In the light of the Sanchi disaster, Paul Fanning asks whether automation could help prevent such events occurring again

The appalling events associated with the collision of the Iranian-owned tanker Sanchi and the Cargo vessel CF Crystal on 6 January will be all too well-known to everyone associated with the shipping industry.

The loss of Sanchi‘s 32 crewmembers has served to remind everyone – as if anyone could forget – just how hazardous shipping can be and just how terrible the consequences of accidents at sea can be. And that is before we consider the financial and environmental cost of the collision.

As yet, of course, it is too early to be conclusive about the causes of the disaster. However, what will undoubtedly happen as the picture starts to clarify is that thoughts will turn to how such a thing can be prevented from happening again.

In these deliberations, one question that seems certain to be asked is whether increased automation might have prevented the disaster.

The harsh fact is that human error is at the heart of the vast majority of accidents in all forms of transportation – the Costa Concordia disaster being just one example – and while we cannot yet be certain this was the case in this instance, the mere possibility that it was should be enough to force people to consider systems that minimise the chance of human error.

That means that thoughts will turn to increased levels of automation, remote vessel management and even in the longer term to the possibility of autonomous or unmanned vessels. The ability to improve safety by automating or mandating safety functions and by ensuring that there are additional levels of scrutiny on the crew have long been key selling points of such systems and their appeal is only likely to have increased in the light of recent events.

Some may remain sceptical, but everyone in shipping has a vested interest in ensuring disasters such as this never occur again. With that in mind, any option that can help achieve this must be considered.