Without the least vestige of land

And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be

A map they could all understand.

Lewis Carroll

Farewell!                 Photo: JCB

TRAINING:

In part 1, I expressed concerns over the training and in particular the need for any ECDIS user to be fully competent in the particular type of ECDIS placed on board his ship. Whilst such type specific expertise through training is being achieved the top end of the shipping industry, such as cruise liners and large tankers, the evidence is emerging of an alarming lack of comprehension by many officers of, not just their own system but of ECDIS and its functions in general. These are not just personal concerns but reflect those of many Industry observers.

Why is training such an issue?

Currently if you place any navigating officer on a bridge with a set of paper charts, even if they have been supplied by a country whose charting he has never seen before, he will recognise the key features and be able to plan a safe passage for any vessel to which he has been allocated.

This hasn’t happened by accident but is a direct result of the evolution of the paper chart over centuries which has been accompanied by similarly evolving chartwork skills passed on to successive generations of navigators. In contrast to such evolution, within the next eight years, the safety of the worlds’ shipping and coastlines will be dependent upon navigators fully comprehending not just the principles behind vector charting but the particular ECDIS operating system on their ship. As mentioned in part 1, despite an IMO model course being approved by the STCW committee in 1999, this course is not yet mandatory but ship owners / operators are required to train their officers to use ECDIS under their ISM policies. The top ship owners are sending their officers on training courses, based on the IMO model, run by their ECDIS suppliers and since these normally run for five days these officers will have a comprehensive understanding, not just of the principles of ECDIS, but also of their specific equipment. This is the ideal but only covers a minority group and because so many ship owners / operators now use crewing agencies the vast majority aren’t receiving such comprehensive training. The result is that, in order to tick the appropriate ISM box,these officers are being sent on very basic three day courses which can only ever be generic and with, no exam to pass, make no assessment as to an officer’s comprehension of the ECDIS concept or competence in its use.

Detail from a paper chart

An ECDIS “standard” display of the same area. Note the missing anchorage and restricted zone text & detail! The safety contour here has been set at 10m.

Poor training is a fundamental problem because navigating by use of ECDIS requires a completely new approach to chartwork and the adoption of totally new skills. When navigation by use of electronic charts was first muted there was considerable discussion as to how such a system should operate and although mariners preferred the familiarity of a scan of a paper chart into an electronic version of the same it was considered that, if accompanied by a comprehensive re-training programme, a three dimensional “intelligent” charting system could not just enhance safety but also provide a platform for integrating other information technologies into one central navigational console for the navigator. Thus the vector chart was born. So, here we are in 2010 with the technology in place but without the requisite training. The widespread concerns over this situation are valid because in order to navigate effectively using ECDIS a navigator must forget the two dimensional paper chart and navigate using the three dimensions in which the ship actually operates. Unfortunately, in order to avoid overloading the tiny screen, the vector chart hides much essential navigational information away on different “layers” and the navigator is therefore faced with three major problems. Firstly, he needs to know how to tailor his ECDIS to his ship and the intended passage. Secondly he needs to know what information is available within the ECDIS relevant to the intended passage and thirdly, where to find that information, recognise its relevance and effectively apply it. Quite a tall order for an officer who has joined a ship with an ECDIS that he’s never seen before after a 30 hour trip in a mini bus from Poland who’s only had a 45 minute hand over because the officer he’s relieving is going home in the same minibus. Yes, it has happened!!

Setting up the ECDIS

During the installation of an ECDIS, the supplier should have entered fixed vessel data such as the length and beam and also aligned the ship’s position on the ECDIS with the aerial position on the ship. The manoeuvring characteristics of the ship should also have been entered during installation and once set, this information cannot normally be altered by the operator. As the range is zoomed in, the ship position identifier on the chart will change from a spot surrounded by two concentric rings to a scale plan of the vessel so it is essential that this vessel data is correctly entered.

