The New MASS Code | IMO Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
Technical analysis of the IMO International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, covering autonomous and remotely controlled operations, risk assessment, system design, human element, remote operations, connectivity, safety and regulatory readiness.
The New IMO MASS Code
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted the non-mandatory International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, commonly known as the MASS Code.
The Code represents a major development in the international regulatory framework for ships capable of performing functions remotely or autonomously. It establishes a goal-based framework intended to support safe, secure and environmentally sound operations while maintaining safety levels equivalent to those expected for conventional ships.
The non-mandatory MASS Code was adopted by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee at MSC 111 through resolution MSC.595(111) in May 2026 and came into effect on 1 July 2026.
What Is a Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship?
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships, commonly referred to as MASS, are ships capable of operating with varying degrees of remote control or autonomous functionality.
MASS technology can involve automated or autonomous functions for navigation, machinery management, monitoring, decision support, collision avoidance, communications and other shipboard operations.
The MASS concept does not necessarily mean that a vessel is completely unmanned. A ship may have personnel on board while individual functions are performed remotely or autonomously.
The IMO framework therefore focuses on the functions performed by the ship and the operational mode in which those functions are performed rather than treating autonomy simply as an all-or-nothing condition.
Development of the IMO MASS Regulatory Framework
The MASS regulatory process followed extensive IMO work examining how existing maritime conventions and instruments apply to ships using autonomous and remotely controlled technologies.
The IMO Regulatory Scoping Exercise for MASS identified regulatory gaps and areas where existing maritime instruments may require interpretation, amendment or additional provisions.
Following the scoping exercise, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee, Legal Committee and Facilitation Committee worked through a joint process addressing technical, operational, legal and ship-port interface issues.
The resulting MASS Code follows a goal-based approach designed to remain sufficiently technology-neutral to accommodate future developments in autonomous ship technology.
Current Status of the MASS Code
Adoption
The non-mandatory MASS Code was adopted by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee at its 111th session in May 2026.
Resolution
The adopted Code is contained in IMO resolution MSC.595(111).
Effective Date
The non-mandatory MASS Code came into effect on 1 July 2026.
Regulatory Character
The current Code is non-mandatory and is intended to support practical experience and regulatory development before the future mandatory MASS framework.
Application of the IMO MASS Code
The current MASS Code applies to cargo ships covered by SOLAS Chapter I. This generally includes cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and above engaged on international voyages, subject to the applicable SOLAS framework.
IMO also recommends that Member States apply the Code, as far as practicable, to MASS below 500 gross tonnage.
The Code is intended for ships operating with remote-controlled or autonomous functions and is designed to address safety matters that are not adequately or fully addressed by existing IMO instruments.
Application therefore needs to be considered together with the ship's existing statutory, classification, operational and flag-State requirements.
Three-Part Structure of the MASS Code
The IMO MASS Code uses a goal-based structure divided into three principal parts.
Part I — Introduction
Establishes the purpose, principles, objectives, application and overall structure of the MASS Code.
Part II — Main Principles & MASS Functions
Addresses the principal regulatory and operational considerations for MASS, including approval, risk assessment, operational context, human element, system design, software, connectivity and safe operation.
Part III — Goals, Functional Requirements & Expected Performance
Establishes safety goals, functional requirements and expected performance for key areas of MASS operation, supporting a technology-neutral and goal-based regulatory framework.
Goal-Based Regulatory Philosophy
The structure allows the Code to focus on the safety outcome required rather than prescribing one specific technological solution for every autonomous operation.
Principal Technical Areas Addressed by the MASS Code
The Code covers a broad range of technical and operational areas relevant to autonomous and remotely controlled ships.
Surveys & Certification
Establishes the framework for surveys, certification and verification of MASS and associated remote operation arrangements.
Approval Process
Provides a structured approval approach for demonstrating that the MASS arrangement satisfies applicable safety objectives and functional requirements.
Risk Assessment
Requires risk assessment to identify hazards associated with autonomous and remotely controlled functions and establish appropriate risk controls.
Operational Context
Requires the operating environment, modes of operation, limitations, interaction with other ships and operational conditions to be properly considered.
System Design
Addresses the design and integration of systems supporting autonomous or remotely controlled ship functions.
Software Principles
Recognises the importance of software integrity, verification, validation, configuration management and dependable operation within autonomous systems.
