A typical ECDIS console

At the end of 2008, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee approved the mandatory carriage of ECDIS for SOLAS vessels. The requirements are for ECDIS to be phased in for different classes of vessels between 2012 and 2018. One year on from the decision we are already seeing many vessels being fitted with electronic charts so pilots need to be aware of what is now becoming the primary on board navigation system. At first glance the electronic chart seems wonderful, your own ship is displayed on a computer screen sitting nicely in its exact position on the chart. But, is it real or is it an illusion?

Navigation by means of a fully approved ECDIS is totally different from traditional navigation using paper charts and requires detailed knowledge of the functions in order to ensure safe navigation yet, whereas traditional chartwork formed a major element of a deck officer’s navigation exams, electronic charts are being placed on board ships and officers are frequently expected to teach themselves how to use them in their own time by use of a thick and confusing manual. The situation is further complicated by the fact that different manufacturers provide different operating systems and features and so a watchkeeper could be fully competent in using one system but may then be transferred to another vessel with a totally different charting system. Currently, there appears to be considerable confusion over whether or not the electronic chart being displayed is an “official” ECDIS running an approved ENC ( Electronic Navigational Chart), an unapproved ECS (Electronic Charting System) or a RCDS (Raster Chart Display System). Unapproved systems must not be used for navigation but since they are usually located on the bridge front and even fitted into integrated bridge consoles they are commonly used as the primary navigation resource! I have frequently seen unauthorised electronic charts with a warning notice “Not to be used for navigation” fitted into the bridge console with the passage route displayed. There will be a set of paper charts on the chart table fully corrected up to date so the ship isn’t breaking any rules but it is obvious that many watchkeepers will just cast a glance at the electronic chart and be reassured that the ship is on-track. Even worse, some incidents have revealed that watchkeepers have trusted the position provided by such unauthorised systems despite conflicting visual and radar information. Such misguided trust is a human failing not limited to ship’s watchkeepers since vehicle drivers using electronic navigation systems will happily take articulated lorries down farm tracks or the wrong way down one-way streets!

Unfortunately, without comprehensive training in the ECDIS concept, such misguided trust on board ship is usually disastrous and tragically will almost inevitably result in fatalities.

Raster and Vector Electronic Charts

As the official ECDIS is phased in, one of the major problems is that for the last 15 years manufacturers have been producing electronic chart systems to a variety of differing standards and there are currently two totally different formats: Raster & Vector.

A raster chart is basically a scan of a paper chart

A Raster Navigation Chart (RNC) is basically a digitally scanned paper chart and the electronic chart database will be identical to a paper chart folio and the user license provides the relevant folios and corrections for a particular area with new editions being issued in an identical manner to those for paper charts. Raster charts are never approved for navigation. However, just to add a bit more confusion into the issue, the IMO permits raster charts to be used on an official ECDIS which can operate an approved Raster Chart Display System (RCDS).  The ECDIS can therefore be used to display a raster chart in areas where ENC data is not available or the full ENC license hasn’t been purchased. However, when in RCDS mode a warning should appear on the ECDIS screen and paper charts for the area must be carried and corrected up to date. This potentially dangerous “dual fuel” (as it is known) option will probably rapidly disappear rapidly as hydrographic offices complete the world database of approved ENC data since if a ship gets orders to proceed to an area not covered by its existing ENC license then, rather than keep paper chart folios and also pay for raster chart folios for the ECDIS, the ship will just have to email the chart supplier for the key to the additional areas and the access codes will be sent and the owners charged accordingly. Last year an interesting spat arose between the UKHO and an innovative chart supplier over the issue of access codes that I will cover later.

There are two main advantages with the raster chart. Firstly, they are cheap and so they have been a popular choice with ship owners. Indeed some Masters, whose owners are reluctant to invest in anything unnecessary, carry their own raster charts on a laptop with a cheap, low grade, GPS aerial plugged in. Such charts are usually from a somewhat dubious source. I have seen such laptops running charts that are at least ten years out of date. The Captain of course always states, “No no Mr. Pilot, not used for navigation. Paper charts all correct in chart room”!

The other advantage of a raster charts is that since it is a scanned version of a traditional paper chart the chart display is totally familiar to the navigator. However, this scanned format also represents the greatest drawback of the raster chart in that by being displayed on a small screen data which may be clear on a large paper chart may be lost and whilst switching to the larger scale chart for the area may clarify detail, the important overview of the passage ahead is lost whilst the alternative of “zooming in” on the smaller scale chart generally produces distortion. Another problem frequently arises in areas where two charts overlap where the software may become confused and the navigator then has to locate and manually input the correct chart from the database.

A typical small vessel bridge showing an unapproved ECS at the conning position

Vector charts are far more complex  being totally seamless and built from several different “layers” which cause additional features such as depth data to appear as the operator zooms in and therefore provides a less congested display on the smaller scales. However, in their wisdom the authorities have set the minimum screen display size at a tiny 27cm x 27cm which is about 1/4 the size of a paper chart so zooming in considerably reduces the view ahead for the passage and there is therefore a recommended optimum layer range set for navigation. The main danger of this layering function is that chart corrections and notices to mariners information is only required to be displayed on this optimum layer for navigation as decided by the ECDIS specifications. This results in another major disadvantage in that passage planning becomes more complex since a navigator will use a small scale display to plan a port to port passage but must then check the whole route at the largest scale in order to ensure that no hazards or obstructions are overlooked. I have now piloted many ships operating without paper charts and this factor is a common complaint amongst the watchkeepers using them.  Indeed many of these vessels still use paper planning charts for this reason, which reveals another problem in that some of the newly constructed vessels designed to operate without paper charts aren’t fitted with a chart table!!

