Recognising the important role Deep Sea Pilots have in enhancing “the effectiveness of the Bridge Team for the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment”, the Resolution includes  the following factors to be taken into account when considering the use of a Deep-Sea Pilot:

1. The familiarity of the Bridge Team with the congested waters of the English Channel, North Sea and Skagerrak.

2. The proliferation of navigational hazards, such as oil/gas installations and offshore renewable energy installations.

3. The available depth of water in relation to draft, under keel clearance and the essel’s intended route.

4. The possibility of adverse weather conditions and/or poor visibility.

5. The port rotation schedule requirements.

6. The availability of Vessel Traffic Services coverage in the areas to be transited.

7. Any other exceptional circumstances.

An interesting analysis of the use of Deep Sea Pilots with respect to Charter Party agreements is examined in  Ian Timmins’ letter here.

Sweeping in close to mountain tops, theapproach to Trondheim late in the evening is, to say the least, dramatic. By late May, being so close to the Arctic circle, it doesn’t really get dark at night and with the sun risen by 02.30 am thick curtains in hotel rooms are a must for those who want to sleep – not that sleep was much on my mind since this was the culmination of 15 months of writing, editing, submitting drafts for moderation by a (most distinguished) technical panel!

I was attending a conference to deliver a paper on ship-generated pressure fields, before the world’s most prominent and respected Hydrodynamicists.

The 2nd International Conference on Ship Hydrodynamics (STS 2011) was held in Trondheim from 18th to 20th May 2011. Organised by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects (RINA), the University of Ghent (Flanders Hydraulic Research Institute) and hosted by the Norwegian National University Marine Technology Department (NTNU – Marintek), the primary topic for the conference was Ship to- Ship transfers and associated operations, with a secondary focus on hydrodynamic interaction relating to vessels manoeuvring in confined waterways.

Trondheim itself is an old city, centred on a cathedral said to be over 1000 years old, being both a former capital city and the traditional seat of the monarchy. The main part of the old city is bounded on three sides by a wide sweeping river and, to the west, by the fjord.

The MARINTEK Centre sits near the top of a hill not far from the centre of Trondheim and the location affords a good view of the surrounding city, harbour and the fjord. However, for an altogether different, and much more commanding view of the university campus and the marine research facility it is necessary to take a short elevator ride to the top of the campus grounds where a rotating restaurant with exhilarating views provided the venue for a very nice conference lunch.

Early keynote speakers spoke on a number of issues relating to Ship-to-Ship transfers and lighterage but interestingly, some of these talks would not have been amiss at a marketing conference.

The main plenary sessions commenced after lunch on the first day, with speakers being allocated one of two conference rooms, depending on their area of specialisation. Naturally, my own inclinations were directed to the more ‘practical’ issues of ship handling in confined waters. By the end of the first sessions, what was becoming very apparent was the difference in emphasis between the academic theorists, who were essentially mathematicians and computer programmers, and those with, even limited, real ship experience. I must confess, the language used by the academics was almost (but not quite) bewildering, and the mathematics was awe inspiring – if virtually unintelligible, to a practical ship handler.

As proceedings moved on, the division between the two camps became increasingly marked, along with the realisation that there was a need to reconcile the two. I cannot begin to explain how frustrating it was for the pragmatists (Pilots, Ship-Masters et al) to try and explain real experiences to the theorists who sought to predict the forces acting between ships (and berths) with absolute certainty and precision. Any suggestion that ‘it’s not like that in reality’ was met with almost stunned disbelief. The simple fact remains that not all realities correspond with the ideal conditions found in a test tank, and not all shipping encounters can be neatly defined according to the idealised graphics generated when perfect algorithms are fed into mathematically perfect simulation worlds! Like it or not, there is a difference between what ‘should’ happen, and what does happen.

For me, a most telling point was raised when someone explained the mathematics necessary to calculate the forces generated when two ships come into close proximity – during a ship-to-ship transfer.

It was quite a revelation to learn that a super computer could calculate the momentary forces in 1.27 hours, whereas a standard laptop might take 24.3 hours. I couldn’t resist asking what use this was to a pilot who was faced with making instantaneous decisions without the luxury of waiting 24 hours for data that was based on a set of momentary, historical, parameters. My own experiences as a pilot and an investigating lawyer quickly settled on a number of potential issues for pilots. There is a sobering reality that, following an incident, pilots finding themselves in court may be faced with hydrodynamic experts who hold impressive academic credentials and can calculate forces perfectly and precisely – providing they have weeks, or months, to do so.

A paper by Gordon Maxwell (Warsash), on the practicalities of ‘manned-model’ training was well received  but he too confessed to being perplexed by mathematical modelling concepts that could produce fantastic results after the event.

Dr Jo Pinkster (PMH Holland) held the fort for the pragmatists,as did Dr Larry Daggett (US Corps of engineers) who  discussed issues surrounding widening of the Panama canal.

My own paper was delivered towards the end of the second day shortly before the conference broke for the evening’s entertainment (a wonderful organ recital in the Trondheim Cathedral followed by the conference dinner). It is fair to say that I received the only standing ovation of the conference and the absolute support of pilot colleagues from Hamburg, Rotterdam, Brazil and the US. Few realised how much work was going on in the UK aimed at simplifying and explaining practical dimensions of ship hydrodynamics.

