Electronic navigation charts could save ships

SATNAVS are something that most of us use without a second thought. But what happens at sea?

Like drivers, maritime navigators can choose from a range of options, including GPS, paper maps, radar and ordinary radio communications. They can also use the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) – a kind of Google Maps for ships. It integrates GPS, radar and the Automatic Identification System (AIS) – which broadcasts to ships via radio signals – and displays a vessel’s position on an electronic map in real time, along with precise readings of the local water depth.
Next year a mandate from the UN International Maritime Organization will go into effect, requiring many international commercial ships to use ECDIS. So why has it not been made compulsory sooner?

The consequences of shipping disasters can be far-reaching. As New Scientist went to press, the 236-metre container ship Rena had already leaked some 350 tonnes of oil, having crashed into the Astrolabe reef off New Zealand on 5 October. And the effects of the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989 are still being felt along the coast of Alaska.

These are not isolated incidents. Last year 211 large ships suffered “serious casualties” when they ran aground or became stranded, according to the London-based shipping news service Lloyd’s List.

ECDIS will reduce the number of ships that run aground by 38 per cent, according to a 2007 study by Rolf Skjong at risk management firm Det Norske Veritas in Høvik, Norway. “It is the best navigation aid that has come out since radar,” says Ian Rodrigues at the Australian Maritime College (AMC) in Tasmania.

The IMO evidently agrees – it wants all ships built after mid-2012 to be fitted with ECDIS. Existing ships have different compliance dates depending on whether they carry passengers or cargo, but all commercial vessels must be upgraded by mid-2018.

One reason for ECDIS’s slow adoption is that navigators are simply used to old-fashioned paper. “Maritime organisations were already busy making paper charts,” says Nick Lemon of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. What’s more, in May 2008 detailed electronic charts were available for only 60 per cent of the world’s water. Now, around 90 per cent is digitally charted.

Autopilot technology, too, could improve safety. It hooks into the boat’s rudder and is already widely used, though not mandatory under the new rules, says Jeff Watts at the AMC. When combined with ECDIS, it can sound alarms and provide visual information to alert crew when ships enter dangerously shallow waters. But whether this could have prevented the Rena running aground is unclear – it is not known what navigation devices were in use on the ship.

 

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228356.400-electronic-navigation-charts-could-save-ships.html

NAVIGATION | UK P&I: anomalies highlight ECDIS limitations

The UK Maritime authority, the Marine and Coastguard agency (MCA) has issued a Marine Information Notice, MIN, regarding the reporting of anomalies identified within ECDIS. This sits very well alongside the Club’s own advice identifying possible areas of difficulty to implement ECDIS systems onboard, overcoming those areas and avoiding potential claims.

Re MCA MIN 406 (M+F): Reporting Operation Anomalies Identified Within ECDIS

With respect to ECDIS, the Introduction to MIN 406 states:

“An ECDIS anomaly is an unexpected or unintended behaviour of an ECDIS which may affect the use of the equipment or navigational decisions by the user. Examples include, but are not limited to:
•    A failure to display a navigational feature correctly;
•    A failure to alarm correctly;
•    A failure to manage a number of alarms correctly.
Annex 1 contains UKHO NAVAREA1 Warning 317/10 which gives further information on anomalies and the means to overcome the issues raised.”

MIN 406 Annex 1
3.3 The following is the text from the latest NAVAREA1 Warning 317/10 issued on 290525 UTC Oct 2010:

3.4 As previously notified by NAVAREA warning, mariners using ECDIS are reminded not to rely solely on automated voyage planning and monitoring checks and alarms. Some ECDIS appear only to undertake route check functions on larger scale ENCs and therefore alarms might not activate. This may not be clearly indicated on the ECDIS display. Mariners should always undertake careful visual inspection of the entire planned route using the ‘other / all’ display mode to confirm that it, and any deviations from it, is clear of dangers

Recent preliminary investigation indicates that some ECDIS may not display certain combinations of chart features and attributes correctly and on rare occasions may fail to display a navigationally significant feature. This appears to be caused by anomalous behaviour in some ECDIS software, especially early versions. The existence of such anomalies highlights the importance of maintaining ECDIS software to ensure that operational capability and reliability are maintained. It is recommended that appropriate checks are made with the equipment manufacturer.1 This is of particular importance where ECDIS is the only source of chart information available to the mariner.