However, once a safe passage route has been identified the advantages of the vector chart become evident because the chart display can then be configured specifically to the vessel’s parameters. Depth contours and “no-go” areas can be tailored to the ship’s particulars and hazards highlighted with alarms that can be activated if the vessel strays from the intended track or when approaching a hazard. The provision of  AIS overlay permits anti collision parameters to be set and radar and other data can be input and overlaid on the screen. Such features represent the great advantage of the vector chart and offer considerable potential to enhance safety but, in untrained hands, is can also be its greatest weakness. Because of its three dimensional functionality using layers of “objects” the techniques for navigating on a vector chart are totally different to the traditional paper chart methodology and so the comprehensive training in their use is paramount for the transition from a two dimensional paper chart.

This vector chart is an “AECDIS 2000″ but it isn’t an “approved” ECDIS and therefore must not be used for navigation so why is there a passage track on it?

Are all vector charts ENC’s?

Simple answer: NO! Whilst official ENC data is only supplied in vector format the vast majority of existing vector charts have been created by manufacturers using their own methodology for transferring data from existing paper charts into vector format. If this data hasn’t been provided by an approved hydrographic office using the authorised S-57 format then such vector charts are only classified as ECS and therefore cannot be used in place of paper charts.

Is an ECDIS an ENC?

A common misconception is that an ECDIS is an actual chart. In fact it is basically a display system meeting the strict specifications required to display the ENC data supplied by the approved HO’s. The following is the official definition for ECDIS:

IMO Resolution MSC 232 (82) defines an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) as: “a navigation information system which with adequate back-up arrangements can be accepted as complying with the up-to-date chart required by regulations V/19 and V/27 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, as amended, by displaying selected information from a System Electronic Navigational Chart (SENC) with positional information from navigation sensors to assist the mariner in route planning and route monitoring, and if required display additional navigation-related information”.

An ECDIS also has to meet specific performance standards which are laid down in IMO Resolution A/817. This resolution describes the minimum performance standards for ECDIS, with reference to hardware, software, ENC and updates, user interface, integration with positioning sensors such as radar and other devices, etc.

The technical standards are set by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and it is the responsibility of the Classification Societies to assess whether a particular  ECDIS installation is compliant. Systems that comply with all requirements get a “Type Approval” certificate from the Classification Society and only such Type Approved installations can legitimately be called ECDIS.

An important point to note here is that an ECDIS can only be used in place of paper charts if the information being displayed is sourced from an ENC converted by a SENC. Confusing? Yes, because although manufacturers may fit type approved ECDIS, the ship owner, having fitted an ECDIS unit in anticipation of future carriage requirements, may not purchase licenses for ENC’s until legally required to do so and the chart may therefore only be a basic Electronic Chart System (ECS). So, until all vessels are finally fitted with “approved” systems over the next 8 years mariners in general and pilots in particular will be faced with a mix of approved and non approved electronic charts.

There is also a requirement for a back up system in case of ECDIS failure. The specifictions state

The purpose of an ECDIS back-up system is to ensure that safe navigation is not compromised in the event of ECDIS failure. This should include a timely transfer to the back-up system during critical navigation situations. The back- up system shall allow the vessel to be navigated safely until the termination of the voyage.

What’s the difference between ENC & SENC?

MSC 232 provides the following definitions:

ENC: means the database, standardised as to content, structure and format, for charting and updates issued for use with ECDIS by or on the authority of a Government, authorised Hydrographic Office or other relevant government institution, and which conforms to an IHO standard known as S-57/3. The ENC contains all the chart information necessary for safe navigation. On the ship, S-57/3 data is loaded into the ECDIS in a dedicated storage area, called the ENC database.

SENC:

Since the S-57/3 format is not suitable for data processing, the ECDIS has to

convert the ENC into a different format referred to as SENC. The resulting data is then loaded into a separate SENC database from where it is accessed by the chart display and navigational

functions of ECDIS and this database may also contain information added by the mariner or from other sources.

The ECDIS manufacturer may choose whatever format and database structure for the SENC, provided that the ENC data is not downgraded in accuracy and/or contents during the conversion process.

The ECDIS structure is best explained in the following diagram which I obtained from an excellent website on ECDIS at the following link:

www.fuerstenberg-dhg.de/index.php?&L=1

There are some concerns that the SENC is a potential weak link in the integrity of the ECDIS installation since the final chart display presented to the watchkeeper is in the hands of the ECDIS manufacturers rather than the Hydrographic Offices. There is also the fact that when corrections or new charting editions are sent to the ship the conversion process can take a long time during which time the ECDIS cannot be used. To overcome this the manufacturers are increasingly offering a service to convert the ENC data to SENC ashore. In a recent paper,  Dr. Fosco Bianchetti (President & CEO of C-Map) detailed the problems associated with the ENC’s and the conversion process within and ECDIS and why he believes that the conversion to SENC should be undertaken ashore rather than on board the ship. The following is an edited extract from his paper which can be found at the following link: www.thsoa.org/hy99/A_5.pdf

“The problem is that the SENC is generated by the ECDIS, and never tested before being used by the ECDIS itself. It may be argued that the SENC Compiler, as part of a type-approved ECDIS, has undergone a severe testing procedure and is therefore assumed to be robust, reliable and exact. Nevertheless there is always a certain degree of uncertainty in format conversion, that could result in partial data loading, unexpected behaviour of the ECDIS, or  a system crash.  Also, the conversion of a large amount of data may be a lengthy affair, and could absorb a large part of the ECDIS resources, maybe right in the moment in which the system is performing a critical computation or analysis. The lack of official ENC’s makes things worse. Even if a number of Hydrographic Offices have started ambitious programs of ENC production, very few official electronic charts in S-57/3 format currently available. The result is that ECDIS users have to supplement ENC data with non-ENC electronic charts. This is the concept of the so-called “dual-fuel ECDIS. Since the ECDIS operates in non-equivalent mode when using non-ENC charts, S-52 and the IMO Performance Standards require that these are not mixed with the ENC and therefore, they must be loaded in the ECDIS into a separate storage area (‘Non-ENC information’ in the diagram) and must remain clearly distinguishable from official charts even after compilation in the SENC. It must be stressed that quality of non-ENC charts may vary to a large extent, and their format may be very different from S-57/3 and this adds further complications (and potential problems) to the task of the SENC Compiler that has to blend various electronic charts with different features into a single database”.