I felt it necessary to make reference to the ‘perfect world’ of computer simulations, and brought up a few hard facts that any pilot will attest to and that is anticipating how the vessel will react then countering it before a situation even develops, something that no instrument, regardless of how sensitive it is, can detect. This is where the true skill of the pilot lies, in his ‘intuition’ and ‘gut instinct’,  all points raised by way of a challenge to the theoretical researchers.

The closing moments of my presentation turned into a general challenge when I asked ‘what good will your work be to the man on the bridge can he apply what you propose for practical benefit?’ I concluded, ‘if he can, then the eventual benefit of the conference will be the reduction of hydrodynamic incidents, fewer collisions and groundings, the saving of lives, livelihoods, beaches and the environment. If the conference can, at any time in the future, hold its hand up and lay claim to any one of those objectives, then it will be deemed a success’. It appears to be a challenge well made, and seriously taken on board for the future.

However, not all technical the papers presented by the theorists were lost on the pragmatists. Of particular note was the keynote speech delivered by Professor Odd Faltinsen, the elder, charismatic, academic of MARINTEK. His presentation was something of a history lesson and, at the same time, a warning to his contemporaries. Addressing the subject of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) he spoke of his early days as a computer programming mathematician and confessed that, even 20 years ago, the belief was that algorithms and CFD would eventually do away with any need for Ship-handlers and pilots. They would be replaced by computer programmes.

With the benefit of hindsight, Prof Faltinsen made three defining statements that the practical mariner might take heart from:

1) CFD may look convincing, but testing of results reveals a difference from reality, and testing [against the real thing] for verification is critical for validation

2) Computer prediction may be ‘pretty good’ but it is not, and cannot be, completely satisfactory

3) There will always be a need for experimental facilities and they will always need updating because there is always likely to be a difference between computer modeling and reality, no matter how good the computers and models are.

Somewhere in the melee of maths and models, pressure fields and power-graphs, numbers and suppositions, the two sides did find common ground by accepting that each was trying to achieve  the same end but by different means and that the theorists would always have to validate their work against the hard data that is the pragmatists staple diet.

I learned much, made some good friends who, good to their word, have stayed in contact and are keen to undertake collaborative research with a view to benefitting the man on the bridge, the marine environment and safety of life at sea. I look forward with some anticipation to the 3rd International conference on Hydrodynamics, currently planned to take place during 2013, in Panama, and would recommend attendance to any who feel inclined to raise the bar.

Peter McArthur

Every pilot’s nightmare is to fall off the ladder whilst boarding and although such incidents are fortunately very rare, tragically  pilot ladder falls result in 1 -2  deaths per year worldwide. Last February my London colleague, Jon Stafford fell whilst transferring his grip from the ladder to the gate opening in the ship’s bulwark. Fortunately he survived and he hopes that by sharing his experiences he might help increase the safety awareness of other pilots. The following first hand account by Jon brings the reality vividly to life!! JCB

It was a climb  of around 5 metres and I clearly remember how it happened. I got to the top of the ladder and having gripped one of the hand holds in the ship’s rail opening I let go of the ladder to grasp the other and before I got hold of the second hand hold I swung away from the opening, smacked against the ship’s side and that was it, I fell!

I remember looking down to check whether I was falling onto the cutter or into the sea. Fortunately the cutter had moved clear of the ship and was running parallel close to the ship’s side. I knew then that although I wasn’t to suffer serious injury from falling onto the cutter, but I was going into the icy  North Sea in February between the ship and the cutter!

As I hit the water my first thoughts were the propellers of first the cutter and then the ship. I knew that the coxswain would have stopped the engines when he saw me fall but the Captain wouldn’t have time to stop the ship’s engine before I was past and that really scared me. I went down quite deep but I could see the boat’s searchlight and the ship’s lights from under the water as the integral lifejacket in my SeaSafe coat inflated. When I resurfaced I was at the stern of the pilot cutter but the water flow was pushing me hard up against the ship’s side and I knew that it was taking me towards the ship’s propeller. As I slid along the ship’s side I was dragged right in underneath the counter so I tried to keep my feet up to keep my body on the surface.

I estimate that I passed within a metre of the propeller and although from falling to clearing the stern of the ship  couldn’t have been more than 20 – 30 seconds it felt like a lifetime!

Having got past that immediate danger I started to concentrate on recovery. All London pilots undergo training with our cutter crews, who hold regular exercises in  recovering casualties and I now have first hand experience, that  proves the training works really well. Remarkably my brain stayed crystal clear, concentrating  on staying alive.

I knew that my greatest risk now was from hypothermia so I worked at keeping my body heat in by keeping my legs together and jamming my cap down tight on my head.

I then started looking for the pilot cutter. It was dark and there was a bit of a swell running and  I could hear the crew talking to each other but then heard one state that he’d lost sight of me which caused me some concern!

I put my left hand up hoping that the retro-reflective tape on the jacket’s sleeve would improve my chances of being spotted. Fortunately that worked because as soon as I had raised my arm  I heard a shout and the boat came round and alongside me very quickly. The coxswain did it first time, closing  in and stopping the cutter in the perfect position for recovery. The crewman then managed to catch hold of me at the first attempt with the MateSaver pole, something that I know isn’t easy to achieve!

It was only when I was hauled aboard the cutter that  I realised that I’d injured my ankle.