Generally, unless a vessel is spending a long period in port, it is recommended that the EDCIS is left switched on whilst in port because, like any computer a start up from cold can take a considerable time.

Preliminary set up:

Before commencing a passage the navigator must check the ECDIS for the proposed passage, firstly to ensure that the vessel has licenses for all the ENC charts ( called cells) and secondly to ensure that these are up to date with the latest corrections that are supplied, either by CD ROM or via an Internet connection. So, assuming that all the passage licenses are in order and up to date, the first thing that the navigator needs to do is to enter the ship’s draft and air draft and establish the safety contour based on draft and the required Under keel Clearance (UKC). For example, with a vessel of 6m draft the depth contour could be chosen as 8m. However, since most ENC data is supplied with preset contours, typically at 5m intervals the display will default to the next deepest contour which in this case would be 10m. All areas of less than 10m will show as blue and areas deeper than 10 will be displayed as white (see above picture). So as long as the ship remains in the white area, she is, in theory, safe! There are more complex facilities that can be set up if required but that is outside the scope of this article. In addition to the safety contour, this same depth of 8m can be set as the safety depth. In this case, if the navigator sets the ECDIS to display depths then all depths of less than  8m will show in bold type and those deeper than 8 will be a pale grey. This means that a depth of 9m, although within the 10m blue safety contour it will displayed in pale grey text whereas a depth of 7m will be displayed in bold black. The whole safety of the passage is dependent on this information being correct so, if a navigator fails to set this correctly, the scene is set for a disaster! It could be all to easy for a new watchkeeper joining a vessel that arrived in a loading port with a draft of 4m with the safety contour and depth set at 5m to forget to change the draft and depths to the loaded draft, especially if he was unfamiliar with the ECDIS type in use. Such a failure was responsible for the grounding of the CFL Performer in 2008 where the MAIB report states the following: ECDIS was the primary means of navigation, but none of the vessel’s bridge watchkeeping officers had been trained in its use. Consequently, many of the system’s features which could have prevented this accident were not utilised. However, assuming that our officer has fully trained on his ECDIS the next task is to set up a safety domain. IMO specifications require ECDIS to trigger alarms in the following circumstances:

If, within a specified time set by the mariner. the ship will cross the safety contour

If, within a specified time set by the mariner, the ship will cross the boundary of a prohibited area or of a geographical area for which special conditions exist

When the specified cross track limit for deviation from the planned route is exceeded

If continuing on its present course and over a specified time or distance set by the mariner, the ship will pass closer than a user-specified distance from a danger (eg obstruction wreck or rock) that is shallower than the mariner’s contour or an aid-to navigation.

In order for these requirements to be met  the navigator has to input the parameters for both depth and beam clearances and once set, upon checking any passage, ifany hazards are present along the proposed route then alarms will be generated from the relevant chart at the largest available scale whatever scale is being displayed on the screen.

ECDIS manufacturers often meet the requirements by allowing users to specify a safety domain for the vessel, effectively contained by the following parameters:

• In depth, by the safety contour and safety depth
• In forward extent, by the look-ahead time or look-ahead range
• In lateral closeness by a specified distance.

The following diagram which is reproduced courtesy of Dr. Andy Norris clarifies the concept.

Note that the safety domain requires the navigator to input the vessel / voyage specific parameters and so this must be done at this stage. Best practice would seem to dictate that these parameters should be established by the Master.

Setting all of these voyage safety features will require type specific knowledge of the ECDIS, underlining again the importance of specialist training!

The Passage Plan

Once the vessel’s dynamic parameters have been set the passage plan can be created and it is here that the difference between traditional chartwork and ECDIS working become apparent. Used correctly ECDIS planning provides for a safer  passage but if a navigator is lazy,  pressed for time or fatigued etc, then some important information may be overlooked.