In order to address these issues, not surprisingly, C-MAP have come up with a solution in the latest version of their product known as CM 93/3 which produces the SENC format ashore in a format which I understand has type approval from DNV. Dr Bianchetti explains.

The advantages of this approach are obvious. All format conversions, as well as the difficult task of harmonising and merging data from different sources, are performed at C-MAP facilities, under strictly controlled conditions, and not by the ECDIS installed on board. All data delivered to ships is double checked in advance, in the format in which it will be actually used by the ECDIS, to ensure that it is fully functional and does not contain ‘unwanted surprises’. Any error affecting the source electronic charts is detected (and, if possible, corrected) by C-MAP, instead of being just passed off to the user. As regards the theoretical issue of whether the original ENC in S-57/3 format should be physically present in the ECDIS or not, there are a number of considerations that could mitigate such requirement, or lead to a different interpretation of it:

• The only purpose for the ENC to exist on board is generating the SENC. In fact, whatever operation performed by the ECDIS on electronic chart data pertains to the SENC, not the ENC. Therefore, existence of the ENC in the ECDIS is purposeless, if the conversion to SENC has been already performed under controlled conditions, by a SENC compiler that is part of a type-approved ECDIS.
• S-52 and the IMO PS require that data is not downgraded in accuracy and/or contents during the conversion from ENC to SENC, meaning that ENC and SENC are logically equivalent to each other. At this point, any ENC stored in the ECDIS would represent a mere duplication of the corresponding SENC.
• Based on the above consideration, the theoretical requirement of having the ENC physically present in the ECDIS could be fulfilled by the capability of the SENC compiler to perform a back conversion (i.e. from SENC to ENC).

An approved ECDIS chart. Note the crowded screen!

Operation

When an ECDIS is switched on the watchkeeper is presented with a “standard display” which will consist of the largest scale available in the SENC for the displayed area. The navigator can then build on that display and taylor it to his own watch keeping needs. The specifications require that the ECDIS can be returned to the standard display by means of a “single operator action”.

However, this standard display will not show all the features that you would expect to see on the paper chart. For example features such as submarine cables and spot depths aren’t there and although navigation marks are shown their characteristics aren’t so the navigator needs to know how to access and display this important additional data from the menu system.

For passage planning the navigator first needs to ensure that the ECDIS contains all the necessary charts for the passage and it is here that an interesting argument has developed between a chart supplier and the UKHO. In 2009 an authorised Dutch ENC supply company introduced a sort of “pay as you go” charging plan called ENCTrack that basically permitted free access to all ENC’s but only required the ship owner to pay licence fee for those he actually used on passage.

The UKHO, along with some other approved HO’s halted the launch of this service on the basis that the licensing of any chart should start on the commencement of the planning process; that is, “when it is ‘first used’ in the vital and mandated process of assessing the data available to enable a voyage plan to be prepared”.

In contrast, ‘ENCTrack’ considers the chart’s ‘first use’ to be when the vessel is passing through the chart region, not when the mariner starts his planning process with those same charts.  The UKHO argument is that when preparing a passage plan a navigating officer is making informed decisions affecting ship safety from consulting all the charts and the embedded additional information relevant to his plan so licences should be purchased for all the charts not just for a narrow track over which the vessel actually passes. However, not all HO’s agree with the UKHO position on this and consequently at the time of writing Datema have launched a limited ENCTrack service with those HO’s.  Interestingly, despite the objections, Datema have recently won an award as a “Value Added” reseller of ENC’s. This case highlights just one of the many issues that need to be resolved within the next two years.

Once the navigator has the relevant charts he can now set his waypoints and save the passage in the database and  should back this up in case of failure of the primary system. He can then set the safe depth parameters and the ECDIS can then be set to highlight the appropriate contours for the passage. Undertaking the passage and the quirks of ECDIS for navigation will be covered in part 2 in the April issue.

Don’t forget to pay!                   photo: N Allen

Of course, having the shiny new ECDIS with the relevant chart folios is only the initial element of chart work since the ENCs stored in a SENC require regularly updating. and it is here that some further unresolved complications arise. Updating data can either be made by sending a CD ROM by post, or by data transfer using satellite or mobile phone. Because of the large size of files associated with the updates the latter mode, although preferable is currently expensive, also upon receipt, data transferred by satellite or mobile phone must be burnt on to a CD ROM before the ENC can be updated. The CD ROM is necessary for keeping a hard copy of the update available. The cheaper option of updating by post,  apart from the obvious problem of time delays, also could result in some updates being missed.  This is serious because updates are sequential and if one is missing the update procedure can not be completed until the missing previous updates have been applied.

Even when the CD is received on board there is evidence that the updating process is not always simple and can take considerable time. It also appears that on many systems there is no confirmation that the update has been successful without the navigator having to subsequently check in the folio database for each chart affected which represents a total waste of a busy watchkeeper’s time and totally annuls one of the fundamental advantages claimed for ECDIS.

For urgent navigation warnings  ECDIS specifications require that they can be manually updated but again I understand that on many systems this can be a time consuming and fiddly process with no standard input procedure. These problems are well known and the following somewhat alarming information is taken from the latest (January 2010) ECDIS guidance CD issued by the UKHO:

Updates for UKHO ENCs are issued weekly in line with UKHO policy for all its navigational charts, paper and electronic. Due to unforeseen technical difficulties, ENC updates may occasionally be issued late and consequently may not be synchronised with the corresponding Notices to Mariners and updates for paper and ARCS charts. Updates are issued for all Permanent Chart-Correcting and Preliminary Notices to Mariners. However, it may not always be possible to issue updates for Temporary Notices to Mariners, especially those that cover large geographical areas and are not chart specific. Mariners should consult the paper weekly Notices to Mariners booklet or the UKHO website, http://www.nms.ukho.gov.uk/, for details of these Notices to Mariners.

So it appears we have a situation where the ECDIS updates may not contain the latest warnings and may even be missing some altogether! I wonder just how many officers have either the time or inclination to check the printed weekly NtM’s to check that their ECDIS information is complete? My estimation would be zero!