Once ashore, there was a fast response paramedic, an ambulance and three police cars waiting to take me to hospital, where I was treated for mild hypothermia and informed that my ankle was broken.

The experience hasn’t put me off. Climbing a pilot ladder has a certain risk attached to it and falling off  is a foreseeable, but fortunately rare, accident for which we are trained. Using ladders is just part of the job and I now know that the extensive emergency training we receive really does work!”

Jon Stafford

The following letter throws a very interesting light on the facts of Charter Parties and pilotage which I believe is of interest to all pilots. The letter was originally published in the November 2010 issue of SeaWays and is reproduced here with the kind permission  of the Author and the Nautical Institute.   JCB

*******

It is a vexing issue that time charterers (voyage owners) do not acknowledge that a pilot is indeed a valuable resource in their safety chain. The New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form time charter party, states:

‘The charterers, while the vessel is on hire, shall provide and pay for all the fuel except as otherwise agreed, port charges, all pilotages, towages, agencies … ‘

The Baltime (1939) Clause 4 states: ‘Charterers shall provide and pay for      pilotages (whether compulsory or not)’.

The intent of the printed NYPE and Baltime forms in relation to ‘pilotages’ is very clear under the time charter party contract -the charterer (voyage owner) will provide and pay for all pilotages without qualification. However, internationally reputable time charterers insist on inserting ‘compulsory’ before ‘pilotages’ in the NYPE and Baltime forms and deleting the words “whether compulsory or not” in the Baltime form. This contractually absolves the time charterer from employing a pilot at their cost.

The vessel while on time charter is ‘under the orders and directions of the charterer as regards employment and agency’ (Clause 8 NYPE C/P). While under the time charterers’ orders, the master is required to prosecute the voyage with all despatch, which includes taking the shortest available route (Hill Harmony). In areas around the Euro-Channel,    English Channel, North Sea, Skagerrak, the Baltic Sea, Marmara Sea and the such, the only shortest route to local ports is through these areas.

IMO recommends and encourages the use of pilots in these areas -IMO Resolutions A.480(lX) (adopted in 1975), A.620(15) (adopted 1987), A.486(XIl) (adopted 1981), A.579(14) (adopted 1985), A.668(16) (adopted 1989), A.827(19) (adopted 1995).

The inland Sea of Japan is equally hazardous particularly when a shipmaster is unfamiliar with the area; however the IMO appears not to have addressed a Resolution for it, where competent inland sea pilots are readily available.

Governments have also established VTS where, in their opinion, the volume of traffic or the degree of risk justifies such a service. VTS should be seen as a complementary service to pilotage.

The time charterer is a “disponent owner” for the duration of the time charter party, and being de facto ‘owners’ it is they who should do all that is necessary to prosecute their chartered voyage in both a physical and environmentally safe manner.

This begs the question as to why such readily available competent pilots are considered by time charterers as to be only a cost and not a benefit to the safety of their voyage. IMO Resolution A.159(ES.IV) [1968] ‘recommends governments’ organise pilotage services where they would be likely to prove more effective than other measures and to define the ships and classes of ships for which employment of a pilot would be mandatory’.

Alas, governments, for reasons of their own, despite having economic jurisdiction extending up to 200 nm from their State, do not appear to have found any good reason to encourage the use of qualified pilots. All pilots arrive at their position because of the authority granted through State based competent authorities.

Ship and cargo insurers and P & I clubs, should be comforted that their insured is in competent hands, through the ‘pilot’s advice’ supporting the ‘master’s orders’.

The shipping industry has always looked to pilots as being an integral component in the safety chain, adding skills and knowledge over and above that which is provided by the ship’s crew. If pilotage waters did not hold an additional element of risk, they would not be pilotage waters. It is axiomatic that a pilot should be employed by the ‘voyage owner’ for the safety of cargo and for the well-being of the marine environment. Charterers should be obliged to consider this as part of their responsibilities since the vessel is under their instruction for the voyage.

An arbitration on ‘liability for noncompulsory pilotage fees (9/80)’ concerned a dispute in relation to pilotage fees under a trip time charter on a NYPE form that expressed the usual printed clause 2. The master engaged a non-compulsory pilot and the owners paid the relevant fees. The owners sought reimbursement of the noncompulsory pilotage fees from the charterers. It was held that under the clear and express provisions of clause 2, the time charterers were liable for tbe cost of pilotage. (The word ‘compulsory’ was not inserted before ‘pilotages’.)

However the arbitrators did not touch on the fact that the master was under the instructions of the charterers as regards employment and agency. It was opined though: ‘Although the charter-party covered the situation. it was still a matter of reasonable prudence for a master of a foreign nationality responsible for a large and valuable sbip and cargo to engage a pilot for navigation in the English Cbannel’.

I am not aware of any further legal or arbitral decisions made on clause 2 of the NYPE and the Baltime 1939 form in regard to ‘non compulsory pilotages’, and the legal consideration of the charterer’s responsibilities ‘as regards employment and agency’.

Time charterers, shippers and terminals through their employment and promotion of ‘risk assessment companies’, purport to embrace the doctrine of safety by vetting the ship, the owner and manager. However by not employing a pilot during their voyage they are contributing to the risks to the marine environment and overall risks to the voyage, while the vessel is under their instructions for the voyage as ‘voyage owner’ littoral states.