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) is investigating these matters in consultation with ECDIS equipment manufacturers. Further information will be made available through Notices to Mariners and within the UK element of the README.TXT file included on ENC service media.

One major manufacturer  has included the following data on one of their subsequent update CDs:

Use of ECDIS

1.    A very small proportion of shoal soundings, especially those marked as “reported” on paper charts, are not visible when operating in the default base or standard display modes and do not trigger automatic grounding alarms in route checking or monitoring modes. Most ENC producers, including the UKHO, have now amended the way in which these particular shoal soundings have been encoded in S-57  to resolve this issue.

2.    Some ECDIS may not activate alarms for all land areas shown on ENCs, even where these are surrounded by a shoal depth contour. Whilst land areas such as islands are generally clearly identifiable on ECDIS, in some display configurations small islands can be difficult to see as they may be obscured by other detail such as contour labels.  This is most likely to be a problem where only very small scale (usage band 1 and 2) ENCs are available. There are many oceanic areas for which the largest scale chart (both paper and ENC) issued is 1:3,500,000.

3.    It has been noted that on some ECDIS, some underwater obstruction hazards only display in “full / other” display mode rather than in default standard mode as might be expected. The observed anomalies reinforce the need for the continued application of established navigation principles and skills including the need to avoid over-reliance on a single system. Mariners should always undertake careful visual inspection of the entire planned route using the “other / all” display mode to confirm that it, and any deviations from it, is clear of dangers.

Overlapping cells in the same usage band:

Some data providers issue ENCs which contain overlapping data coverage, both internally and with an adjoining nation’s coverage. This may make them difficult to use in certain ECDIS systems which default to displaying both overlapping cells. Caution should therefore be exercised when using such overlapping data. Mariners should be aware that there will be a possibility that items of significance may be present only in one data set within an area of overlap. They should therefore take care to examine both data sets when planning a voyage through such an area. Some overlaps may be quite small and may not be noticeable when viewing data at the appropriate scale. Discussions are in hand between many of the data producers in order to resolve overlapping data problems.

ENCs derived from charts on non-WGS84 compatible datum’s:

Positions obtained from Global Navigation Satellite Systems, such as GPS, are normally referred to WGS84 datum. In many parts of the world however, charts were originally produced on a variety of local datums for which the shift to WGS84 may be unknown or unreliable. ENCs derived from such charts may not be accurately referred to WGS84 datum. This can result in small but noticeable positional differences where adjoining cells have been shifted by slightly different amounts.

A number of GB (Great Britain) cells for example, are derived from charts that cannot be accurately referred to WGS84 datum. The differences between satellite-derived positions and positions on these cells cannot be accurately determined; the estimated values of the differences for these cells are detailed in the Information attribute of Caution Areas thus: “Positions in this region lie within ± nn metres of WGS84 Datum”. Mariners are warned that these differences MAY BE SIGNIFICANT TO NAVIGATION and are therefore advised to confirm GPS positions shown in the chart display using alternative navigational techniques, particularly when closing the shore or navigating in the vicinity of dangers. Such cells contain a warning encoded as the name of a Sea Area feature covering the cell thus: “This chart cannot be accurately referenced to WGS84 Datum; see caution message”. They are intended for use with this warning continuously displayed and should not be used otherwise.

Updating of ENCs in line with paper charts:

The UKHO’s weekly updating service for ENCs includes the latest updates issued by all the contributing Hydrographic Offices. These updates may or may not be synchronised with Notices to Mariners and New Editions produced for their national paper chart series. In some cases, therefore, ENCs may be less up to date than the corresponding paper chart of the same area. Practice also varies between different Hydrographic Offices with regard to the updating of ENCs for Temporary (T) and Preliminary (P) Notices to Mariners. Several ENC producers include T&P NMs in their cells wherever possible, but where this is not the case mariners are advised to consult relevant T&P NMs published in Notices to Mariners bulletins or on the ENC producer’s website (if available).

The attributes Date Start (DATSTA) and Date End (DATEND) are used by UKHO and some other Hydrographic Offices to notify mariners in advance of major changes such as the introduction of new or amended routeing measures. The purpose of these attributes is to allow mariners to preview forthcoming changes and for the ECDIS to apply the changes automatically at the appropriate time. ECDIS approved to IEC 61174 Edition 2 (2002) or later should be able to display the time-related features correctly. However, ECDIS approved prior to IEC 61174 Edition 2 may display both old and new routeing measures simultaneously or fail to give any indication of the changes.