Safe Operations
Addresses management arrangements necessary to maintain safe MASS operations throughout the operating lifecycle.
Connectivity
Addresses communication and connectivity considerations necessary for reliable interaction between the ship, remote operators and relevant external systems.
Human Element in Autonomous Shipping
One of the most important aspects of the MASS Code is the continued importance of the human element in autonomous ship operations.
Autonomous technology does not remove the need for clearly defined responsibility, competence, oversight, decision-making and emergency intervention.
The Code addresses the roles of the master, remote operators and personnel involved in MASS operations according to the applicable operational mode and functions performed by the ship.
Modes of MASS Operation
A fundamental principle of the MASS framework is that the ship's operational modes must be clearly described.
A MASS may operate under different combinations of onboard personnel, remote control, automated functions and autonomous decision-making.
The operational description should therefore identify which functions are performed automatically, which functions are controlled remotely and which functions remain under onboard human control.
| Operational Consideration | Technical Requirement | Safety Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Onboard operation | Personnel remain available to perform designated ship functions. | Maintain safe operation through established onboard procedures and competence. |
| Remote control | Ship functions may be monitored or controlled from a Remote Operations Centre. | Provide reliable control, communication and intervention capability. |
| Autonomous function | Defined ship functions may be performed without continuous human control. | Maintain safe operation through validated autonomous systems and safeguards. |
| Transition between modes | Operational transfer between onboard, remote and autonomous modes must be controlled. | Prevent loss of control or unsafe operational conditions during transition. |
MASS Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is a central element of the MASS approval process. Autonomous and remotely controlled functions can introduce hazards that differ from those associated with conventional ship operations.
A MASS risk assessment should consider the complete operational system rather than evaluating individual pieces of technology in isolation.
- Navigation and collision avoidance
- Loss of remote control
- Loss of communications
- Sensor failure
- Software malfunction
- Cybersecurity events
- Power failure
- Machinery failure
- Emergency response
- Remote operator error
- Human-machine interaction
- Unexpected operating conditions
- Interaction with conventional ships
- Port and coastal-area operations
- Search and rescue responsibilities
Remote Operations Centres and Remote Control
Remote Operations Centres, commonly referred to as ROCs, can form an important part of the operational architecture of a MASS.
A ROC may monitor ship systems, receive operational information, support decision-making or directly control defined ship functions, depending on the approved operational arrangement.
The relationship between the ship and the ROC must therefore be clearly defined, including authority, communications, procedures, emergency response and intervention capability.
Remote Monitoring
Continuous or defined monitoring of navigation, machinery, alarms, communications and other operational information.
Remote Control
Controlled intervention in designated ship functions where the approved MASS arrangement permits remote control.
Human Oversight
Trained personnel remain responsible for appropriate decision-making and intervention within their assigned functions.
ROC Safety Management
The Remote Operations Centre must operate within an appropriate safety management and operational framework.
Connectivity and Communications
Reliable connectivity is essential where autonomous or remotely controlled functions depend upon communication between the vessel, Remote Operations Centre and external systems.
Connectivity should therefore be considered as a safety-critical element of the complete MASS architecture rather than simply as an information technology service.
Technical assessment should consider availability, integrity, redundancy, latency, failure modes, fallback arrangements and recovery procedures appropriate to the operational function.
Cybersecurity and MASS Operations
Increased connectivity and digital control introduce cybersecurity considerations that must be incorporated into the overall safety and risk-management framework.
Cybersecurity should be considered throughout the MASS lifecycle, including design, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance, software updates and decommissioning.
- Protection of ship control systems
- Protection of navigation systems
- Protection of communications
- Access control and authentication
- Software and configuration management
- Network segregation where appropriate
- Incident detection and response
- Backup and recovery arrangements
- Remote-access controls
- Cybersecurity testing and verification
MASS Safety of Navigation
Autonomous navigation introduces significant technical considerations because the vessel must maintain safe navigation while processing information from sensors, navigation systems, communications and autonomous decision-support functions.
Navigation architecture should account for sensor availability, redundancy, environmental conditions, target detection, collision avoidance, route planning and interaction with conventional vessels.
The MASS must also maintain the capability to respond appropriately when autonomous navigation functions become degraded or unavailable.
Sensor Integrity
Verification of the availability and reliability of sensors and information used by autonomous navigation functions.