The Nautical Institute and organisations such as BIMCO, IMPA, and signatories to the Antwerp Rules, should, for obvious reasons, take a closer look at ‘encouraging~ the use of available pilots by the ‘voyage owner’. In the meantime, should the time charterer voyage owner demand that they will only appoint and pay for ‘compulsory’ pilotages”, they should be made to be equally liable and responsible for any incident that might occur during their voyage requiring the charter party form’s true meaning and intent be radically changed.

Tbis point may well be legally debated, in relation to ‘contributory negligence’, should there be a major issue.

Ian Timmins MNI, ACIArb, FICS.

Sydney, Australia:

ACIArb: Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

(FICS): Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers

Nautilus Chairman, Ulrich Jurgens, congratulates Admiralty pilot, Rachel Dunn, on her receipt of the Victoria Drummond award.

Photo: Nautilus

Rachel Dunn, wife of Southampton pilot, Neil Dunn, received the Nautilus  Victoria Drummond Award presented by Sir Alan Massey at the 1st Nautilus International Conference.

Rachel is the only female Admiralty Pilot. Having first gone to sea as a Cadet with Shell Tankers in 1984 she obtained her Masters Certificate in 1993. Shortly after that she left Shell and joined Wightlink as Chief Officer. In 1997 she was promoted to Master, a post that she held for eleven years before leaving to become a Trainee Admiralty Pilot in Portsmouth last year. Rachel has now qualified as a Pilot after twelve months in training and next April she will be a fully qualified as an Unrestricted Admiralty Pilot ready for the aircraft carriers.

The award is named after one of Queen Victoria’s goddaughters, Victoria Drummond, who abandoned a privileged lifestyle as a debutante to become the first female marine engineer in the Merchant Navy where she served for over forty years. During World War Two she was Second Engineer aboard the SS Bonita, when it came under attack from a German bomber. Having instructed the others to abandon the engine room she single handed not only  kept the engine running throughout the heavy bombardment but also managed to get the ship’s speed up to 12.5 kts, the fastest ever recorded in the ship’s 18 year life!  For this act of bravery she was honoured with an MBE and was awarded the Lloyd’s War Medal .

As Rachel says, ‘It was difficult enough for me when I first went to sea so I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for her. She was an amazing woman with an amazing history.”

Regular readers will be aware that since its inception in 2005, three pilots have received the Merchant Navy Medal for meritorious service. The Committee overseeing the Medal encompasses all sides of our diverse industry and the UKMPA is now a member of this Committee with Martin James (Liverpool pilot) as the representative. The current Patron is Lord West of Spithead, shown on the left in the picture below.

The rules, previous recipients and a nomination form are available on the website: www.merchantnavymedal.org .

For anyone wanting to nominate a fellow pilot or someone else from within the industry nominations are open for 2012.

There is a general misconception that ECDIS is entirely dependent upon the satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) to function but this is not the case since every ECDIS must be capable of being used to plot positions from any source be it visual bearings, radar or even stellar observations. The major problem to date is that on the majority of ECDIS currently on the market the manual option is not obviously available and not always user friendly and I have certainly yet to come across any navigator who has managed to plot a stellar observation on an ECDIS! Mind you it’s becoming increasingly rare to find any navigator who has plotted a position from a sun sight or stellar fix on a paper chart!

GPS has been fully operational with its constellation of 24 satellites for nearly 20 years and the developed world’s infrastructure is now almost totally dependent upon its constant availability so why would anyone bother trying to navigate without it? The answer is that GPS is so vulnerable that in many ways it is pretty miraculous that it works at all!

The signal strength from the satellites has been likened to someone in New York shining a 60 watt light bulb and someone in London having to see it, so it is not surprising that many are deeply concerned about developing back up systems to take over in the event of a GPS outage.

What might cause GPS outage?

There are several potential causes for GPS outage and the two most likely to affect shipboard GPS are sunspot activity and jamming.

Solar activity

The sun is always active in producing electromagnetic emissions which have the potential to disrupt GPS and historically this activity peaks and troughs in 11 year cycles. 2008 was the quiet trough and the activity is currently increasing again with the next peak anticipated in 2013. Alarmist stories of satellites being totally knocked out resulting in Armageddon for the developed world seem to be unfounded but, given the number of articles raising concerns over the effects of solar activity on GPS, it is evident that a quantifiable risk exists. GPS outage problems resulting from increased solar activity were anticipated for June but although I have read some reports of relatively minor positional errors of around 5m it seems that not all satellites are affected equally and I have been unable to find any reports of problems sufficiently severe to render GPS unusable so it is possible that the effects may not be as great as feared. Additionally, advances in receiver technology using the dual frequencies transmitted from the GPS satellites are also reducing the possibility of severe disruption. Only time will tell if this is really a serious threat but if it is then it is probable that the effects on the world’s shipping will be well down the impact list!

GPS jamming

In contrast to the solar activity, the jamming of the satellite signal is a real and very significant problem in that it generally results in the total failure of the GPS receiver. Jamming can be unintentional or deliberate but in either case it is always serious. An example of unintentional jamming occurred in  Moss landing, California where a faulty TV aerial amplifier blocked out GPS over the whole harbour area and there are other examples of faulty electrical equipment having a similar effect on GPS.