Passage planning on an ECDIS requires exactly the same procedures as for a paper chart and the navigator must follow the same “best practice” guidelines as per the Bridge Procedures Guide  but with ECDIS, the process is complicated by the fact that the navigator needs to know what information is already incorporated into the ECDIS and what isn’t and this is where a weakness of ECDIS is exposed. For example if some changes to buoyage have taken place on the intended passage, a navigator using a paper chart will be aware of this because the amended buoyage will be pasted on the chart over the old system and is therefore immediately visible. With ECDIS, as reported in part 1, problems have arisen with synchronising electronic Notices to Mariners  (NtM) updates for ECDIS with the paper equivalent. So on an ECDIS it may not immediately be apparent as to whether or not the changes been included. Because of this anomaly between the printed and electronic versions of NtM’s, mariners are currently being advised to check all routes with the paper NtM’s. Not a good start for ECDIS!!

In addition to checking the NtM’s the navigator still needs to refer to the traditional printed passage planning documents such as tide & current tables, Lists of Lights, sailing directions, NAVTEXT etc. relevant to the proposed passage. To make life easier there are  an increasing number of companies offering electronic versions of these references and the UKHO have recently launched an “e-Navigator” service which provides all the necessary berth to berth ENC chart cells and other services and documentation relevant to the intended passage in a single download. As ECDIS take-up rates accelerate it is certain that all the major suppliers will offer full data packages which will remove the current tedious and error prone task of cross referencing electronic and printed information. However, this additional data can only be provided as an overlay onto the ENC and must be capable of being removed from the screen by means of a single operator action.

Once the navigator has all the relevant documentation to hand, the plan can commence and the first thing to check (that familiarisation again!) is whether waypoints for that passage already exist in the ECDIS database. If so it can be uploaded for re-use and by running an initial check the ECDIS will verify if the plan is safe for the dynamic parameters previously set. As well as alerting the navigator to any parts of the plan that are outside the  safety domain parameters, the ECDIS will also alert the navigator to charted features of relevance on the passage such as traffic separation zones, restricted areas, anchorages etc. How alerts are presented to the navigator are dependent on the manufacturer with the best automatically jumping to the problem area and others providing a simple drop down list.

If there is no existing passage in the ECDIS database then the navigator will have to create one. Waypoint databases are commercially available and some ECDIS manufacturers supply them with the ECDIS but whilst these are useful, it must be remembered that other vessels are likely to be using the same waypoints so a prudent navigator may wish to amend them, especially in areas of high traffic volumes such as the Dover Strait. CNIS at Dover have been frequently amazed to witness many vessels converging onto the same waypoint when plenty of sea room exists in the sea lane and this was identified as a factor by the MAIB investigation into the collision between the Dutch Aquamarine and the Ash, which tragically resulted in one fatality, in 2001.

If no pre-loaded waypoint list exists for the passage then the navigator will have to start from scratch, which isn’t the easiest procedure on an ECDIS. The main problem that traditional mariners find with this is the small screen size which makes it difficult to obtain the outline overview obtained from a small scale paper chart. However, in practice the advantage of the ECDIS is that by putting in the departure and arrival points any obstructions will be identified and the navigator can then move waypoints and re-check the outline route. For longer ocean passages the ECDIS really shines since it can instantaneously offer a great circle or Rhumb line route or a combination of both thus saving much tedious plotting.

Once a viable outline passage has been established it is then essential to check the whole route in detail using the zooming and scrolling facilities. Although this sounds tedious, it is actually easier and less error prone than drawing course lines on a series of passage charts of differing scales. However, it is essential that this process is done with extreme care because, as previously mentioned, many chart features such as submarine cables are hidden on the different layers of the ENC and essential detailed information such as notes pertaining to precautionary areas needs to be accessed and analysed for relevance by means of clicking on the ! symbol to obtain the “pick report” relating to the feature. Yet again, the effectiveness of this plan analysis is dependent upon the navigator being fully familiar with the particular ECDIS manufacturer’s operating system!

This pick report is one of the most essential tasks during planning because there are some confusing new symbols and display anomalies when compared to the paper chart as shown on the following pictures.