Collision Avoidance
Safe detection, assessment and response to other vessels, objects and navigational hazards.
Navigation Redundancy
Appropriate alternative means of maintaining safe navigation when primary systems become unavailable.
Human Intervention
Defined capability for human intervention where required by the approved operational arrangement.
Emergency Response and Search & Rescue
A MASS must remain capable of responding appropriately to emergencies even when there are no personnel physically located on board.
Emergency arrangements should therefore address loss of propulsion, loss of steering, fire, flooding, loss of communications, loss of power, navigation failure and other foreseeable emergency situations.
Search and rescue is particularly important because autonomous operation does not remove the ship's responsibilities in relation to persons in distress.
Machinery and Electrical Systems
Autonomous operation depends on reliable machinery and electrical systems capable of supporting propulsion, steering, navigation, communications, monitoring and safety functions.
The MASS technical architecture should therefore identify critical systems, failure modes, redundancy requirements, monitoring arrangements and safe-state responses.
Propulsion
Reliable propulsion control, monitoring, alarms and appropriate response to machinery failures.
Steering
Safe steering control, monitoring, redundancy and appropriate emergency arrangements.
Electrical Power
Electrical generation, distribution, emergency power and critical-load management supporting MASS functions.
Automation
Integrated monitoring and control systems supporting approved autonomous and remote operational functions.
Structure, Stability, Fire Protection and Life-Saving
Autonomous operation does not remove the fundamental safety requirements associated with ship structure, subdivision, stability, watertight integrity, fire protection and life-saving arrangements.
The MASS Code is intended to supplement existing maritime safety requirements and provide additional provisions where autonomous operation creates specific regulatory considerations.
Technical assessment should therefore consider both conventional ship safety requirements and the additional risks created by reduced onboard personnel, remote operation and autonomous functions.
Cargo Operations and MASS
Cargo ships operating as MASS must continue to address the safety requirements associated with cargo handling, cargo containment, cargo equipment and cargo-related operations.
Autonomous and remotely controlled functions may change the way cargo operations are monitored, controlled or supported, requiring appropriate definition of responsibilities and interfaces.
The approved operational concept should clearly identify how cargo operations interact with onboard personnel, shore personnel, remote operators, terminal operators and other stakeholders.
Anchoring, Towing and Mooring
Anchoring, towing and mooring operations require particular consideration where conventional onboard intervention is reduced or replaced by remote operation.
The MASS operational concept should identify how such operations will be conducted, monitored and controlled and how appropriate personnel and external assistance will be coordinated.
Port-specific requirements may also need to be considered because the availability of pilots, tugs, mooring personnel and shore support can vary between locations.
MASS Approval Process
Approval of a MASS requires a structured demonstration that the vessel, its systems, operating arrangements and remote-control architecture can achieve the applicable safety objectives.
1. Concept Definition
Define the MASS concept of operation, ship functions, operational modes and intended operating environment.
2. Operational Analysis
Identify how onboard personnel, autonomous systems and remote operators interact during normal and abnormal operation.
3. Risk Assessment
Identify hazards, assess risk and establish appropriate mitigation and safety measures.
4. System Verification
Verify critical systems, software, communications, automation, control and safety functions.
5. Testing & Demonstration
Demonstrate performance under normal, degraded and emergency conditions within the agreed scope.
6. Survey & Certification
Complete applicable survey and certification activities through the relevant Administration and recognised organisations.
MASS Regulatory Gap Assessment
For an existing vessel, newbuilding project or autonomous conversion, a technical gap assessment can provide a structured comparison between the proposed MASS arrangement and applicable regulatory, technical and operational requirements.
The assessment should consider not only individual equipment but also the interaction between ship systems, software, communications, remote operations and human responsibilities.
| Assessment Area | Key Question | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Concept of Operation | Are all operating modes and limitations clearly defined? | ConOps, operating procedures and system description. |
| Risk Assessment | Have hazards associated with autonomous and remote functions been identified and controlled? | Risk assessment, hazard analysis and mitigation records. |
| Remote Operations | Are authority, responsibilities and intervention capabilities clearly defined? | ROC procedures, operating manuals and competency records. |
| Connectivity | Can the vessel remain in a safe condition following loss or degradation of communication? | Network architecture, redundancy analysis and testing. |
| Software | Are critical software functions controlled, verified and maintained? | Software lifecycle and configuration-management documentation. |
| Human Element | Are responsibilities and competence requirements clearly established? | Manning, training, competency and responsibility documentation. |
| Emergency Response | Can the MASS respond safely to foreseeable failures and emergencies? | Emergency procedures, testing records and response arrangements. |
MASS Conversion of an Existing Vessel
Converting an existing commercial vessel to autonomous or remotely controlled operation can involve significantly more than installing automation equipment.