Chart display content:

Mariners should be aware that the appearance and content of the data displayed in electronic charts may differ substantially from the same or similar data in paper chart form. The ECDIS chart display is generated “on-the-fly” according to display rules defined by the IHO Presentation Library. The amount of detail that is displayed will depend on a number of factors, including:

•    The cells loaded on the ECDIS and available for display;
•    The feature content of those cells (including any objects with date, time or scale dependent attributes);
•    The display scale set by the ECDIS user;
•    The display mode set by the ECDIS user (i.e. “Base”, “Standard” or “All”);
•    The Safety Contour, Safety Depth and Safety Height set by the ECDIS user;
•    Other user display options provided by the ECDIS (e.g. options to show isolated dangers in shallow waters, full length light sectors, etc);
•    The ECDIS manufacturer’s implementation of the IHO Presentation Library.

Overlay content

The Admiralty Information Overlay contains all Admiralty Temporary & Preliminary Notices to Mariners (T&P NMs) and provides additional preliminary information that is specific to ENCs, such as reported navigational hazards that are not yet charted.

The Overlay gives seafarers an easy way to view the information they need, in addition to the standard chart, to navigate safely and compliantly. The Overlay makes passage planning simpler and safer by clearly showing where important Temporary or Preliminary changes may impact a voyage. It also gives seafarers the same consistent picture of the maritime environment on their ECDIS as they have always had with the Admiralty paper chart. The Overlay includes all Admiralty T&P NMs in force worldwide and additional information that relates specifically to ENCs, published as ENC Preliminary NMs (EP NMs).

The UKHO includes information in the Overlay where it exists in the UKHO archive of hydrographic information. Some ENCs produced by national Hydrographic Offices are the equivalent to their local paper chart series and there is no equivalent Admiralty paper chart. In these areas the UKHO does not have any additional information and the Overlay shows a “No Overlay” feature. Additional information, such as local ‘Temporary & Preliminary, Notice to Mariners’ (T&P, NMs), may be available in these areas from other sources and seafarers should ensure that all appropriate sources of information have been consulted.

Overlay availability

The Admiralty Information Overlay is available, free of additional charge, to all users of AVCS and the Admiralty ECDIS who have compatible display equipment (see below).  Please contact your Admiralty Chart Agent to add the Overlay to your AVCS or Admiralty ECDIS Service licence.

Although ECDIS has been in use at sea for some years, its employment is not yet widespread and many mariners remain unpractised in its use. Mariners must therefore be aware of the user training requirement. They should satisfy themselves that their ECDIS provides all the navigational functionality that they will need and that they are familiar with the operation of this functionality. For example, some early ECDIS systems may be unable to display the cautionary notes which appear on the paper chart and are included in the ENC. Hence, care is required while experience is gained in the practical use of ECDIS. Some national maritime administrations have issued advice relating to the introduction of ECDIS, and mariners should ensure that they are aware of, and conversant with, that advice .

Source of Information:  Capt. N. Gardiner — Ship Inspector — UK P&I Club

 

NAVIGATION | Training vital to keep Ecdis switchover on course

Craig Eason | Lloyd’s List | 2010.10.15

THE UK Chamber of Shipping believes that training will be the key to the successful implementation of electronic chart display and information systems and, not unreasonably, is pushing colleges and other trainers to ensure their tutors are sufficiently proficient in the technology.

It also wants to see less pressure placed on shipowners to remove paper charts from ships unless they and the crews on board are both comfortable and proficient with the technology.

Ecdis systems will have to be installed onboard all merchant vessels by 2018, although as a rolling deadline it means some newbuildings have to have the equipment from 2012 and some existing tonnage from 2013.

Along with the mandatory carriage requirement comes a requirement for all navigating officers to have taken a suitable training course by the specific deadline. The minimum requirements for a five-day training course has been approved by the International Maritime Organization. However, there is confusion by flag states over the amount of training an officer should need — with a belief in some organisations that officers should sit courses for each specific system they will encounter at sea.

There is also growing confusion over the role of port state control and vetting inspectors regarding the rules, and how they should be interpreted.

In pushing for training courses to ensure their tutors have a better understanding of Ecdis and its implications, UK Chamber of Shipping nautical manager Saurabh Sashdeva hopes to dispel some of the false conceptions about the equipment and how it is used.