Another worrying aspect of the updating process is that once applied these are not shown in the traditional manner associated with paper charts but with a new symbology of a polygon with an exclamation mark in it placed in the general area of the notice. The notice will only appear on the “recommended” range scale for a particular ENC so won’t appear if the display is zoomed in or out! The following is again from the UKHO:

The display shows red polygons around the locations of NMs, along with the NM number. T&P NMs are shown with the NM number used in the Admiralty NM Bulletin, including the (T) or (P) designator. EP NMs are shown with (EP) in the number and using numbers that do not conflict with existing paper NMs. All NMs are linked to specific ENCs and will only display when the linked ENC is displayed. This means that as the user zooms in or out to scales at which the NM is no longer relevant, it will be removed from the screen.

Attached to each polygon is the full text of the NM, which can be viewed using the ECDIS pick report. In addition, complex NMs have an attached diagram or picture that helps explain the situation and is available directly from the ECDIS.

So we currently have a situation where the ECDIS NtM’s aren’t synchronised with the printed NtM’s and the information is displayed in an unfamiliar format that has to be interrogated to reveal its content. Feedback from users also reveals concerns that these polygons add further clutter to an already crowded display especially if they contain information not relevant to their particular vessel.

System Stability

An ECDIS is a computer and as such its stability is dependent upon the processing power available. Like all computers, over a period of time the ECDIS memory will fill up and require clearing out. As the memory fill then processing of information will slow and sometimes freeze and the ECDIS will require a re-boot. Obviously this is far from ideal if the vessel is in a busy shipping lane when such computer “issues” occur.

Additional Navigational Information

As part of an integrated system an ECDIS can be interfaced to overlay Radar and AIS data on the charted. Other items such as passage planning tools can be added to the ECDIS database and accessed as required. However, information software is not automatically supplied with the ENC so has to be purchased separately at additional cost. Examples of planning overlays are tide and weather information, sailing directions, port arrival information etc. The disadvantage of such services is that they are often produced by different software providers so the incompatibility problems associated with any computer software on different platforms can arise and of course additional software uses up memory and processing power. To combat this the ECDIS suppliers are increasingly offering such additional software packages specifically tailored to their equipment.

The striped lines on this ECDIS diplay alert the user that he is not using the “recommended” scale!

Training

As can be gleaned from all the aforementioned factors, the safe and efficient operation of ECDIS requires officers to not only be aware of the basic principles of ECDIS operation but they must also be fully conversant with their particular installation.

So, with an estimated 500,000 officers requiring such training before 2018, how is the Industry addressing this training issue? Well as is traditional for the Maritime world the situation is confusing because there is currently no mandatory IMO requirement for watchkeepers to attend ECDIS courses. However, under STCW95  a navigation officer must possess “a thorough knowledge of and ability to use navigational charts and publications…” He must show “..evidence of skills and ability to prepare for and conduct a passage, including interpretation and applying information from charts”.

In an annexe to the STCW95 requirements ECDIS is classified as a “chart” so under the ISM code ship owners have an obligation to ensure that their officers are trained to use ECDIS. Consequently, there is a requirement that all the watchkeepers serving on board any ship which has replaced its paper charts with an approved ECDIS system must have been formally trained in its use. Despite not formally requiring training, the IMO have proposed a syllabus for ECDIS courses and the major navigational institutions are now offering generic ECDIS courses but which currently vary in length between two and five days. Considering how traditional chartwork formed such a major element of a navigator’s training there is increasing concern that the existing courses are woefully inadequate for a watchkeeper to practically comply with the STCW95 requirements. These concerns are enhanced by the generic nature of these courses which cover the basic principles ECDIS but cannot possibly provide  an officer with the necessary competencies required to operate a particular manufacturer’s ECDIS. Since the regulations leave the manufacturers free to decide how the SENC information is displayed and the multitude of functions accessed, we are entering the age of ECDIS with a similar incompatible and confusing variety of ECDIS operating systems as currently exists with the myriad of radar operating systems on today’s bridges!

The IMO are currently proposing that ECDIS training will be a specific requirement in the revised STCW code, scheduled for adoption this year but again this will be generic rather than type specific and so will probably just serve to formalise the existing ad-hoc training courses.

The best ship owners are addressing these issues by sending their officers on type specific courses under their ISM compliance requirements but even such well trained officers may not be fully competent to use another manufacturer’s equipment if he transfers to another ship or company.

Other ship owners are sending officers for the basic training but passing the buck back to the ship by issuing ISM instructions that watchkeepers must familiarise themselves with the ECDIS using the manufacturers handbook. Since some of these can be over 500 pages in length and not easily understood, even by officers who have the advantage of English as a first language such training methodology is unlikely to provide the requisite competency. At the bottom end of the scale the vast majority of ship owners are awaiting the mandatory carriage dates for their fleets and somewhat unsurprisingly there is a growing concern that the authorised training establishments will not be able to cope with the last minute rush! I am already aware of one company which having purchased a coastal tanker from an owner who had fitted an ECDIS system had placed paper charts on board rather than incur the cost of sending the new officers on a training course. Another reason might have been that his crew agency were unable to supply ECDIS trained officers who, if available at all, are no doubt currently at a premium!

Given the track record of some crew supply agencies I think that we can expect to see a lot of forged ECDIS certificates appearing in the near future.

What about pilots?

Given all the complexities of ECDIS and the myriad of different operating systems the advice to pilots is that an ECDIS should never be used as the primary navigation tool for pilotage.

Finally my thanks go to Harry Gale of the Nautical Institute for permission to freely use information from the NI publication “From paper charts to ECDIS” which is the best publication on ECDIS available at this time. See my review in the April 2009 issue.

JCB

PS This article has been compiled from a wide variety of different sources and so my interpretation may not be totally correct. Please let me know if you find any errors in order that I can correct them accordingly.