The complete vessel operating architecture may need to be reviewed, including navigation, propulsion, steering, machinery monitoring, communications, cybersecurity, remote control, emergency response, human-machine interfaces and operational procedures.
- Existing automation architecture
- Navigation systems
- Propulsion and steering controls
- Machinery monitoring
- Alarm systems
- Communications
- Connectivity redundancy
- Cybersecurity architecture
- Remote Operations Centre integration
- Emergency systems
- Safety management procedures
- Personnel responsibilities and training
MASS Newbuilding Considerations
MASS concepts are particularly suited to consideration during the newbuilding design stage because autonomy-related functions can be integrated into the vessel's architecture from the beginning.
Early engineering assessment can help identify interfaces between hull design, propulsion, electrical systems, automation, navigation, communications, cybersecurity and remote operations.
A newbuilding MASS project should therefore establish its regulatory and operational concept before finalising critical system architecture.
MASS Regulatory Case Study — Technical Readiness Assessment
The rapid development of autonomous shipping creates a practical challenge for shipowners, technical managers, designers and maritime technology developers: how can an autonomous vessel demonstrate that its technical architecture provides an equivalent level of safety to conventional ship operations?
A MASS regulatory readiness assessment can be used as a structured technical exercise to examine the proposed operational concept, identify applicable requirements, evaluate system interfaces and determine where additional evidence or engineering development may be required.
The assessment does not constitute an IMO statutory approval or replace the formal role of the Flag State, recognised organisation or other competent authority.
MASS Case Study Assessment Methodology
1. Define the Vessel
Establish vessel type, size, intended trade, operating area, machinery arrangement and intended autonomous or remote functions.
2. Define the Operating Modes
Establish when the vessel operates onboard, remotely, autonomously or through combinations of these modes.
3. Map Critical Functions
Identify navigation, propulsion, steering, communications, monitoring, safety and emergency functions affected by the MASS concept.
4. Assess Risk
Evaluate hazards created by autonomous decision-making, remote control, connectivity, software and reduced onboard intervention.
5. Evaluate Human Element
Establish responsibilities, competencies, intervention capabilities and interfaces between onboard and remote personnel.
6. Verify Technical Architecture
Examine system redundancy, communications, software, cybersecurity, alarms, monitoring and emergency response.
7. Identify Gaps
Record technical, operational, documentation and approval gaps requiring further development or verification.
8. Establish Readiness Plan
Develop a structured action plan for technical development, testing, documentation, verification and regulatory engagement.
MASS Operations Compared with Conventional Shipping
| Conventional Operation | MASS Consideration |
|---|---|
| Navigation decisions are primarily performed by personnel on board. | Navigation functions may be automated, autonomous or remotely supported. |
| Machinery is monitored and controlled from the ship. | Machinery functions may include remote monitoring and control. |
| Bridge personnel are physically present. | Remote personnel may perform designated functions from a Remote Operations Centre. |
| Communication with the ship supports normal operations. | Connectivity may become a safety-critical control dependency. |
| Human response is immediately available on board. | Emergency response may require autonomous safeguards, remote intervention or external assistance. |
MASS Technical Consultancy Considerations
MASS projects require integration between maritime engineering, ship operations, automation, digital systems, cybersecurity, regulatory compliance and human factors.
An independent technical consultancy can assist stakeholders in translating regulatory objectives into practical technical assessment criteria and project documentation.
Regulatory Gap Analysis
Identification of applicable requirements and areas requiring further technical or regulatory development.
Technical Risk Review
Independent review of identified hazards, controls and safety-critical system dependencies.
Operational Concept Review
Assessment of operating modes, responsibilities, remote functions and emergency arrangements.
Engineering Interface Review
Review of interfaces between navigation, propulsion, automation, electrical systems, connectivity and remote operations.