What’s this? A hazard of some sort! Dangerous wreck, Rock, underwater rock awash? It could just be depth unknown but the meaning will only de revealed by interrogating it and checking the object information file. Traditional symbols have been replaced by a new symbology by default but if the navigator prefers the  familiar object display it can be set via the menus. The following pictures show the difference.

Simplified symbols.

Traditional symbology.

These are just two examples of many ECDIS features that need to be fully understood to ensure a safe passage. Whilst all the planning is going on the navigator must never forget that he is working on a computer and he should save the plan at regular intervals to avoid totally losing all the detail in the case of a “crash”. Yes, that happens!

Best practice guidelines recommend that planning is undertaken ion the back up ECDIS unit so once the plan has been completed and fully verified it needs to be exported to the primary unit. This is increasingly done via a data link cable between the two systems. Some commentators have expressed concern that the main and back up units are linked together by such a cable maintaining that the two units should be totally independent to avoid any possibility of a virus or Trojan infecting both systems. However, such an arrangement would require the navigator to create two exactly identical plans for each unit which isn’t practically feasible. and transferring data by means of a memory stick or CD ROM would pose the same potential risk of viral infection but I am unaware of any ECDIS units having suffered from such computer viruses. However, many ECDIS run using the Windows platform and can be connected to the Internet, so that factor, coupled with the presence of unsecured CD, DVD and USB drives leads some to valid concerns that it may only be a matter of time before a virus attack happens. One essential factor that mustn’t be overlooked when transferring the voyage plan is that as a result of the primary and back up ECDIS being independent, the vessel specific safety depth and domain parameters must be set on each set independently and a prudent navigator will undertake the final route verification checks on both systems prior to the passage commencing.

Getting Underway

Once the plan has been saved and exported to the main ECDIS unit at the conning position the passage can commence and it is here that the advantages for a well trained bridge team are evident but for less well trained officers, unfamiliar with their ECDIS system, the differences between ECDIS and the traditional paper chart can result in some important features being overlooked. The performance standards require ECDIS units to have three display modes: Base, Standard and full

Base Display: This displays the absolute minimum information considered necessary for navigation such as the coastline, fixed structures and the safety contour. It is not recommended for navigation but some find it useful for de-cluttering the screen when checking ahead on a small scale.

Standard Display: This is the display for normal navigation and it is a requirement that it can be presented at any time by a single operator action. In addition to the information of the base display this mode contains the drying lines, buoys and other navigation marks, prohibited and restricted areas, separation and traffic routing and precautionary  area ( but not the notes!) Despite being the recommended display, this display doesn’t provide the same information as a paper chart with information such as buoy names and characteristics, anchorages, submarine cables etc

Full Display: This contains all the information contained within the ENC but due to the amount of data this mode tends to overload the typical small screens with text overwriting and concealing other objects except on the largest scales and so again isn’t recommended for navigation. Note that even on this full display mode much of the paper chart detail such as precautionary notes can only be accessed by interrogating objects on the chart to display a pick report of the required information.

In practice additional information is added onto the standard display via the ECDIS menu system to the preference of the watchkeeper but how this additional information is accessed and displayed is not standard and is left to the whim of the manufacturers. However, once set, many systems now permit different users to save their preferred display layout.

The fact that important detail isn’t instantly visible represents the key difference between paper charts and ECDIS. Even with comprehensive type specific training this factor represents the most dangerous aspect of navigating by means of ECDIS because whereas historically the navigator has become used to all the necessary information being visible on the paper chart, the vector chart requires the navigator to be inquisitive and interrogate objects and hunt for additional display features in menus and sub menus.

A full display. Note the depths less than 7m highlighted but also note that this display doesn’t show the text detail so information that is readily available can only be accessed by interrogating an object! with such a cluttered display on a small screen it is easy to overlook important navigational information.