Currently in the USA there is a major scandal arising out of a start up broadband company called “Lightsquared” which has been granted a license to create a high power cellphone network to bring high speed broadband and mobile phone coverage to remote areas. The problem is that since its initial application for a license there were major concerns that the $14bn network used frequencies too close to the GPS frequencies which would interfere with the GPS signal. The license was granted on the condition that no such interference would be detected. However, the Government body responsible for granting the license (FCC) commissioned a test which revealed that GPS was seriously affected as per the following extract from a report on the trials:

“Last month, the National Executive Committee for National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation & Timing, and the Federal Aviation Administration tested the LightSquared systems and found them disrupting the signal strength to all GPS devices in the test area”.

In some tests, all GPS-based receivers including those used by the U. S. Coast Guard lost their ability to navigate. Some GPS systems used by space agency NASA for scientific use were also seriously impacted due to LightSquared’s service.

So, that would appear to be conclusive, or is it? The FCC hasn’t withdrawn the license ( this is a massive infrastructure project) but seems to be accepting assurances from Lightsquared that the problem can be resolved by technological fixes. The large opposition lobby group, the Coalition To Save Our GPS, has countered that the technical fixes haven’t yet been invented. At the time of writing this article the mess hasn’t been resolved and, as can be imagined, the “blogosphere” is running red hot over the issue. The lawyers are no doubt rubbing their hands with glee as well!

Deliberate GPS jamming

This is where the greatest potential for GPS disruption lies, especially in port and near coastal waters. The use of such jammers is mainly for criminal activity such as car and lorry theft and for avoiding road tolls but they can also be used to provide privacy in an office environment. Currently the laws are being updated all the time but generally such units are illegal to buy in the UK or to use but it isn’t actually against the law to own one! The fact is that these units are readily available and can be purchased for around £25 for an in-car unit with a declared range of 5 – 10 metres and around £100 for a high power lorry unit with a range of around 100 m. However, these ranges are misleading since such units can cause severe disruption over a much wide area.

In the USA in 2009 such a unit wreaked havoc twice per day with.. a two hour disruption to air traffic controllers’ monitors, failure of doctors’ emergency pagers, ATMs refusing to dispense cash, confused maritime traffic management and a cell phone blackout. It took two months to identify the source which was a lorry driver using a cheap jamming unit to avoid tolls on the New Jersey turnpike.

Although there haven’t been any such disruptions recorded so far here in the UK, many are concerned that as the tracking and monitoring of road users increases it is inevitable that such devices will be increasingly used. More serious is the potential use of jammers in a terrorist attack and consequently both the US and British Governments have conducted jamming trials to assess the potential disruption and this has included specific maritime trials.

Here in the UK two major trials have been carried out by the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA’s) using equipment provided by the Ministry of Defence (MoD)

for the first trial the NLV Pole Star was used to monitor the effects of a directional jammer operating at 1.5watts placed on Flamborough head under strictly controlled conditions. The effects of this trial were dramatic resulting in:

Numerous alarms on the bridge

Erroneous GPS positions

Failure of GPS fed equipment

Erroneous information presented on the vessels ECDIS

Misleading information presented by the vessels AIS

Reduced situational awareness.

GPS track during the jamming trial. All GPS devices failed.        Image courtesy of Dr Alan Grant, GLA

One important aspect of this trial was to ascertain the effects of GPS jamming on a back up navigation system known as e-Loran which the GLA’s have been developing during the last decade. As anticipated, the e-loran input was unaffected by the GPS jamming so a further trial involving a wider group, including UK and EU Government representatives, was arranged off the Tyne in December 2009 using the THV Galatea. These trials confirmed the findings of the Pole Star trials with both the on-board GPS and the hand held portable devices carried by the visitors being rendered useless. The on board ECDIS had been set up to receive the  e-loran signals and again this system was unaffected with a positional accuracy of within 9 metres being achieved throughout the trial.

The e-LORAN track during the jamming trial.           Image courtesy of Dr Alan Grant GLA

E-LORAN

All of you will be familiar with the Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system that was developed in the USA during WW2 based on the British GEE radio navigation principle. Using long wave transmitters LORAN had a range of around 1200 miles but whilst useful in open ocean it was never sufficiently accurate for reliable position fixing in coastal waters. The arrival of satellite navigation in the 1980’s saw a gradual decline in LORAN usage and the arrival of GPS in the 1990’s basically rendered it, along with the Decca navigation system, obsolete. The Decca system was shut down in 2000 but the LORAN chains were maintained.

Recognising the importance of a totally independent back up for GPS, work was undertaken to make LORAN sufficiently accurate to provide a back up for GPS and the result was an Enhanced LORAN or e-Loran. In the UK the importance of a system independent of GPS was recognised by the Government and in 2007 the DfT awarded the GLA’s a 15 year contract to provide and maintain e-LORAN. Other EU countries along with Russia and a few Far East countries have also agreed to maintain funding and there are currently 16 transmitters with coverage being particularly comprehensive in the seas around Europe and the Mediterranean.

In contrast to the UK & Europe, in the USA, somewhat surprisingly, the arguments in favour of e-LORAN have been rejected and in 2010 the USA chains were shut down and are being dismantled, all to save just $20m per annum! The US Defence Department’s solution to the problem of jamming is apparently to create a smartphone “app” that will detect GPS jammers which the public will be asked to download and leave running. It is anticipated that this will create a high density network to quickly identify the jammers! I did check to see if the article reporting this was dated 1st April because surely if  GPS is jammed a smartphone won’t work?