]]> http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2010/03/09/ecdis-electronic-chart-display-and-information-system-part1-how-ecdis-works/feed/ 0 http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2010/03/09/criminalisation-of-the-maritime-pilot/ http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2010/03/09/criminalisation-of-the-maritime-pilot/#comments Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:38:33 +0000 JCB http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/?p=3309 By: François Laffoucrière.

In previous issues I have covered the alarming trend of criminalising seafarers and pilots and despite the protestations from IMO General Secretary Efthimios Mitropoulos, criminal prosecutions for maritime accidents, especially those involving pollution are on the increase. The following is a a paper on the issues relevant to pilots presented to IMPA by French pilot and Maritime lawyer, François Laffoucrière. Although it would appear from this paper that in the UK only the Captain & ship owner would be prosecuted for pollution, the 1991 Water Resources Act establishes offences of polluting controlled waters, the main offence being “to cause or knowingly permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid matter to enter any controlled waters”. There have been many reports of accidents during cargo operations resulting in minor pollution where the ship has been detained whilst the hapless Captain has been arrested and fast tracked into a local magistrate’s court and fined under the WRA prior to the vessel being released. Contrast this with the situation when a shore installation causes pollution where Company Directors are never arrested and the company may eventually face a token fine!

The UKMPA has been concerned for many years that in the case of an accident involving pollution the pilot, being the one who has conduct of  a vessel, could face criminal prosecution under the WRA for the same reasons that the French pilots are concerned over their Code de L’Environment. Pilots should therefore take careful note of this paper.

What does “criminalisation” mean?

It is a process consisting in transferring the qualification of damage from a different category to a criminal one. For the Pilot, it means that in the past another person was prosecuted – either the Captain or the Ship-owner – or no prosecution was carried out – minor offence or less pressure – or else the qualification upheld was civil – what mattered was repair. From civil liability requiring damage directly linked to a cause, criminalisation establishes penal liability for which a material fact, the actus reus – a law infringement even without any damage – must be accompanied in principle by a psychological element, the mens rea – intention or recklessness. Even in a criminal offence of “strict liability”, which is normally minor, some elements of the crime require mens rea.

A judgment of the Piraeus District Tribunal dated the 28th of January 2008, in the case of the “Grande Europa”, sentenced the Pilot and the Captain of the ship for the negligent infringement of the Collision Regulations. The ship had only hit an unchartered underwater obstacle, but the Tribunal, without having stated which rule was not complied with, decided that the men were guilty.

Why is criminalisation happening?

This is due to a general context resulting from a lesser level of acceptance by the general public when faced with maritime pollution. Since the accident of the “Exxon Valdez” in the USA in 1989, and the accidents in Europe of the “Erika” in 1999 and of the “Prestige” in 2000, polluters must be punished no matter what. Criminalisation is also the consequence of a political will to prevent such pollution from happening again by deterring unacceptable behaviour and by eliminating “rogue” operators. To this, the 9/11 syndrome has to be added.

What is the process leading to criminalisation?

It can be sighted at three different levels. The first one, international, involves the rules 4.2 – formerly 11(b) – of Annex I and 3.2 of Annex II of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. These rules refer to the Captain or the Ship-owner only, and solely for pollution damage they wilfully caused, or due to “recklessness knowing that such damage will probably occur”. Article 230 of the Montego Bay Convention only allows for fines to be inflicted unless the pollution caused in the territorial waters is intentional and severe. Pollution, even a black tide, is not enough to be made a criminal offence and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, ensures the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

At the Community level, the European Directive 2005/35/EC transposes MARPOL into Community law, disregarding M. Mitropoulos’ remarks. The Directive clashes with International law on two accounts because it adds the gross negligence as a psychological element of the offence that can now be attributed to more people than just the Captain or the Ship-owner. A major change occurred with two judgments by the ECJ giving the EC legislative competence in criminal matters. The proposal for a directive, COD(2008)/0055, amending Directive 2005/35/EC, sets minimal sanctions and the EP’s 1st reading report even suggested amending the text from gross negligence to negligence. Simple negligence would suffice to be criminally sanctioned. In addition, with the proposal for a Directive COD(2007)/0022, Member States would have to impose criminal sanctions for certain acts causing serious damage to the environment.

At the national level, according to a 2006 BIMCO study, France, with its “Code de l’Environnement”, has the most severe regime in Europe. Pilots in that country are concerned with the possibility that its Article L218-19 could be applied to them. Should the pilots in France be considered as actually having the conduct of the ship, they would be criminally sanctioned as direct actors of the damage if accidental pollution occurred. If not, the pilot could still be considered as an indirect actor, but then in order to establish guilt it would be necessary to prove that he/she deliberately violated a specific obligation of prudence or safety provided by a related act, or that he/she committed a legally defined error which put others at a particularly serious risk that he/she could not ignore.

In the UK, where MARPOL is strictly adhered to, it seems that only the Captain or the Ship-owner can be criminally prosecuted for pollution, and only if it is intentional.

What are the effects of criminalisation?

One of the possible effects mentioned by Mr. Mitropoulos is the deterrent effect on people wanting to embrace a maritime career. It would be catastrophic as the industry is already facing a shortage of officers. The maritime world is basically unanimous on this aspect. Another devastating effect is the impossibility for the offender to be insured for the consequences of criminal liability when this possibility is offered in the case of civil liability. P&I Clubs usually pay the fines inflicted on Captains when there is an absence of will in the offence, but there is little chance to see this happening for pilots. This could lead to over cautiousness with a damaging effect on the fluidity of the traffic which in turn would have negative economic consequences.

One solution: legal protection cover.

The only realistic solution for pilots at present, since they are faced with this wave of criminalisation, is to recourse to legal protection insurance. The possibility to gain access to a renowned and efficient lawyer is becoming the only way for him to get out of a situation where he should have never been put in the first place. The funds required to enable him to get proper defence are not of the kind an uninsured pilot can afford. Therefore, legal protection cover becomes the pilot’s lifeboat.

The view of the UKMPA is that the pilot must have the “conduct” of the ship, although the Master retains command. The following identifies the key factors relevant to the “tripping” situation and is edited from an opinion provided to the UKMPA by Barrie Youde.

