DNV on wind-assisted propulsion: Managing safety while regulation takes shape

In this Maritime Impact article, published on Monday (8 June), Georgios Kasimatis, Director of Regulatory Affairs at classification society DNV, explained how wind-assisted propulsion systems (WAPS) safety is already being managed through the ISM Code, class standards, and flag state engagement. 

The article explored current operational practices, emerging IMO guidance, and what shipowners can expect as safety frameworks continue to evolve alongside wider adoption of the technology:

Wind-assisted propulsion systems (WAPS) have moved beyond pilot projects. Today, ships equipped with rotors, wings, and sails are trading globally, helping owners cut fuel consumption and emissions while responding to increasingly stringent greenhouse gas requirements. Yet this rapid operational uptake is unfolding faster than binding international regulation is being finalized. 

This creates a familiar but critical tension. The technology is already in service and increasing in scale across the global fleet, but the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is still developing harmonized safety guidance. For operators in the space, that gap can feel like uncertainty or risk. In reality, the regulatory signals around WAPS are becoming clearer, and safety processes are already in place through the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, flag state engagement, and classification standards.  

WAPS are now firmly on the IMO safety agenda 

At the IMO level, wind propulsion and wind-assisted power are now clearly on the safety agenda. The subcommittee on ship design and construction has been formally tasked with developing interim safety guidelines, supported by correspondence group work and progressing towards consideration by the maritime safety committee. While timelines at IMO can be revised, these guidelines are expected to be developed and finalized within the next three to four years.    

Importantly, these discussions are not happening in a vacuum. They sit within a wider IMO effort to ensure that new and emerging technologies and fuels are addressed within a broader, coherent safety framework. For WAPS, key developments so far have included their identification as a technology which requires dedicated safety standards, as well as recognition that existing instruments, such as SOLAS, COLREG, stability codes, and other navigational safety provisions, may not fully capture safety hazards specific to the technologies. 

The prevailing view in discussions to date is that risks appear manageable when systematically identified and controlled. Attention has centred on well-known risks that can be managed with the right design assumptions, operational controls, and human element safeguards. These include visibility and sensor performance, manoeuvrability and controllability, air draft and port interfaces, stability effects, extreme weather exposure, and crew competence.

Existing frameworks already manage WAPS risks 

Crucially, the absence of finalized IMO guidance does not mean that WAPS safety is unmanaged. Far from it. Today’s operational safety baseline rests on three pillars: flag state engagement, class approval using established technical standards, and – most fundamentally – the Safety Management System (SMS) under the ISM Code, a mandatory requirement under SOLAS Chapter IX. 

Class frameworks – including DNV’s technical standard (DNV-ST-0511) – already address core technical aspects, including structural integrity, fatigue, extreme wind loading, system integration, and operational limits. For installations designed and approved against these standards, future IMO guidance is more likely to bring harmonization than to trigger fundamental changes, and existing WAPS installations are therefore unlikely to be significantly affected.  

Where WAPS installations affect visibility in ways that touch SOLAS Chapter V/22, acceptance of equivalent arrangements remains a flag state decision, typically supported by class technical assessments. In practice, guidance such as DNV’s recommended practice for CCTV-based solutions (DNV-CG-0662) is commonly used to support these evaluations. 

Note: The full article by DNV can be read here. 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 10 June, 2026