Hybrid Remote Control Command Arbitration by Criticality Level
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conflicts between commands issued by an on-board crew and a remote control center can occur in partially remotely controlled vessels with hybrid control, posing safety and security risks unless resolved.
Innovation Solution
A conflict resolution method and system that assign a criticality level to each command, determining whether acknowledgment from the opposing party is required before execution, and allowing for prophylactic execution with retroactive acknowledgement in critical situations.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If hybrid control with both on-board crew and remote control center is implemented, then operational flexibility and crew involvement are improved, but control conflicts and safety risks increase
Solution Approach 1:
The control system is segmented into different criticality levels (e.g., low, medium, high criticality). Commands are categorized and handled differently based on their criticality level. For high-criticality commands, the system requires explicit acknowledgment from the other control party before execution, while low-criticality commands can be executed more autonomously. This segmentation resolves the contradiction by providing flexible handling for different operational scenarios while ensuring safety for critical operations.
Solution Approach 2:
An intermediary conflict resolution mechanism is introduced between the on-board crew and remote control center. This intermediary system automatically mediates control conflicts by evaluating command criticality, determining which party has priority, and coordinating command execution. The intermediary resolves safety concerns by preventing conflicting commands from being executed simultaneously while maintaining operational flexibility through automated arbitration.
2Reliability
If all commands require acknowledgment before execution, then safety and security are improved, but response time and operational efficiency decrease
Solution Approach 1:
Different acknowledgment requirements are applied locally to different commands based on their criticality level. High-criticality commands (e.g., emergency stop, safety-critical maneuvers) require explicit acknowledgment before execution, while low-criticality commands (e.g., routine operations, non-critical adjustments) can be executed immediately without waiting for acknowledgment. This local differentiation resolves the contradiction by ensuring safety for critical operations while maintaining fast response times for routine operations.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically changes the parameter of acknowledgment requirement based on command criticality. The criticality level parameter determines whether acknowledgment is mandatory, optional, or not required. This parameter-based approach allows the system to adapt the safety protocol to the specific operational context, resolving the contradiction between safety and response time by applying stricter protocols only when necessary.
3Reliability
If control authority is centralized at the remote control center, then security and command coordination are improved, but on-board autonomy and rapid local response capability are reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The control authority is made dynamic rather than static. The system can switch between centralized control (remote control center has priority), decentralized control (on-board crew has priority), and collaborative control (both parties coordinate) modes based on operational needs, security requirements, and conflict situations. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction by allowing the system to optimize for security when needed while maintaining on-board autonomy for routine operations.
Solution Approach 2:
The system establishes preliminary agreements and protocols between the remote control center and on-board crew before conflicts arise. These preliminary arrangements include predefined priority rules, communication protocols, and conflict resolution procedures that enable rapid local response while maintaining security. By preparing these arrangements in advance, the system resolves the contradiction by enabling autonomous action within predefined security boundaries.
Data Source
AI summary
A conflict resolution method for a remotely controlled device is provided. The method includes: issuing a command for the device by a remote control center or by the device; determining a criticality level of the command; depending on the criticality level of the command, sending the command to the other one of the device and the control center for acknowledgment or refusal of the command; and executing or disregarding the command by the device depending on the criticality level of the command and, if applicable, on the acknowledgment or refusal of the command.