Can a Competent Harbour Authority legally instruct an authorised pilot to lend out the conduct of the navigation to an underdraught or unlicensed pilot or any other person at any time?

• The powers of a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) are created by the 1987 Pilotage Act. By Section 2 of the Act a CHA has the duty to provide pilotage services which it considers necessary, including the power to impose compulsory pilotage. The duty of a CHA in pilotage is limited to that of providing a duly authorised and qualified pilot.
• Although the CHA has both the statutory duty and the power to provide an authorised pilot, it has neither the duty nor the power to provide an unauthorised pilot.
• In previous cases the Courts have identified the principle that a pilot is an independent professional who serves as a principal, identified also the principle that no man can serve two masters. Thus, when a pilot is engaged by a shipmaster to serve a ship, there is nobody who has the power to relieve the pilot against his will, save only the shipmaster who has engaged him.
• Section 17(3) provides that If an unauthorised person pilots a ship within a harbour knowing that an authorised pilot has offered to pilot it, he shall be guilty of an offence. It follows that if a CHA were to order/arrange/suggest/propose to an unauthorised person that he should conduct the pilotage of any ship which an authorised pilot has offered to serve, then the CHA would be inciting a criminal offence. This provision applies in any harbour, whether pilotage might be compulsory or not.
• For all of those reasons, a CHA has no power whatsoever to order an authorised pilot to “lend out” the conduct of the navigation to an under-qualified, under-draught or unlicensed pilot or any other person.

Would an authorised pilot be acting outside the law if he were to give the conduct to somebody else without the agreement of the Master?

• During the course of training it is common practice for an authorised pilot to hand over the conduct to a trainee pilot. The basis on which he does so is one of supervision so the authorised pilot retains the conduct the whole time. In those circumstances it is a matter of courtesy for a pilot to mention the matter to the master.
• If, however, the authorised pilot were to hand the conduct to the unqualified trainee and then to absent himself from the navigation altogether without the master’s permission, then he almost certainly would be acting unlawfully.
• The legality or otherwise of handing the con to a trainee depends, therefore, upon the extent to which the authorised pilot in fact maintains a proper supervisory role. Provided, that the pilot retains a proper supervisory role over the trainee, ready instantly to intervene, then it cannot be said that the authorised pilot acts unlawfully.
• A point to note is, however, that if damage might be done or if an incident might arise at a time when a trainee has the con, under proper supervision or not, it would be the authorised pilot who would be answerable both to his CHA and to the shipowner.

A second meeting was held in the afternoon and UKMPA Chairman, Joe Wilson, was joined by Don for a one to one meeting with the Ian Timpson. This constructive meeting, again relevant to the DMNB, brought the DfT up to date with the appalling lack of progress over the last 10 years in properly utilising the National Occupation Standards (NOS) and progressing towards the desired national Pilotage Competence Certificate which was supposed to have come into being on 1st January 2010.  Joe and Don provided Ian with anecdotal evidence from members that a Class 1 Certificate of Competency combined with a Pilotage Authorisation is considered to be broadly equivalent to a Master’s degree and emphasised that a pilot’s qualification should therefore be at least equivalent to that standard. It was a pleasure to be able to advise the Dft that last month our Training and Technical committee had completed a review of the NOS. The new team at Port Skills and Safety (PSS) are keen to progress the matter (as we have heard more than once before over the years) but as a result of this meeting with Ian Timpson, the UKMPA should be meeting with PSS soon to determine the specific strategy to be adopted in order to finally bring this outstanding, post Sea Empress, goal to fruition.

IMO Nav 55: Pilot Transfer Arrangements.

Background

During Nav 45 in the summer of 1996 there was an attempt to remove pilot boarding arrangements from SOLAS V Regulation 17 and downgrade it to a code. This was reversed and it was re-inserted in Regulation 23 and strengthened by Resolution A889. During Nav 55 we further strengthened the boarding arrangements and I believe our gains will save lives and reduce injury.

I would like to put on record my following observation:

The lobbying effect that IMPA had was amazing, the way that the brotherhood of international pilots came together was not matched by any other organisation, group or delegation.  The importance of having so many pilots on so many country delegations acting in a discrete and professional way was very apparent and can’t be overstressed. Additionally the advance work done by the steering group, guided by IMPA paid off. It was a pleasure and an honour to work with this group.

Anyone who is still questioning the value of IMPA membership needs their head examined!

Unfortunately incidents are still happening. During the Nav 55 session a French pilot was seriously injured when a BRAND NEW ladder parted at deck level and he and the remains of the ladder fell 8 meters into the water between the ship’s hull & pilot cutter. Approximately 3 months ago an Italian pilot suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder when he was attempting to board via the pilot ladder and side door, and earlier in the year a Turkish pilot died when a ladder broke and he fell into the sea.

Achievement

Nav 55 was a success and the proposed amendments to both the regulation and resolution that we drafted have now been forwarded to the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) 87 and will be adopted at MSC 88.

While the process of approval and adoption by MSC may be seen as longwinded and bureaucratic, these are necessary for legal and other reasons. An attempt was made to bypass the process by the Cook Islands which failed. However, after discussion at the Plenary as to the importance of improving arrangements urgently and bring into force the new draft wording, the Secretariat informed Plenary that an IMO circular could be promulgated, referring to the proposed changes and asking each administration to act accordingly in advance. Therefore this is happening!

One further major achievement which was clarified is as follows:

The inspection of Pilot transfer arrangements come under SOLAS 1.

SOLAS 1, Regulation 8, surveying of lifesaving appliances and other equipment of cargo ships, (8(b), (i), (ii) and (iii) provide for the survey and inspection of various life-saving and other equipment, including “means of embarking pilots” to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the present regulations, are in satisfactory condition and are fit for the service for which the ship is intended.

The above is very important, it requires that pilot ladders are surveyed and inspected at the above survey and periodically at port state inspections. The MCA are now aware of this and I & the T&TC will be assisting them in this duty. This is a verbal request from Paul Townsend / Keith Tatman (MCA) and I am working in formalising it.