While the Chamber of Shipping acknowledges that Ecdis will be made mandatory on certain types of ships from 2012 onwards, Capt Sashdeva believes that significant hurdles will need to be overcome.

From both the shipowners and merchant navy training board point of view, the chamber has been working to develop new training standards in partnership with the training colleges and the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and has also taken up the task to revise the existing Ecdis training course criteria.

“There are all these courses and everyone can call themselves Ecdis experts,” says Capt Saurabh, who thinks there is a bewilderment within shipowners about what an Ecdis is. Even the acronym has come to mean a whole industry argument rather than adding clarity to the use of a piece of bridge equipment.

“It is really just a piece of equipment with software, and that software needs training,” he says.

The software is from organisations such as the UK Hydrographic Office and others that install the program into the Ecdis, and these need to be brought onboard as well, he says. His drive has been to get the UK training bodies to agree to send their academic staff to a suitable course at the UKHO to ensure they know what it is they are teaching.

A further ambiguity that still needs resolution, according to the Chamber of Shipping, is whether ships should dispense with paper charts, and how the different port states and flag states interpret the carriage requirements, such as what would be deemed to be acceptable primary or secondary mode of navigation — paper charts or Ecdis.

Last but not least, he says, issues still remain over the lack of coverage of certain areas, confusion with alarms, limitations of bridge design and even the economic viability for small coastal ships that perhaps only use two or three paper charts.

The piece of technology that an owner will have to install on all of its fleet will cost between $15,000 to $50,000. There are about 30 different systems from around 24 manufacturers that have been type approved by a classification society as meeting the requirements of an Ecdis.

While many newbuildings are already being built with the technology installed, there are still a huge number of existing vessels that will need retrofitting.

According to Jeppesen Marine divisional director Tor Svanes, the manufacturers of type approved Ecdis systems are confident they can meet the construction demand, but he doubts they can get them all installed in time as this will take two engineers about a week per vessel.

Jeppesen provides the chart data — the electronic charts and the regular corrections that the Ecdis needs to be a navigation or route planning tool.

Many of the electronic chart providers and some of the hydrographic offices have been highlighting the cost savings that can be achieved by shipowners that have two Ecdis systems on board. The IMO carriage requirements state that at least one system has to be installed by the deadline. If two independent systems are installed, then the ship can remove the paper charts from the bridge.

Capt Saurabh is calling for caution. “One aspect that I feel is important, is that bringing an Ecdis on a ship should not lead to the removal of the paper charts,” he says. “If everything else fails, then that paper will save a life.”

It is the manufacturers and those with a vested interest that are pushing a direct move to two Ecdis and no paper charts, he says, not the shipowners. “The IMO has mandated a single Ecdis and the purpose of an Ecdis is to promote safety and an enhanced maritime environment. I have yet to see proof that navigating on an Ecdis is safer.”

He refers specifically to navigation rather than the back of bridge, voyage planning or any other aspects of Ecdis that can be used. But again, here he is pushing for a more practical approach. The technology itself has keen differences to planning a voyage or assessing navigational hazards on a paper chart.

He cites the relatively small size of the Ecdis screen compared to the flat paper chart, the inability to write on the chart key and vital information relating to temporary navigation warnings.

“The IMO was sold a dream and the dream is turning sour now,” he says. “Ecdis has thrown up so many issues that have yet to be resolved.”

But having said that, he is a keen believer that Ecdis can make things easier and that the system is a welcome step. His caution stems from a desire to make sure shipowners, and their hard to recruit ship’s officers, are not forced into a technological corner that will lead to unwanted consequences.

ECDIS | UK Hydrographic Office does not withhold electronic charts

Mike Robinson, Chief executive UK Hydrographic Office  | first published in Lloyd’s List (2010/09/21)

SENSATIONAL headlines are designed to catch the eye of the reader and the headline ‘UKHO charts a collision course with shipowners’ (Lloyd’s List September 15, 2010) certainly caught mine. But as was the case in the classic Sun newspaper headline of 1986, the truth is often very different and much less sensational.

The gist of Ryan Skinner’s article is that the UKHO is withholding hundreds of Electronic Navigational Charts by making bi-lateral arrangements with countries, rather than distributing them via the Regional ENC Co-ordination Centres. This is simply untrue and the writer of the article is unfortunately misinformed.