Although the UK and Europe have been supporting e-LORAN, so far there aren’t many combined GPS/ eLORAN receivers available and so far as I am aware no ECDIS manufacturer is offering e-LORAN as part of their installation.

ECDIS & Radar alignment

In part 3 ( issue 302), I suggested that, where a radar overlay is incorporated into ECDIS it should be perfectly feasible in the event of the failure of GPS input for an “intelligent” ECDIS to recognise a coastline’s features and align the ENC to the radar input. Although I am not aware of any systems that can perform this automatically, it has been pointed out to me that manual alignment of the ECDIS to a navigational feature such as that provided by radar overlay  is actually a requirement contained within the ECDIS performance standards and I understand that at least one manufacturer is working on automating this function.

Back to the plot!

As previously mentioned, all ECDIS can be used for plotting bearings taken visually or from radar but there are three major problems associated with this.

Firstly, the vast range of ECDIS operating systems means that there isn’t a standardised procedure for manual plotting so instead of a simple button on the screen marked “manual plotting” that would bring up a set of standardised and familiar plotting tools, the facility is generally hidden in a sub menu and even once found may not be logical to use. The good news though is that once located and understood, manual plotting on an ECDIS is far quicker than on a paper chart. Taking the manual plotting facility further, ECDIS would provide an ideal platform for including different chartwork tools such as a vertical sextant angle. The ECDIS database knows the height of all objects and the height of tide at the time of the observation. The navigator takes the vertical sextant angle, enters it in and “click” a range circle appears around the object and an ECDIS could also easily combine that with the echo sounding to highlight an area of position probability. Simple, it’s what computers can do!

The small screen size means that the navigator may have to scroll and zoom the display to find the land or sea marks being used for the position fix, a factor that I found particularly frustrating when I did the ECDIS course. Zoom out and the names, or even the marks themselves might disappear, zoom in and you have to hunt around to find them. The good news here is that large chart displays are gradually appearing on the market although the bad news is that many ECDIS only vessels have dispensed with the chart room so there’s now nowhere to locate a large horizontal display!

Conrac’s digital chart table

The third and probably most crucial factor is mindset and experience. Most of the traditional chartwork skills have been lost even with paper charts since the advent of GPS with many of the latest generation of navigators having got into the bad habit of just plotting the latitude & longitude from the GPS display onto the chart. ECDIS compounds this problem by showing a reassuring dot where the ship is and when the GPS signal is lost the ship will continue to update its position in Dead Reckoning (DR) mode and there is a recognised problem of a reluctance by some navigators to accept that this may not be where the ship actually is! This factor is compounded by the failure of the alarm systems on ECDIS to seriously alert the navigator that the GPS input has failed. The GPS failure alarm sounds the same as any other ECDIS alerts so it is very easy for a navigator to merely accept the alarm and take no further action. What I believe is required is a large red warning to be placed on the screen stating that the GPS has been lost and that the ECDIS is operating in DR mode which, even when acknowledged will reappear on the screen at regular intervals. Another alert could be set to appear if no manual position has been input at intervals determined by whether the vessel is in open or coastal waters or even better, have the magic ship position circle replaced by a flashing red “lost position” symbol similar to the lost target function on the radar.

Conclusion

The myth that if GPS fails the ECDIS becomes unusable has largely grown out of the manufacturers’ concentrating on GPS as the input and failing to provide the navigator with simple, easily accessible alternative positioning options However, with a back up such as e-LORAN, the potential need to for resorting to manual plotting will be reduced and further non GPS positional accuracy could be achieved by including the increasingly available Inertial Navigation Systems into ECDIS.

How missiles do it!!

Whilst researching this article I came across the following explanation of missile guidance from the US Airforce which I couldn’t resist including!

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn’t. By subtracting where it is from where it isn’t, or where it isn’t from where it is), it obtains a deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn’t, and arriving at a position where it wasn’t, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn’t, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn’t.

In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn’t, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn’t. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected. However, the missile must also know where it was.

The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn’t, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn’t, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn’t be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

Hmm! I wonder what Captain Cook would have made of that?          JCB

WMA have invested around £2.7M and have moved their manned model facility to a new purpose built site, after 31 years operating at Marchwood and in June the UKMPA were invited to the one of the opening events so on the 16th June despite an early rain shower, 5 committee members took the opportunity to explore the new facilities in 3 of the models and put their shiphanding skills to the test!

The Timsbury Lake incorporates the experience gained from the many years operating manned models at Marchwood and brings manned model training into the 21^st Century with new purpose built classroom facilities incorporating the latest ‘SMART’ board technology.

The new lake is similar in size to Marchwood (around 10 acres) however the shape is elongated and includes a number of harbour basins and a purpose built canal. The new berths are a mixture or ‘open’ and ‘solid’ berths which offer a huge variety of berthing options. Importantly, WMA also owns the 15 acres of mature woodland surrounding the lake, which helps hugely to mitigate the wind effects on the lake since, due to the model scaling, the wind effect on a 1/25^th scale model is increased by a factor of 5!