I will outline the main changes and try and explain below:

SOLAS 23/23

• All equipment must comply with the regulation and standards adopted by IMO (ISO 700)
• The prohibition of mechanical hoists. This may say “Shall not be used” to avoid a major expense of removing the equipment by just moth balling it.
• The securing of accommodation ladder, pilot ladder and manropes (if required) to the ship’s side, 1.5m above the platform.
• The securing of the accommodation ladder to the ship’s side to avoid it coming off the hull.
• Certification by manufactures of pilot ladders.
• Permanent identification (tag) marks on a pilot ladder.
• Records to be kept on a ship as to the date the identified ladder is placed into service and repairs effected.
• Changes to the maximum angle the accommodation ladder makes with the hull (changed from 55 to 45%) and to the minimum height above sea level now specified at 5 meters.
• Accommodation ladder lower platforms which have an entry hatch (trap door or man hole) are to be renamed “Embarkation platforms” and the pilot ladder and manropes (if required) extend through the platform to the height of the upper hand rail.
• Side doors shall not open outwards.
• Manropes (if required) to extend to the height of the stanchion or bulwarks at the point of access to the deck.

Resolution A889 (Which will be renumbered when endorsed)

• Tripping lines, when used, to be secured at or above the lower spreader, lead forward and not hinder the pilot or obstruct the safe approach of the pilot boat.
• Side ropes of the pilot ladder shall have a minimum breaking strain when new of 24 KiloNewtons ( 2.447 tonnes per rope part = 9.789 Tonnes in total).
• Spacing tolerance to be reduced and permanent markings to assist in length of ladder paid out to be visible. (Both these are measures to assist in getting the height above pilot boat deck level correct to avoid pilot boats hanging up or damaging a ladder.)
• Side ropes to be of one continuous rope with the midpoint being located at a thimble at the top of the ladder large enough to accommodate at least 2 turns of a securing rope.
• Side ropes to be secured together above and below the ladder rungs with a mechanical clamping device which is properly designed for the purpose or a seizing method. Step fixings (Chocks or widgets) to hold the rungs level must be used and clamped.
• Hand holds rigidly secured to the ship’s structure at or near the point of access to be provided.
• Arrangement for the safe approach of pilot cutters are to be provided where “Rubbing bands” or “Sponsons” are part of the ship’s structure. These shall be cut away to provide at least 6 meters of unobstructed ship’s side.  (There are some exemptions to this rule, mainly for small offshore type vessels, which have safety zones,)
• A complete new section on ladder reels will be in the resolution.

Brian Wilson. Chairman

As reported in the July issue, the DfT and MCA have effectively handed full control of pilot training and standards to the port run body : Port Skills & Safety (PSS).

The formal integration into the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) of the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for pilots that were produced nearly 10 years ago continues to be stalled by the ports and ship owner interests who “fail to see the need” for formalising any pilot standards!

It is therefore of great concern to the UKMPA that PSS has been handed responsibility for pilot training and standards. This concern has been enhanced by the departure of two key figures in the MCA  (ex Dover pilot, Geoff Stokes) and DfT (James Weedon) who recognised the importance of incorporating the NOS document into the PMSC.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, Steve Ladyman, the most pro-active shipping minister in recent years, was given the boot and replaced by the

almost invisible Jim Fitzpatrick, so most of you will probably be unaware that in June he was moved to DEFRA and replaced by Paul Clark in a low key reshuffle. Paul Clark is the MP for Gillingham and Rainham and was previously parliamentary private secretary to Ed Balls at the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Having been concerned that the Government was devolving too much power to the CHA’s (a concern enhanced by the recruitment and training policies of two CHA’s in particular), ex Liverpool pilot and solicitor Barrie Youde entered into correspondence with Paul Clark, bringing his attention to the Sea Empress case where Mr Justice Steel made the following observation:

“The significance of these matters is all the greater in the context of a scheme of compulsory pilotage. Shipowners and masters must needs engage 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 recognised 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 the 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.”

This observation clearly places a legal obligation upon any harbour authority to maintain the highest possible standards in a compulsory pilotage area.

However, the reply from Paul Clark’s office was quite astounding in that it declared that “The Department does not accept that there is a legal requirement for all Competent Harbour Authorities to provide this service [i.e. pilotage] to ‘the highest possible standard’…………..”

Even more alarming is that the letter goes on to state “Such an interpretation would, I suspect, be unrealistic and unworkable. It would also leave no scope for the port authority in question to use their discretion or consider what factors they

consider to be most pertinent for the pilotage needs of their harbour, as

provided for in section 3 of the Act. Given that Competent Harbour

Authorities have the discretion to consider whether pilotage services are in

fact required at all or whether they need to be compulsory, it is a logical

consequence that they should be able to determine the skills, experience

and qualifications that they consider necessary to carry out such services”.

Subsequent exchanges go even further suggesting that the Government  considers that it no longer has  responsibility for a CHA’s policies with respect to pilotage!

At the time of writing, the exchanges are on-going with Barrie writing again to the Minister explaining the fact that by delegating powers to CHAs, under the 1987 Pilotage Act, Parliament couldn’t legally cede its own power of central oversight by ministers.

We await the outcome with interest. Watch this space!

JCB

Following the HA’s taking over rrsponsibility for aothorising pilots following the 1987 Pilotage Act, many districts retained the authorisation structure and wording from the Trinity House authorisations. In some areas this included a clause stating that the authorisation limits could be overruled if a pilot of the appropriate grade wasn’t available. This meant that if a pilot boarded, say a Class 4 vessel and discovered that, as a result of its draft, the vessel was in fact a Class 3 vessel then his authorisation would cover him.  Following a recent case whereby a pilot, finding himself in such a position, refused to pilot the vessel, the UKMPA has sought a legal opinion on this historical anomaly and the following are extracts from the response:

There has never been a test-case on the point, but it would be very difficult to defend any pilot who willingly undertakes pilotage beyond the limits of his authorisation.

