Articles
DOI DOI: 10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1089

ANALYSIS OF SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WING-IN-GROUND (WIG) CRAFT BASED ON THE SOLAS CONVENTION AND IMO GUIDELINES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONAL MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

Dodik Widarbowo1, Fajar Gumelar2, Maltus Jackline Kapistrano3, Wahyu Wibisono4, Antoni Arif Priadi5
  1. 1 Politeknik Pelayaran Sorong, Indonesia.
  2. 2 Politeknik Pelayaran Sorong, Indonesia.
  3. 3 Direktorat Jenderal Perhubungan Laut Jakarta, Indonesia.
  4. 4 Politeknik Pelayaran Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia.
  5. 5 Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Pelayaran Jakarta, Indonesia.

Abstract

Wing-in-Ground (WIG) craft represent an emerging hybrid mode of maritime transportation that combines aerodynamic lift and hydrodynamic support to enable high-speed operations close to the sea surface. These crafts offer significant potential to enhance maritime connectivity in archipelagic states by providing faster and more efficient inter-island transportation. However, their unique operational characteristics introduce complex safety challenges that are not fully addressed by conventional maritime safety regulations. This study examines safety equipment, and fire-fighting standards for WIG craft under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Guidelines for Wing-in-Ground Craft (MSC.1/Circ.1592), with particular emphasis on regulatory implementation within national maritime transportation systems. Using a Research and Development (R&D) methodology combined with normative–juridical and qualitative regulatory analysis, this research evaluates the adequacy and alignment of international safety standards with national regulatory frameworks in archipelagic states, specifically Indonesia. The analysis focuses on life-saving appliances, fire protection systems, emergency preparedness, and risk-based operational safety requirements. Findings indicate that while SOLAS and IMO guidelines provide a fundamental safety framework, their performance-based nature allows interpretative flexibility among flag states, resulting in regulatory gaps, inconsistent certification practices, and limited standardization of safety equipment and fire-fighting systems for WIG craft. The study proposes a harmonized regulatory model integrating SOLAS provisions, IMO WIG Guidelines, and national maritime policies to strengthen safety governance and ensure consistent implementation. Such harmonization is essential for enhancing operational safety, regulatory certainty, and sustainable deployment of WIG craft within archipelagic maritime transportation systems