Timsbury Lake is shallower than Marchwood and ‘weed free’ due to the turbidity of the water. The lake is fed by a number of streams from a large catchment area and the level of the lake remains constant. There is some current flowing through the Lake, which varies depending on recent rainfall and some counter currents have been detected. All in all the lake is proving to be more challenging than Marchwood and has great potential.

Historically the Lake dates back to the 9^th Century when monks from Winchester constructed the dam and used the lake as a source of fresh water fish and later a medieval mill was powered by the water run off from the Lake. In more recent times the Lake has been used for ‘fish stock’ with numerous bunds having been constructed and has been a haunt for carp anglers. These bunds now form the many harbour areas within the Lake.

The planning process was reasonably straightforward and incorporated the latest control measures to protect the environment and the fascinating ecology found at the lake.

Timsbury Lake ran the first course on the 2^nd May and an Open day was held on 21^st/22^nd June for the official opening. Feedback from returning students has been extremely positive and the ‘old Portacabins’ have now been demolished!

T&TC Chairman Jonathan Mills (Medway) pilots ‘Endeavour’ round the Horseshoe bend shaping up for the Top end of the Canal with Nick Lee (London) at the controls.  Photo: Nigel Allen

Further information on the lake:

www.mannedmodels.com

Southampton Solent University Conference Centre.

Thursday 12^th May 2011

A PPU in use.        Photo: Navicom Dynamics

Over 100 delegates gathered to take part in this ‘landmark’ event.

The Solent Branch of the Nautical Institute, in conjunction with The Hydrographic Society UK (Southern Region), and the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots Association, played host to an International gathering of Maritime Pilots, Hydrographers, Marine consultants, Regulators, Harbour Masters, Manufacturers and Trainers, and many from other sectors of the Shipping, Port, and wider marine industries.

Portable Pilot Units (PPU’s) are now used in a number of ports to bring electronic charts and precise positioning together in a convenient and portable package for maritime pilots, more recently the addition of a broadband link has facilitated ‘real time information’ being available on the Pilot’s laptop to assist in onboard decision making. This flagship event allowed the exhibitors (manufacturers and trainers) to meet informally, for the first time on such a grand scale.

The Nautical Institute Solent Branch Chairman, Matt Winter FNI, welcomed the delegates, thanked them all for supporting the event, and explained the origins of the seminar.  He gave special mention to those who had travelled from overseas to participate; Alaska, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, and Western Australia were all represented.  He thanked the numerous sponsors for supporting the event and he hoped the seminar would make a positive contribution to safe piloting in ports worldwide.

Half of the delegates attending were Pilots. Three ‘Workshop events’ were provided by some of the exhibitors prior to the seminar.

The seminar was split into three ‘moderated’ sessions:

Portable Pilot Units – featured two presentations, the first by (Medway) Pilot Chris Griffiths, and the second by retired Dutch Pilot Maarten Betlem who is currently their R & D Advisor. Southampton Pilot Nigel Allen FNI moderated the subsequent discussion which included the following aspects

-Manoeuvering ever larger vessels in confined spaces was significantly aided by having available a ‘bird’s eye view’ of the vessel on a portable device with enhanced levels of accuracy

-Assisted by rapidly developing technology, the use of PPU’s satisfied the ‘by all available means’ requirements whereas the regulatory side significantly lagged these developments, which in turn created some perceived legal difficulties in their use aboard ships

-The question as to why it was deemed necessary to carry aboard one’s own navigation equipment was analised

-Training for PPU’s was seen as an essential element of investing in PPU’s.

-The desirability (or not) of minimum standards to avoid PPUs interfering with bridge equipment, .was discussed as was whether minimum IMO standards for PPUs are required.

-Another aspect concerned the possiblity of a PPU assisted collision/ grounding etc which was considered to  potentially  provide a lawyer’s field day!

ECDIS – this session featured two further presentations, the first delivered by Nigel Allen on behalf of Pilot John Clandillon-Baker FNI (PLA) who had unfortunately had to withdraw at a late stage due to medical reasons and the second by Freidhelm Moggert from the Seven Cs software company.

William Heaps (ABP’s Assistant Marine Advisor and Hydrographic Manager) moderated the subsequent discussion which included:

-Dangers of using ECDIS (untrained- poor set ups etc)

-The Legality of PPU’s.

-ENC’s versus ECDIS.

-BENCs (Bathymetric ENC’s using the latest available high density data)

-Master/ Pilot exchange

-Should pilots use hydrographic data from their own ports rather than UKHO approved data.

The Human Element and Training – comprised two presentations. The first was given by Harry Gale FNI (Technical Manager of the Nautical Institute), followed by Hamburg Pilot and Trainer, Sven Stemmler.

Professor Andy Norris FNI moderated this session which raised the following issues:

-The Legal/Training requirements for pilots for ECDIS.

-Is there a need for type specific training?

-How detailed does the generic training have to be? – developing an ECDIS mindset

-The need for all to embrace technology: ‘all available means’ etc

-Need for PPUs to use symbology familiar to bridge staff to enable cross referencing with ECDIS, etc

-The bridge team role of the pilot

The day proved to be a great success with all parties aware of the challenges facing the adoption of ECDIS and PPU’s.