On passage

Assuming the standard display is chosen the ECDIS will automatically choose the largest scale chart available and the default display mode is North Up with own ship in the centre and true motion so the ship moves to near the edge of the screen after which it will automatically reset as with true motion radar. Most navigators find this pretty useless so the menu system offers the same variety of tracking options as the radar.  Most users prefer the centre offset relative motion display but some advanced users on the cruise liners are increasingly using offset Head Up displays on both radar and ECDIS meaning that the displays correspond to the visual picture. The heading marker is a fixed line extending to the edge of the screen and again, in the same way as radar, the vector can be set to either GPS tracking or water tracking. GPS tracking is indicated by a double arrow head on the vector and water tracking by a single arrowhead. The route is usually displayed as a solid orange line. The brightness of the screen is adjustable and there are generally three screen display options of day, dusk and night. Additional care must be taken when in the night mode because some features, such as precautionary zones can be very indistinct.

If the ECDIS is part of an integrated system then information from other systems such as radar and AIS can be overlaid on the ECDIS display and this facility can be very useful. In particular the radar image can provide a valuable verification of the accuracy of the GPS input in coastal water in that the radar land image should align with the chart display. However it is recommended that such radar overlay isn’t left on permanently because not only could it mask important data but it also uses additional computing power which may overload the processors.

On normal passages the ECDIS provides an instant visual position check and alarms sound when a waypoint approaches or if the vessel wanders off track outside the pre-set safety domain or approaches a shoal or other charted hazard. One function that an ECDIS cannot currently perform is to integrate live tide data to produce real time depths so whilst the safety contour and depth settings are fine for normal deep water navigation, when the vessel needs to transit a tidal dependent area, such as arises in my own port, then the auto checking of the passage will flag up as being outside the parameters. Third party software can provide tidal data as an overlay and may also include a passage planning tool to calculate tidal windows etc but  such programs cannot interact with the ENC to produce live depth data. Consequently in tidal restricted areas the safety domain alarms will need to be disabled.

It is very easy for a watchkeeper to have unreasonable trust in the ECDIS position, reassuringly displayed on the chart but the verification of position by other means is as essential with ECDIS as with traditional paper chart navigation because if the GPS is in error then the whole ECDIS is rendered inaccurate and for this reason traditional navigation verification techniques must be used and tools to facilitate this are required to be readily available on the primary screen. If the aforementioned radar overlay isn’t available then VRM & EBL functions enable radar ranges and bearings to be transferred and electronic bearing markers permit traditional chartwork to be undertaken using visual bearings.

If a GPS error is identified then the input must be disabled and the ECDIS used as a traditional chart using traditional position fixing techniques but I understand that this is not a user friendly process on many ECDIS units!

Conclusion

ECDIS is a highly complex electronic tool and still in its infancy so it is inevitable that anomalies in the charting will be identified and the training of navigators will lag behind the implementation dates. In part 3 I will be examining some of the problems and accidents that have arisen already along with the vulnerabilities.

The need for ECDIS to be used with extreme caution was highlighted in February when an ENC error was identified resulting in the following emergency NAVTEX alert to be issued

Mariners are advised that ECDIS may not display some isolated shoal depths when operating in “base or standard display” mode. Route planning and monitoring alarms for these shoal depths may not always be activated. To ensure safe navigation and to confirm that a planned route is clear of such dangers, mariners should visually inspect the planned route and any deviations from it using ECDIS configured to display “all data”. The automated voyage planning check function should not be solely relied upon. The International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) is leading technical action to resolve this matter. Further information will be made available through Notices to Mariners.

Such notices are alarming but in a few years time, as new navigators come through colleges having done all their chartwork exams on ECDIS, the teething problems should have been ironed out and this next generation of officers will be fully familiar with the operational aspects of ECDIS and navigational safety should be enhanced. Already, on cruise liners and other well managed ships ECDIS is being used as intended and the benefits are evident because in addition to the three dimensional safety domain features, when zoomed right in, a good quality ECDIS can be used as a berthing aid.