How to Cite

Widarbowo, D., Gumelar, F., Kapistrano, M. J., Wibisono, W., & Priadi, A. A. (2026). ANALYSIS OF SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WING-IN-GROUND (WIG) CRAFT BASED ON THE SOLAS CONVENTION AND IMO GUIDELINES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONAL MARITIME TRANSPORTATION. ACTA INNOVATIONS, 63, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1089
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. 1. Aarskog, F. G., Hansen, O. R., Strømgren, T., & Ulleberg, Ø. (2020). Concept risk assessment of a hydrogen driven high speed passenger ferry. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(2), 1359–1372. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.128
  2. 2. Ahmed, Y. A., Theotokatos, G., Maslov, I., Wennersberg, L. A. L., & Nesheim, D. A. (2024). Regulatory and legal frameworks recommendations for short sea shipping maritime autonomous surface ships. Marine Policy, 166, 106226. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106226
  3. 3. Andreadakis, A., & Dalaklis, D. (2024). Systematic Review of the Problematic Factors in the Evacuation of Cruise/Large Passenger Vessels and Existing Solutions. In Applied Sciences (Vol. 14, Issue 24, p. 11723). https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411723
  4. 4. Bahcecioglu, E., & Yıldız, M. (2025). Cargo Transportation of the Future with WIG Technology in European Airspace BT - Proceedings of the 3rd Cognitive Mobility Conference (M. Zöldy (ed.); pp. 425–435). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  5. 5. Choi, J., Lee, S., & Kim, S. (2022). Improving the current regulatory issues concerning training ships for maritime institutions: The South Korean case. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 38(3), 125–134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2022.02.001
  6. 6. Eraslan, Y. (2024). Conceptual Design of a Novel Autonomous Water Sampling Wing-in-Ground-Effect (WIGE) UAV and Trajectory Tracking Performance Optimization for Obstacle Avoidance. In Drones (Vol. 8, Issue 12, p. 780). https://doi.org/10.3390/drones8120780
  7. 7. Fang, S., Liu, Z., Yang, X., Wang, X., Wang, J., & Yang, Z. (2023). A quantitative study of the factors influencing human evacuation from ships. Ocean Engineering, 285, 115156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115156
  8. 8. Fenton, A. J., & Chapsos, I. (2023). Ships without crews: IMO and UK responses to cybersecurity, technology, law and regulation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). Frontiers in Computer Science, Volume 5-2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computer-science/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1151188
  9. 9. IMO. (2018). Guidelines for wing-in-ground craft (MSC.1/Circ.1592). IMO Publishing.
  10. 10. IMO. (2020). SOLAS consolidated edition: International convention for the safety of life at sea. IMO Publishing.
  11. 11. Kara Balci, Ö., Varan Samut, İ., & Ademuni-Odeke. (2024). An evaluation of cyber-worthiness and related factors in maritime safety and maritime security. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 8(4), 2411180. https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2024.2411180
  12. 12. Kerem, K., Carjova, K., & Tapaninen, U. P. (2025). Success Factors in Commercialization of Wing-in-Ground Crafts as Means of Maritime Transport: A Case Study. In Future Transportation (Vol. 5, Issue 1, p. 13). https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5010013
  13. 13. Khaskheli, M. B., Zhao, Y., & Lai, Z. (2025). Sustainable Maritime Governance of Digital Technologies for Marine Economic Development and for Managing Challenges in Shipping Risk: Legal Policy and Marine Environmental Management. In Sustainability (Vol. 17, Issue 21, p. 9526). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219526
  14. 14. Melnyk, O., Bychkovsky, Y., Onishchenko, O., Onyshchenko, S., & Volianska, Y. (2023). Development the Method of Shipboard Operations Risk Assessment Quality Evaluation Based on Experts Review BT - Systems, Decision and Control in Energy V (A. Zaporozhets (ed.); pp. 695–710). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35088-7_40
  15. 15. Park, J., Park, M., Park, J., Park, J. H., Song, C., Nam, B. W., & Kim, D. K. (2025). A fuel-efficient pathfinding algorithm for next-generation WIG crafts. Ships and Offshore Structures, 20(5), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2024.2356468
  16. 16. Perkovič, M., Gucma, L., & Feuerstack, S. (2024). Maritime Security and Risk Assessments. In Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (Vol. 12, Issue 6, p. 988). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12060988
  17. 17. Pua’at, A. A., Zhahir, A., Ahmad, M. T., & Hassan, A. (2024). Review on the development of wing-in-ground crafts. E3S Web of Conferences, 477(00010). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Imran-Ahmad-44/publication/356642249_DETRIMENTAL_EFFECTS_OF_FAT_OIL_AND_GREASE_FOG_AND_ITS_SUSTAINABLE_MANAGEMENT_FOR_ENERGY_AND_ENVIRONMENT/links/622263a69f7b3246340dda8b/DETRIMENTAL-EFFECTS-OF-FAT-OIL-AND-GREASE-FOG-AND-ITS-SUSTAINABLE-MANAGEMENT-FOR-ENERGY-AND-ENVIRONMENT.pdf#page=94
  18. 18. Salem, A. (2025). Risk-Based fire safety design framework for modern cruise vessels: an integrated approach to enhanced maritime safety. https://academic.research.sma.ac.ae/id/eprint/40
  19. 19. Sharma, D. R. (2025). Historical insights into Designing International Maritime Safety Management Regulation. Journal of Maritime Research, 22(3), 28–37. https://www.jmr.unican.es/jmr/en/issue/view/76
  20. 20. Shayani, S. V., Thomas, M. J., & Gangadharan, K. V. (2026). Recent advances in wing-in-ground effect crafts: Aerodynamics, stability and control. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 09544100261437354. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544100261437354
  21. 21. Shi, Z., Endres, S., Rutgersson, A., Al-Hajjaji, S., Brynolf, S., Booge, D., Hassellöv, I.-M., Kontovas, C., Kumar, R., & Liu, H. (2023). Perspectives on shipping emissions and their impacts on the surface ocean and lower atmosphere: An environmental-social-economic dimension. Elem Sci Anth, 11(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00052
  22. 22. Slaughter, J., Moxey, D., & Sherwin, S. (2023). Large Eddy Simulation of an Inverted Multi-element Wing in Ground Effect. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 110(4), 917–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-023-00404-7
  23. 23. Tseng, P.-H., & Pilcher, N. (2023). A Safety Assessment Model for Handling Dangerous Goods in Port Operations: The Key Role of Detection Capability. In Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (Vol. 11, Issue 9, p. 1704). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091704
  24. 24. Wang, H., Boulougouris, E., Theotokatos, G., Priftis, A., Shi, G., Dahle, M., & Tolo, E. (2020). Risk Assessment of a Battery-Powered High-Speed Ferry Using Formal Safety Assessment. In Safety (Vol. 6, Issue 3, p. 39). https://doi.org/10.3390/safety6030039
  25. 25. Wang, J., Liu, P., Chin, C., & He, G. (2019). Numerical investigation of auto-pitch wing-in-ground effect oscillating foil propulsor. Applied Ocean Research, 89, 71–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.05.015
  26. 26. Wiriadidjaja, S., Zhahir, A., Mohamad, Z. H., Razali, S., Puaat, A. A., & Ahmad, M. T. (2018). Wing-in-ground-effect craft: A case study in aerodynamics. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4), 5–9. https://www.academia.edu/download/131930984/10081.pdf