaged in, researching, or interested in
the shipping industry, the broader maritime sector,
and the development of autonomous shipping. The
target audience includes regulators, educators,
researchers, engineers, manufacturers, and seafarers,
particularly master mariners, officers of the watch, and
marine pilots.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was developed within the framework of the grant
no. WN/2025/PZ/01, sponsored by the Gdynia Maritime
University, Poland.
ABBREVIATIONS
AI Artificial Intelligence
AIS Automatic Identification System
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
HMI Human-Machine Interface
IBS Integrated Bridge System
IMO International Maritime Organization
INS Integrated navigation System
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MASS Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
OOW Officer of the Watch
PMIS Port Management Information Systems
PNT Positioning, Navigation and Timing
PPU Portable Pilot Unit
SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea Convention
VTS Vessel Traffic Service
REFERENCES
[1] Lützhöft M., Earthy J., Human-Centred Autonomous
Shipping. A Balkema Book, CRS Press, Taylor & Francis
Group, Boca Raton, 2023.
[2] Patraiko D., Wake P., Weintrit A.: e-Navigation and the
Human Element. TransNav, the International Journal on
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol.
4, No. 1, pp. 11-16, 2010.
[3] Weintrit A., Handbook on Operational Use of ECDIS, A
Balkema Book, CRS Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca
Raton, London, New York, Leiden, 2009.
[4] Weintrit A.: Prioritized Main Potential Solutions for the e-
Navigation Concept. TransNav, the International Journal
on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation,
Vol. 7, No. 1, doi:10.12716/1001.07.01.03, pp. 27-38, 2013.
[5] Weintrit A.: e-Nav, Is It Enough?. TransNav, the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 567-574, 2016,
doi:10.12716/1001.10.04.04.
[6] Weintrit A.: Sustainable Reaction of the Maritime
Education Sector to Marine Technology Development
including Autonomous Surface Shipping. TransNav, the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 927-933, 2024, doi:
10.12716/1001.18.04.20.
[7] Weintrit A., Wawruch R., Specht C., Gucma L.,
Pietrzykowski Z.: Polish Approach to e-Navigation
Concept. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 1, No.
3, pp. 261-269, 2007
[8] Wright, R.G., Unmanned and Autonomous Ships. An
Overview of MASS. Routledge, Taylor and Francis
Group, New York 2020. doi:10.1201/9780429450655