The leading relevant case is the Sea-Empress, where of course there was compliance with the regulated limits, but the rationale of the observation that the highest possible standards need to be observed was that the Milford Haven rules were themselves inadequate at the time.

….A pilot who undertakes the pilotage of a ship the size of which is beyond the limits of his authorisation is not only not authorised for that ship (and is therefore acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all. acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all.

It follows, therefore, that the statutory protection provided by Section 22 of the Pilotage Act (the £1,000 limit) would not apply in such a case; because the protection  benefits only an “authorised pilot”.

In consequence, a pilot who pilots a ship whose size is greater than the regulated limits of his authorisation forfeits the statutory protection and exposes himself to liability for unlimited (and probably enormous) civil damages.

The message therefore is perfectly clear and with modern communications there is no excuse for the draft to be incorrectly declared prior to pilot boarding especially since such errors are inevirably caused by laziness on behalf of the agent to check with the Captain prior to making the pilot booking. Let him take the blame!!

JCB

The main proposals are:

Step Spacing: To change the existing spacing from 300mm – 380mm to  310mm – 350mm with “spacing” being defined as from the top of one step to the top of the next, whereas before it was the gap. In addition to making access easier for the pilot, this spacing would also result in 3 steps per metre, making it easier for the crew to put out the correct length of ladder.

Tripping Lines:  These should be avoided where possible but where necessary they should be fastened above the bottom spreader (ie 5^th step up), fastened on the forward side, kept tight and not hinder the pilot or safe approach of the pilot boat.

Ropes: Should be two uncovered ropes of manila or other material of equivalent strength. Each side rope will be one rope, having its mid point at the top. (ie The ends of the rope are at the bottom of the ladder)

Combination ladders: Lead Aft  with the angle of slope reduced from 55 to 45 degrees. The Lower platform maintained at a minimum of 5 meters above sea level. With the platform secured to the ship’s side. The Pilot ladder & manropes to be secured to ship’s side 1.5m above the platform.

Rubbing bands: To be cut back to allow at least 6 meters of unobstructed ship’s side.

Insert pic. Caption: A replacement spreader used to wedge the ladder against the rails and the ropes pass over a sharp strake. If a pilot boat “hung up” on this ladder it would break at this point!

Photographic evidence is essential in explaining some of the very common but dangerous boarding arrangements that pilots had to deal with daily and Brian urges all pilots to take as many photos of dodgy ladders as possible and you can send them to him via me through the contact editor link on this page

JCB

Following the HA’s taking over responsibility for authorising pilots following the 1987 Pilotage Act, many districts retained the authorisation structure and wording from the Trinity House authorisations. In some areas this included a clause stating that the authorisation limits could be overruled if a pilot of the appropriate grade wasn’t available. This meant that if a pilot boarded, say a Class 4 vessel and discovered that, as a result of its draft, the vessel was in fact a Class 3 vessel then his authorisation would cover him.  Following a recent case whereby a pilot, finding himself in such a position, refused to pilot the vessel, the UKMPA has sought a legal opinion on this historical anomaly and the following are extracts from the response:

There has never been a test-case on the point, but it would be very difficult to defend any pilot who willingly undertakes pilotage beyond the limits of his authorisation.

The leading relevant case is the Sea-Empress, where of course there was compliance with the regulated limits, but the rationale of the observation that the highest possible standards need to be observed was that the Milford Haven rules were themselves inadequate at the time.

….A pilot who undertakes the pilotage of a ship the size of which is beyond the limits of his authorisation is not only not authorised for that ship (and is therefore acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all. acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all.

It follows, therefore, that the statutory protection provided by Section 22 of the Pilotage Act (the £1,000 limit) would not apply in such a case; because the protection  benefits only an “authorised pilot”.

In consequence, a pilot who pilots a ship whose size is greater than the regulated limits of his authorisation forfeits the statutory protection and exposes himself to liability for unlimited (and probably enormous) civil damages.

The message therefore is perfectly clear and with modern communications there is no excuse for the draft to be incorrectly declared prior to pilot boarding especially since such errors are inevirably caused by laziness on behalf of the agent to check with the Captain prior to making the pilot booking. Let him take the blame!!

JCB

Pilots who follow the conference will be aware that since the beginning of the century there has been a set of National Occupational Standards (NOS) for pilotage training gathering dust on the shelves of a chameleon style port run body that has metamorphasised through various incarnations into Port Skills and Safety (PSS). Having originally been drafted by UKMPA pilots with Bob Jones of the DfT in 2000, this document details standards required for maritime pilots for incorporation into the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and form the basis for a pilotage qualification. For the past 9 years, despite MAIB recommendations and pressure from the DfT, the Ports and ship owners representatives have consistently blocked implementation of the NOS document because it conflicts with their opinion that pilots don’t need any more than a basic school leaver’s “Foundation degree”. As mentioned in the conference report on page ?? the DfT and MCA have now decided that the issue of NOS is nothing to do with them and have handed the matter to PSS. The foxes have effectively been handed the keys to the hen house! The UKMPA’s frustration with all this has been neatly summed up by Barrie Youde who has penned the following:

Yon Geoffrey Hoon, he standeth doon: Fitzpatrick speaketh nought.

Who now maintains the Pilotage in any UK Port?

Who cares a fig for navigation danger or pollution,

Laws or standards regulated, made  by  resolution?

The Mother of all Parliaments is held in high contempt

At Clyde and Humber, where the burghers hold themselves exempt

From obligations recognised throughout the shipping trade.

Disaster there is courted by the shovelful – and spade.

All standards disregarded – every written record serves

To evidence the increase in collisions, scrapes and swerves.

I will not stand in silence as the laws are disregarded

Nor watch the civil servants, all most handsomely rewarded,

Do nothing as this tragedy develops and unfolds,

By loss of human life and loss of cargo from ships’ holds.

Thus, if you are not speechless, nor insane nor simply weak

O, Parliament! For Christ’s sake! Will you hear the Pilot speak?