From the Non-Mandatory Code to the Future Mandatory MASS Code
The current non-mandatory Code is an important transitional stage in the development of the international MASS regulatory framework.
IMO has established an experience-building phase through which Administrations and industry can gain practical experience with application of the Code.
The experience gained will support the future development of a mandatory MASS Code under the SOLAS framework.
2026
Adoption and implementation of the non-mandatory MASS Code and development of the experience-building framework.
Experience-Building Phase
Practical experience from Administrations, operators, technology developers and other stakeholders informs future regulatory development.
2028
Development of the mandatory MASS Code is planned to begin, based on the non-mandatory Code and experience gained.
2030–2032
IMO's current roadmap targets adoption of the mandatory Code by 1 July 2030 at the latest, with entry into force targeted for 1 January 2032.
Why the MASS Code Matters to the Maritime Industry
Autonomous shipping is moving from technology development and trials toward increasingly structured commercial applications. The regulatory framework therefore needs to address not only technological capability but also responsibility, safety, certification and operational control.
- Creates a common international regulatory framework
- Supports safe introduction of autonomous technologies
- Provides a goal-based approach to emerging technology
- Addresses remote operation and Remote Operations Centres
- Introduces structured risk assessment considerations
- Addresses the human element
- Addresses connectivity and communications
- Supports development of appropriate certification arrangements
- Addresses safety of navigation and emergency response
- Provides a foundation for the future mandatory MASS framework
PAMS Approach to MASS Regulatory Readiness
PAMS Pacific Admiralty Maritime Services approaches emerging maritime regulations from an independent technical consultancy perspective, combining marine surveying, marine engineering, offshore engineering and maritime regulatory compliance.
For MASS-related assignments, the technical focus can be directed toward understanding how autonomous and remote functions interact with the physical vessel, machinery, navigation systems, safety systems, operating procedures and human responsibilities.
Technical Review
Review of vessel systems, autonomous functions, remote operation architecture and technical documentation.
Regulatory Readiness
Identification of applicable MASS requirements and documentation needed for further regulatory engagement.
Risk-Based Assessment
Review of operational hazards, system dependencies and proposed mitigation measures.
Technical Reporting
Preparation of structured independent technical findings, observations and recommendations within the agreed scope.
Independent Technical Consultancy
Any MASS project must be assessed according to its specific vessel, operational concept, intended area of operation, technical architecture, applicable Flag State requirements and the scope agreed with the relevant regulatory and classification bodies.
IMO MASS Code FAQ
What is the IMO MASS Code?
The IMO MASS Code is the International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. It provides a goal-based framework for the safe, secure and environmentally sound operation of ships using remote controlled or autonomous functions.
Is the MASS Code mandatory?
The MASS Code adopted by IMO in 2026 is a non-mandatory instrument. A future mandatory MASS Code is being developed through an experience-building process and subsequent IMO regulatory work.
When did the new MASS Code come into effect?
The non-mandatory MASS Code came into effect on 1 July 2026.
What IMO resolution adopted the MASS Code?
The non-mandatory MASS Code was adopted through IMO Maritime Safety Committee resolution MSC.595(111).
Which ships does the MASS Code apply to?
The current Code applies to cargo ships covered by SOLAS Chapter I. IMO also recommends applying the Code as far as practicable to MASS below 500 gross tonnage.
Does MASS mean that the ship must be completely unmanned?
No. MASS can involve different combinations of onboard personnel, remote control and autonomous functions. The approved operational modes and functions must be clearly defined.
Does a MASS still have a master?
The MASS framework retains the human master concept and responsibility. Depending on the approved arrangement, the master may not necessarily be physically located on board, but appropriate authority and intervention capability remain important elements of the safety framework.
What is a Remote Operations Centre?
A Remote Operations Centre, or ROC, is a shore-based facility from which trained personnel may monitor, support or control designated functions of a MASS according to the approved operational arrangement.
Does the MASS Code require risk assessment?
Risk assessment is a central component of the MASS approval framework and is used to identify hazards associated with autonomous and remotely controlled functions and establish appropriate safety measures.
Does the MASS Code address cybersecurity?
Cybersecurity and connectivity are important considerations in the safe operation of MASS because autonomous and remote functions can depend on digital systems and communications.
Does the MASS Code replace SOLAS?