The two RENCs — IC-ENC and PRIMAR — are fundamental to chart quality and distribution. But the reality is that there are many countries which have, for various reasons, elected not to make their data available through a RENC but prefer to work directly with Value Added Resellers or distributors.

This is a sovereign right, invoked by countries including the US, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan and not subject to the influence of any hydrographic office. To provide a global ENC service, it is therefore vital for any VAR or distributor to have agreements with the two RENCs and with those individual countries which do not distribute through a RENC.

Over the last few years both PRIMAR and the UKHO have signed numerous bi-lateral agreements to ensure they can provide as comprehensive a global service as possible. But it is not just governments acting as VARs that can provide global ENC services working with the RENCs and via bi-lateral arrangements, private companies can too.

The article states that the UKHO (and by inference PRIMAR) use their ‘government muscle’ in forming such bi-lateral agreements. This is simply untrue. Hydrographic offices (including UKHO) have provided assistance to third countries to produce ENCs. In such cases, where the country asks for distribution through a RENC, this is always facilitated.

The article also attempts to mislead the reader into thinking that the UKHO has conflicting aims as a ‘government regulator’ and a ‘market player’, an assertion that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of chart distribution and the UKHO’s role. The UKHO does not have a regulatory role and, as is clear from the above, is one of a number of channels for distributing ENCs.

So this is the position: the UKHO is not withholding ENCs and is not on a collision course with shipowners. Not only does the UKHO make ENCs available though its own products, it offers its quality assured datasets to other VARs.

I accept that the RENC system is not perfect — they operate different models, different licensing regimes, and have different conditions for the use of data they supply. This makes it difficult to provide a truly global service and discourages new members from joining.

The IHO has proposed that the two RENCs should increase their co-operation, a move the UK and Norway wholeheartedly support. To achieve this, all RENC members will have to compromise — never easy but essential if the hydrographic community is to put more ENCs in the hands of mariners.

ECDIS | UKHO charts a collision course with shipowners

The UK Hydrographic Office is withholding hundreds of Electronic Navigational Charts

LLOYD’S LIST

THROUGH my work, I am intimately acquainted with what feels like a scandal in the making. Right now, it’s only a big deal in the small hydrographic community, but — as mandatory Ecdis drives more attention to the market — it may explode into headlines.

Mandatory Ecdis will require shipowners to get ENCs (the official Electronic Navigational Charts proscribed by the International Maritime Organization and International Hydrographic Organization), or risk port state detention. Contrary to its own intentions to make ENCs widely available to a non-profit, central and independent organisation, the UK Hydrographic Office is withholding hundreds of ENCs. It has betrayed its multilateral intentions and gone bilateral, using governmental muscle.

But it did not have to be like this. A principle called WEND stated that hydrographic offices would make all ENCs available through non-commercial entities called Regional ENC co-ordinating centres.

Today, there are two: the Primar RENC in Norway and the UK’s IC-ENC; the UKHO runs the latter. These non-profit entities make the full database of ENCs available to distributors.

The beauty of the RENC is this — a quality-controlled and professional channel for hydrographic offices to make charts available to the market. Without RENCs, shipowners and distributors would need to patch together dozens of agreements with individual hydrographic offices. Most offices, distributors and owners are not prepared for such a scenario.

It is disturbing that the UKHO has neglected to make hundreds of ENCs available to the RENCs. Hydrographic offices and distributors have complained that this move compromises safety and innovation. One insider said: “Chart suppliers should not compete on access to charts, but on the price, the service and value they add to delivery.”

This issue pops up frequently in the Ecdis Yahoo! group. Why has the UKHO ventured into these murky waters? It possesses two conflicting missions, one as governmental regulator and another as market actor. But the latter role, which is exposed to competition, is leveraging the former, which is granted by the queen. The result bends any definition of fairness.

Anyone doubting the UKHO’s profit motives need only go to its website. I quote the vision: “To become the world leader in the supply of digital hydrographic information and services.”

Time will tell if the UKHO’s move blows up in its face. As more shipowners scrutinise this market, they will start screaming. After all, we all know what monopolies do to prices, and if there is anyone in the world who is price conscious, it is shipowners.

Ryan Skinner works at Say PR & Communications in Norway and blogs about marine innovation. Get the latest at http://5956n.typepad.com