Visual assessment for swinging in a restricted area is difficult

The ECDIS provides valuable instant and predictive information.   Photos: Nigel Allen

Following the publication last year of “From paper Charts to ECDIS” by Captain Harry Gale, the Nautical Institute have now published a full book on ECDIS as volume 2 of their Integrated Bridge Systems series. As well as being published at a timely moment with respect to my own features on ECDIS, this book has not come a moment too soon for watchkeepers because the way ships are navigated is set to change fundamentally with the compulsory carriage of ECDIS which will replace the paper chart within the next decade. Following the successful format of his Radar & AIS book ( Reviewed in the April 2009 issue) which formed volume 1 of the IBS series, Dr Norris has produced another excellent work that provides a clear and concise explanation of the operation & functions of ECDIS. The text is well illustrated with photographs and diagrams and is divided into the following ten logical chapters which deliberately avoid too much technical detail and complex formulae:

1. Positioning, Mapping & Geodesy: Outlines the principles of mapping.

2. Electronic Positioning Systems: Mainly dealing with satellite systems this chapter details how satellite navigation works and explains the various problems and errors associated with the system and how they are overcome. The author doesn’t disguise the vulnerabilities associated with satellites and emphasises the need for position verification by other methods / systems, including radar and visual observations.

3. Introduction to Electronic charts: This outlines the history of Electronic charting along with the hardware and software required.

4. Electronic Chart Data: Explains how data is collated, who is authorised to produce it and how it is decoded and displayed

5. IMO ECDIS Requirement: This chapter usefully analyses the IMO requirements and explains them in laymen’s terms.

6. Operational Principles of ECDIS: This is the most important chapter which details all the operational aspects of an ECDIS. It acknowledges the problems associated with different manufacturers’ operating systems and therefore emphasises the need for type specific training to enable all users to fully comprehend their particular system.

7. Use of ECDIS for Route Planning: Explains the basic principles that a navigator should understand when using an ECDIS for passage planning. This is obviously restricted to generic information with acknowledgement for the need for the navigator to be trained in the specific type installed on  his ship.

8. Use of ECDIS For Route Monitoring: This chapter details how the ECDIS vector information differs from that of the paper chart and explains the various display modes and operational features. This chapter again emphasises the need for the watchkeeper to be fully proficient in the system he is using since much of the detail printed on a paper chart is not displayed on the standard display and needs to be added by use of the menu or by zooming in the range, clicking on objects on the chart or selecting them from the menu system.

9. Use of ECDIS in RCDS mode: There are still areas for which no ENC is available and in this case it is permissible for the ECDIS to display an approved raster chart and this chapter explains the requirements.

10. Training & Familiarisation: Obvious to all except many ship owners / operators!! Usefully, this section provides a checklist of over 70 cross referenced items considered essential for the safe planning and execution of a passage.

Three Appendices cover :

abbreviations and acronyms ( many!)

IMO back up requirements and

Differences between ECDIS & RCDS.

In summary, this book details how ECDIS works and most importantly explains how, if safety of navigation is to be ensured, navigating by means of  ECDIS requires a totally different methodology to traditional chartwork. My own research into ECDIS has revealed an alarming absence of any detailed explanation of a revolution in navigation that, within a decade,  is set to replace practices and skills that have evolved  over several millennia and so Andy Norris’ excellent book fills a gaping crater by providing the generic detail required to understand ECDIS principles and it is therefore an essential reference work for every navigator.

JCB

Published by: The Nautical Institute, 202 Lambeth Road London, SE1 7LQ

207 pages with over 100 full colour illustrations

Price: £40 ( discounts for members & bulk purchases)

Tel: +44 (0)20 7928 1351

web: http://login.nautinst.org/bookshop/default.aspx

As the UKMPA gears up for Continuous professional development (CPD) it is motivating to see the number of works being contributed by pilots and their districts into professional research in the different areas of pilotage.

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