No. The MASS Code is intended to supplement existing IMO instruments. It does not automatically remove or relax applicable SOLAS requirements. Any applicable exemptions or alternative arrangements must be addressed through the relevant approval process.
When is the mandatory MASS Code expected?
IMO's current roadmap envisages development of the mandatory MASS Code beginning in 2028, with adoption targeted by 1 July 2030 at the latest and entry into force targeted for 1 January 2032.
Can an existing vessel be assessed for MASS readiness?
Yes. An existing vessel can be technically assessed for autonomous or remote-operation readiness, subject to its vessel design, systems, intended operating concept, Flag State requirements and the applicable approval framework.
Can PAMS provide MASS technical consultancy?
PAMS Pacific Admiralty Maritime Services provides independent marine technical consultancy. MASS-related technical readiness, engineering review and regulatory gap-assessment activities can be considered within an agreed technical scope.
MASS Technical & Regulatory Reference Framework
MASS projects should be evaluated against the applicable IMO framework together with relevant statutory, classification, technical, operational and cybersecurity requirements.
IMO MASS Code
International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships adopted as a non-mandatory IMO instrument.
SOLAS
Existing SOLAS requirements remain relevant and must be considered together with the MASS framework.
Risk Assessment
Structured identification and evaluation of hazards associated with autonomous and remotely controlled functions.
Safety Management
Appropriate safety management arrangements for the vessel and, where applicable, Remote Operations Centre operations.
Cybersecurity
Protection of digital, automation, navigation, communication and remote-control systems.
Classification
Applicable classification requirements and technical verification within the agreed project and approval scope.
Preparing for the Future Mandatory MASS Framework
Shipowners and technology developers considering autonomous shipping should not wait for the final mandatory Code before establishing a technical compliance strategy.
Early assessment can identify engineering, operational, cybersecurity, documentation and human-element issues while the system architecture can still be modified.
- Define the intended MASS concept of operation
- Identify autonomous and remotely controlled functions
- Establish operational modes and limitations
- Perform structured risk assessment
- Review navigation and collision-avoidance architecture
- Review propulsion and machinery control
- Assess communications and connectivity redundancy
- Review Remote Operations Centre arrangements
- Establish human-element responsibilities
- Assess cybersecurity architecture
- Develop emergency response arrangements
- Engage early with Flag State and classification stakeholders
Conclusion
The adoption of the IMO non-mandatory MASS Code marks a significant development in the regulation of autonomous and remotely controlled commercial ships.
The Code establishes a goal-based framework addressing risk assessment, operational context, system design, software, connectivity, human element, remote operations, navigation, emergency response, machinery, electrical systems, cargo and other safety-related functions.
The central regulatory challenge is not simply whether a ship can operate autonomously. The critical question is whether the complete operational and technical system can demonstrate an appropriate level of safety, control, accountability, resilience and emergency response.
The current non-mandatory Code provides the foundation for practical experience before development of the future mandatory MASS framework.
MASS Regulatory Readiness Approach
A structured MASS readiness assessment can provide an engineering baseline for identifying technical and operational gaps before formal approval activities.
Regulatory Mapping
Map the vessel and operational concept against applicable MASS, SOLAS, Flag State and classification requirements.
System Assessment
Review navigation, machinery, electrical, automation, communications and remote-control systems.
Operational Assessment
Review normal, degraded and emergency operating modes and the interaction between onboard and remote personnel.
Gap Identification
Establish technical and documentation gaps and identify areas requiring further engineering, testing or regulatory engagement.
Independent MASS Technical Consultancy
Regulatory requirements may develop as the IMO experience-building phase progresses. MASS projects should therefore be reviewed against the latest applicable IMO instruments, Flag State requirements, classification requirements and project-specific technical conditions.
MASS Regulatory Case Study Notice
This page is a technical regulatory case study and industry analysis of the IMO MASS Code. It does not represent a statutory approval, classification certificate, Flag State determination or individual client MASS project. The regulatory status, application and technical requirements of any MASS project must be confirmed against the latest IMO instruments and the requirements of the relevant Administration, recognised organisation and other competent authorities.
Ready to Assess Your MASS Project?
Request an independent technical review of your autonomous vessel, remote-operation concept, MASS regulatory readiness, risk assessment, system architecture or technical compliance requirements.
Request Technical Consultation View Technical Consultancy