The seminar was bought to a close by the Guest Speaker. Captain Robert McCabe FNI (Vice President of the Nautical Institute and Deputy Head of Marine Commissioners of Irish Lights)

Capt McCabe gave a brief History of the NI, shared his personal thoughts on the many positive benefits of NI membership and eloquently expressed his personal and very positive views on the day’s proceedings.  He then presented a number of prizes that had been generously donated by various sponsors including PPU software from Euronav and also Navicom Dynamics.

Matthew Winter

The Presentations are now  available for download from:

http://www.ths.org.uk/content.asp?management=true&page=44

The law of UK pilotage is governed almost entirely by statute -namely the Pilotage Act of 1987. This is but the latest in a series of statutes (or Acts) which have been maintained since the 18th century and before.

In saying that, pilotage is governed almost entirely by statute law but ‘almost’ is, however, a big word. In the case of any parliamentary statute, due interpretation of the precise words set out in the Act is a matter for  the courts.

The introduction of the Act of 1987 brought sweeping changes in pilotage law, while at the same time altering nothing in the Master /pilot relationship. Most of the changes related to shore based administration which is where present concerns lie.

An indication that little, if anything, has changed on the bridge of a ship is found in a study of two leading cases. The first is the Esso Bernicia ,which was heard in the House of Lords in 1988. The facts of the case had arisen as far back as December 1978 -long before the 1987 Act had been conceived -and the case was therefore considered under the Pilotage Act of 1913, which was subsumed temporarily into an Act of 1983 and finally repealed altogether on the enactment of the 1987 Act in October 1988.

The case involved an inward bound tanker under compulsory pilotage with three tugs in attendance. The pilot was, unusually at the time, an employee of the harbour authority. One tug caught fire and her tow-rope was cast off. In consequence, the vessel, instead of berthing safely, struck the berth for which she was making. Damage was caused to both the vessel and the berth.

The shipowners pursued the builders of the tug (alleging a design fault therein). The tug builders sought to hold the harbour authority vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the pilot. ‘Not so’, said the House of Lords. It was held that even where a pilot might serve under a contract of employment with a harbour authority, the 1913 Act held that a pilot serves a ship as an independent professional who acts as a principal and not as the servant or agent of any general employer; and the harbour authority was therefore not liable for the negligence (if any) of the pilot.

Come 1993, a new case had arisen, namely the Cavendish, in which shipowners sought to hold a harbour authority liable for the negligence of an employed pilot, claiming that the introduction of the 1987 Act had changed the legal position. Owners claimed that because the new Act obliged a harbour authority (for the first time) to offer terms of employment to a pilot, the usual terms of vicarious liability applicable to any employer should now apply in pilotage. Not so, said Mr Justice Anthony Clarke in the High Court. The new Act alters nothing. A pilot remains an independent principal by virtue of the fact that, when engaged in piloting, he serves the ship first and foremost: and (in express terms) no man can serve two masters. (St Matthew, Chapter 6 verse 24.) This rather begs the question of why any pilot should accept the burden of a contract of employment with a harbour authority.

1996 saw the Sea Empress disaster at Milford Haven and the subsequent criminal prosecution of the harbour authority for the pollution of a waterway. The Pilotage Act was considered in great detail, and the harbour authority pleaded guilty to the charge which was before the court in 1999.

The presiding judge of the Admiralty Court (when passing sentence) made the following observations of principle:

‘The significance of these matters is all the greater in the context of a scheme of compulsory pilotage. Shipowners and masters must needs take a pilot. They have to take the training, experience and expertise of the pilot provided at face value. While the master remains nominally in command it has to be accepted that the pilot had the “con” and a master can only intervene when a situation of danger has clearly arisen. The port authority imposes a charge for pilotage but in the same breath has the added advantage of the pilot being treated for purposes of civil liability as an employee of the shipowner. All this calls for the highest possible standards on the part of the port authority.’

It might therefore be thought that the Sea Empress principle (which was acknowledged with approval in the Court of Appeal in April 2000, even though the level of fine upon the harbour authority was reduced substantially) would act as a wake-up call to all harbour authorities, particularly in compulsory pilotage areas. Unfortunately not, which is where the present concerns germinate.

The following year, in June 2001, a harbour authority in a compulsory  pilotage area  gave notice of disqualification to all of its authorised pilots, without exception, to be effective within less than eight months. Regulated standards of experience required at the port prior to qualification for the pilotage of ships of unlimited tonnage were measured (as at most major ports, including Milford Haven) in terms of four years or more and compliance with the regulated standards by replacement pilots within the few months available would clearly be a chronological impossibility. Did the Department for Transport (DfT) intervene in order to uphold the Sea Empress ‘highest possible standards’ in compulsory pilotage areas principle, identified so recently? Er, no. It did not.

In 2003 the International Maritime Organisation (to which the UK is a Signatory) adopted Resolution A960, which provided that in pilotage matters signatory States should ‘enforce the maintenance of developed standards’. Has the DfT yet done so? Answer: No, it has not. A representative of the Department has, however, admitted that if a little more pressure is applied, then it might be moved to intervene in the name of propriety and sanity. And that, dear readers, is the reason why questions are today being asked in the House.

This article has been edited from one which first appeared in the June issue of the Nautilus “Telegraph” and is reproduced with their kind permission.

Barrie Youde is a former Liverpool pilot who is now a specialist pilotage Lawyer. He has undertaken work for the UKMPA and Circle Insurance on behalf of members.

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of the UKMPA.